TRANSPORTATION
LIBRARY
B 733,704
HD
5503
A33
V.3
DECISIONS
OF THE
UNITED STATES
RAILROAD LABOR BOARD
WITH
ADDENDA AND INTERPRETATIONS
1922
WITH AN APPENDIX
OWING RESOLUTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD
VOL. III
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1923
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

DECISIONS
OF THE
UNITED STATES.
RAILROAD LABOR BOARD
WITH
ADDENDA AND INTERPRETATIONS
1922
:
WITH AN APPENDIX
SHOWING RESOLUTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD
VOL. III
TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY
質
​UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGA
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1923
HDV
5508
A33
V.3
UNITED STATES RAILROAD LABOR BOARD,
CHICAGO, ILL.
MEMBERS 1922.
1
BEN W. HOOPER, Chairman.
G. W. W. HANGER,2 Vice Chairman.
HORACE BAKER.
R. M. BARTON.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
W. L. McMENIMEN.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
A. O. WHARTON.
L. M. PARKER, Secretary.
i Elected chairman April 27, 1922, vice R. M. Barton.
2 Elected vice chairman April 27, 1922; vice Ben W. Hooper.
• Appointed secretary April 1, 1922, vice C. P. Carrithers, resigned.
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page.
Introduction_
PART 1.-DECISIONS:
Decisions Nos. 582 to 1485.
Y
1
Part 2.—ADDENDA :
List of addenda authorized.
1093
Addenda to decisions____
1095
PART 3.-INTERPRETATIONS:
List of interpretations rendered_.
1121
Interpretations to decisions----
1123
PART 4.-APPENDIX:
1137
1144
Resolutions__
Announcements.
GENERAL INDEX:
Index to decisions-
(a) Subjects____
(b) Carriers_.
(c) Organizations_.
Index to addenda-
Subjects
Index to interpretations-
Subjects
Index to appendix-
(a) Resolutions.
(b) Announcements
Index to dockets-
Cumulative list showing decision numbers assigned__
III
1149
1182
1222
1235
1237
1239
1239
1240
INTRODUCTION.
The official decisions of the United States Railroad Labor Board
are printed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5,
section 308 of the transportation act, 1920, which stipulates that
the board-
Shall at least annually collect and publish the decisions and regulations of
the Labor Board and the adjustment boards, and all court and administrative
decisions and regulations of the commission in respect to this title, together
with a cumulative index-digest thereof.
In publishing the third annual edition of the Decisions of the
United States Railroad Labor Board, it has been deemed advisable
to omit from the appendix certain miscellaneous subjects heretofore
printed under that caption. It has also been decided to publish a
separate volume containing the cumulative index-digest which, as
the title suggests, will contain reference to all the decisions issued
by the board. In all other respects, the subjects included in this
volume are the same as used in previous editions, and the general
arrangement of style and order is maintained. For convenient ref-
erence, the order of the contents is subjoined:
Part 1-Decisions.
Part 2.-Addenda.
Part 3.-Interpretations.
Part 4.-Appendix.
The general index to this volume is subdivided for the purpose of
grouping the particular subjects especially applicable to each part.
That portion of the index, however, which is most extensive and
which will be most generally utilized is the subject-index to deci-
sions, and in order that those who have occasion to use this portion
of the index may have some idea of the scheme of classification of
subjects, an explanation of its construction will be found immedi-
ately preceding the subject-index to decisions, together with a table
of main classifications.
While the contents and references in this volume are intended to
cover the year 1922 only, it has been deemed advisable to compile
a cumulative table listing in consecutive order the docket numbers
of the disputes which have been decided, showing in juxtaposition
the decision numbers assigned.
DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES RAILROAD
LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 582.-DOCKET 1289.
Chicago, Ill., January 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Joplin Union Depot Co.
Question.-Negotiating rules to govern working conditions.
Statement.-At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board both
parties to the dispute agreed to arrange a conference at an early date
for the purpose of negotiating rules to govern working conditions.
Decision. In accordance with the above statement, this file is
closed.
DECISION NO. 583.-DOCKET 633.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question. Shall the carrier named negotiate an agreement cover-
ing rules for the government of working conditions of clerical em-
ployees with the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees or with the
Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Association?
Statement.-Pursuant to Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board,
representatives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees con-
ferred with the carrier for the purpose of negotiating an agreement
covering rules and working conditions. While negotiations were in
progress a dispute arose as to whether the committee representing
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han-
dlers, Express and Station Employees represented a majority of the
employees to be covered by the proposed agreement as required by
principle 15 of said decision, and it was deemed necessary to take a
vote of the employees involved for the purpose of determining their
wishes as to representation. In the meantime, further negotiations
with the committee representing the brotherhood were suspended
pending the outcome of the poll.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board, representatives of the
carrier and the two organizations involved were present. It de-
1
2
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
veloped at this hearing that the parties involved were not in agree-
ment as to the result of the poll taken in the month of June, 1921.
The representatives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees and the
Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Association in response to an
inquiry from the board expressed a willingness to have a secret
ballot taken with a view to determining who represents a majority
of the clerks in the service of the carrier. The representatives of
the carrier stated that they were neutral on the subject and were
willing to negotiate an agreement with any committee which could
show evidence of representing a majority of the clerical employees
in accordance with principle 15 of Decision No. 119.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that upon receipt of this de-
cision the duly authorized representatives of the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, the Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Associa-
tion, and the Michigan Central Railroad Co. shall hold a conference,
the purpose of which shall be to arrange the details of the pro-
cedure to be followed, and take a vote of the employees involved as
provided for in the Labor Board's Decision No. 218 and Addendum
No. 1 thereto and Decision No. 220. When the vote has been taken
and legally counted, the majority of the vote cast will govern.
DECISION NO. 584.—DOCKET 805.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), V.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the reinstate-
ment of W. G. Laster and eight others formerly employed as boiler
makers and boiler-maker helpers at Fort Smith, Ark.
Decision.-Claim for reinstatement of the employees in question
is denied.
DECISION NO. 585.—DOCKET 812.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Does Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 of the
United States Railroad Labor Board, issued June 28, 1921, provide
for the continuation of payment of a minimum of five hours for
any overtime after the ninth hour of continuous service as per
rule 7 of the national agreement covering shop employees on the
Norfolk & Western Railway, which prior to Federal control was
governed by the southeastern agreements, which provided for the
payment of any overtime after the basic day at the rate of time and
one-half time, except for the first 40 minutes or less, where one hour
was allowed?
DECISIONS.
3
Decision.-Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was not intended
to cover rule 7 of the so-called national agreement, and the provi-
sions of this rule should therefore have remained in force and effect
until August 16, 1921, the effective date of Decision No. 222.
DECISION NO. 586.-DOCKET 849.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Shall Max McCusker, formerly employed as a machin-
inst at Wolf Point, Mont., be reinstated to the service and paid for
time lost since November 7, 1920?
Statement.—Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case indicates that Mr. McCusker was employed as a ma-
chinist at Wolf Point, Mont., up to and including July 28, 1920. It
is the claim of Mr. McCusker that the foreman granted him a verbal
leave of absence to conduct a campaign in connection with his candi-
dacy for Congress. It is shown in the evidence that said Machinist.
McCusker was defeated in the election and on November 7 applied
for reemployment as a machinist; that he was denied reemployment
on the basis that he had not secured a proper leave of absence, and
that the carrier, therefore, considered that he had voluntarily left
the service.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that Max McCusker, machinist, shall be restored to his former posi-
tion with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost since
November 7, 1920, deducting any amount that he may have earned
while engaged in other employment during this period.
DECISION NO. 587.-DOCKET 929.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Question.—(1) Shall Frank Madden, formerly employed as car
inspector at Toledo, Ohio, and later demoted to the rank of car re-
pairer, be reinstated to the position of inspector?
(2) Shall Frank Madden, formerly employed as a car inspector at
Toledo, Ohio, reduced to the position of car repairer, and later laid
off account of a reduction in force, be reinstated to the position of car
repairer and paid for time lost?
Decision.-(1) The claim for reinstatement as car inspector is
denied.
(2) The seniority accumulated by Mr. Madden as a car inspector
should have been considered when reducing the force. In accordance.
with seniority rules he was not the youngest man in the service at the
time of this reduction and should, therefore, be reinstated to the posi-
tion of car repairer with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
time lost as a car repairer since the date of his removal from the
service, less any amount he may have earned in other employment
during such period.
4
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 588.-DOCKET 940.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall 23 laborers in extra work-train gang at Elmira,
N. Y., who were dismissed from the service July 12, 1920, be re-
instated and paid for time lost?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in this case indi-
cates that on July 12, 1921, the Elmira work-train gang was in-
structed by the assistant roadmaster to unload ballast on July 12,
1921, unloading 18 cars of ballast 3 miles west of Lowman, N. Y.;
that the assistant foreman and 23 men were let off to shovel ballast
out of track after unloading same, while the work train returned to
the gravel pit with empties. It is shown that the work train on
which the men usually returned to home point was delaye'l and had
not arrived at the usual quitting time of the men-namely, 4 p. m.
Due to the train being late the assistant foreman requested the men
to continue at work until the work train arrived, for which they were
told they would be paid the pro rata rate.
It is shown that prior to this time punitive rate of time and one-
half was paid for such service, but in accordance with Addendum
No. 2 to Decision No. 119 pro rata was established. In this connec-
tion it is the employees' claim that they were not aware of Addendum
No. 2 and for that reason refused to work for pro rata rate. It is
the employees' further claim that the day was extremely hot-the
thermometer registering 104° F. in the shade-and in view of the
alleged fact that the service was not of an emergency nature, they
were justified in refusing to work overtime.
The carrier claims that instructions were sent out on June 30, 1921,
and July 6, 1921, regarding Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119
and submit in evidence affidavits from gang foreman having super-
vision over the employees in question in which he states that instruc-
tions were received by him and transmitted to the men regarding
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 on July 6, 1921. Other afli-
davits were introduced purporting to substantiate that alleged fact.
The carrier further contends that the men were not discharged pend-
ing a hearing but were considered as suspended, and not until after
the hearing were the men told that they were discharged or consid-
ered discharged.
The evidence further shows that the men were paid on the date in
question up to the time they arrived at home point, which was in
accordance with past practice.
Decision. The action of the carrier is sustained. In this connec-
tion, however, the Labor Board further decides that if the employees
in question request reemployment, they shall not be discriminated
against account of the above occurrence, and, if accepted, shall enter
the service as new employees.
DECISIONS.
5
LO
DECISION NO. 589.-DOCKET 957.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey.
Question.-Shall the basis of payment for track watchmen on the
Lehigh & Susquehanna division be changed from a monthly to an
hourly basis?
Statement.-The evidence submitted indicates that there are em-
ployed on the Lehigh & Susquehanna division of the above-named
railroad 74 employees classified as "track watchmen" and six classi-
fied as "tunnel watchmen," assigned to eight-hour shifts, paid a
monthly rate of $114.67 and allowed overtime for any service per-
formed outside of their eight-hour tour of duty; that on the central
and southern divisions of the same railroad trackwalkers are paid an
hourly rate of 48 cents.
It is further indicated that the Lehigh & Susquehanna division of
the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey extends from Easton
to Scranton, Pa., throughout a hilly and mountainous section, in-
volving deep cuts and embankments along the streams and mountain
sides, necessitating unusual curvature and heavy grades, and for a
number of miles passes through anthracite coal fields where the
tracks are subject to disturbance by mining operations; that to pro-
tect such situations track watchmen are employed to guard the tracks
for the protection of train movements; that these men differ some-
what from the ordinary trackwalkers or inspectors employed to ex-
amine the track once or twice a day and return to the section gang
to continue their duties as laborers in the gang where the greater por-
tion of their time is usually spent; and that the track and cave
watchmen, on the contrary, cover specific territory in their daily
tour of duty and are not confined to continuous labor, but as a por-
tion of their duty they open ditches and track drains, tighten bolts,
remove rocks where liable to endanger trains, or do such work as
may afford any manner of protection in the operation.
It is the position of the carrier that section (a-12), Article V of
agreement promulgated by the United States Railroad Administra-
tion, provides a monthly rate for employees engaged in such service,
while it is the contention of the employees that the employees on the
Lehigh & Susquehanna division are "trackwalkers" and should be
paid on an hourly basis similar to "trackwalkers" on the central
and southern divisions.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted and the Labor
Board's interpretation of section (a-12), Article V, of the so-called
national agreement, the position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 590.-DOCKET 963.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Question.-Shall Roy M. Smith, formerly employed as blacksmith
at Childress, Tex., and dismissed from the service on April 15, 1921,
be reinstated and paid for all time lost?
6
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon written and oral evi-
dence submitted that the carrier was justified in administering
.discipline in this case, but that in view of this man's past record with
the company and other circumstances cited in this case, he shall be
reemployed with the same accumulated seniority with which he was
credited on the date of his dismissal, but shall not be paid for time
lost. The time lost shall be deducted from his accumulated seniority.
DECISION NO. 591.-DOCKET 965.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question-How should water-service foremen be reduced under
Decision No. 147 of the United States Railroad Labor Board?
Statement. Written submission was filed embodying the above
question and oral hearing was conducted in connection therewith, at
which hearing the representatives of the employees requested that the
case be withdrawn from the calendar of the Labor Board, and that
further effort would be made to adjust the dispute in conference with
representatives of the carrier.
Decision.-In accordance with the request of the employees this
case is removed from the calendar of the Labor Board and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 592.-DOCKET 995.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Question.-Seniority and demotion of Art Davis.
Statement.-Mr. Davis entered the service in March, 1904, was
promoted to bridge and building foreman in 1907, and on January
1, 1920, was promoted to bridge and building supervisor_on_the
Wichita Valley Railway, which position he occupied until January
20, 1921. From January 21 to March 15, 1921, he filled position of
bridge and building supervisor on the Fort Worth & Denver City
Railway. On March 16, 1921, he resumed position of bridge and
building foreman, displacing J. C. Dillon, bridge and building fore-
man, who was his junior in the service.
Decision.-Based upon the facts as presented and applicable only
to this case, the position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 593.-DOCKET 925.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Texas & Pacific Railway.
Question.-Should employees in supervisory capacities in main-
tenance of way service-such as foremen, bridge and building depart-
DECISIONS.
7
ment, section foremen, etc.-receive extra compensation when re-
quired to supervise their gangs on Sundays and holidays?
Statement.-The written and oral evidence submitted in the case
indicates that in December, 1917, prior to Government control of
railroads, the rates of the foremen in question were based on 365
days per year to cover all service rendered. The so-called national
agreement promulgated by the United States Railroad Administra-
tion affecting this class of employees provides in section (e) of
Article V thereof the following:
(e) To compute the hourly rate of monthly rated employees, take the num-
ber of working days constituting a calendar year, multiply by eight and divide
the annual salary by the total hours, exclusive of overtime and disregarding
time absent on vacations, sick leave, holidays, or for any other cause. In de-
termining the hourly rate, fractions less than one-fourth of 1 cent shall be as
one-fourth of 1 cent; over one-fourth and under one-half, as one-half cent;
over one-half and under three-fourths, as three-fourths; over three-fourths, as
1 cent.
Section (h), Article V of the same agreement reads:
(h) Employees whose responsibilities and (or) supervisory duties require
service in excess of the working hours or days assigned for the general force,
will be compensated on a monthly rate to cover all services rendered, except
that when such employees are required to perform work which is not a part
of their responsibilities or supervisory duties, on Sundays or in excess of the
establshed working hours, such work will be paid for on the basis provided in
these rules is addition to the monthly rate. For such employees, now paid on
an hourly rate, apply the monthly rate, determined by multiplying the hourly
rate by 208. Section foremen required to walk or patrol track on Sundays
shall be paid therefor, on the bases provided in these rules, in addition to the
monthly rate.
In the application of this agreement the carrier claims that they
did not construe the provisions thereof as changing the method of
payment for the monthly-rated foremen in question, except when they
performed service which was not considered a part of their respon-
sibilities or supervisory duties on Sundays or in excess of the estab-
lished working hours, which work it is claimed is paid for in addi-
tion to the monthly rate-the hourly rate paid for such extra service
being predicated on 365 eight-hour days per year. It is further
shown that if section foremen are required to walk or patrol track
on Sundays, they are paid extra therefor on the basis referred to in
the preceding sentence; further, that overtime allowance is being
made for all service performed in excess of eight hours on any day,
which latter practice the carrier contends it has voluntarily conceded
to the employees, but does not feel the agreement referred to herein
makes provision for such extra payment.
It is the employees' contention that the hourly rate of the foremen
in question should be based on a 306-working-day year, and that such
employees are entitled to compensation for all time worked in excess
of eight hours per day at time and one-half since December 16, 1919,
the effective date of the agreement; further, that all employees are
entitled to extra compensation in addition to their monthly rate for
all time worked on Sundays and the seven designated holidays since
the effective date of said agreement.
Decision.-The Labor Board sustains the position of the carrier
in the manner in which section (h) of Article V of the maintenance
of way agreement has been applied up to the effective date of Adden-
8
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
dum No. 2 to Decision No. 119-namely, July 1, 1921-from which
date said Addendum No. 2 or any agreement that may have been
subsequently entered into pursuant to the issuance of Decision No.
119 shall be made applicable.
In the event that no agreement has been reached, effective Decem-
ber 16, 1921, section (h) of Article V of Decision No. 501 shall apply
in the manner provided therein. For all service considered as over-
time, for which extra compensation is provided, the hourly rate of
pay for such service shall be predicated upon 204 hours per month,
in accordance with section (e), Article V of Decision No. 501, re-
gardless of the hours or days that may be considered as the regular
assignment of monthly-rated supervisory forces.
DECISION NO. 594.—DOCKET 959.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Determination of seniority rights of employee accept-
ing a supervisory position.
Statement.-The evidence submitted indicates that Charles E. Fen-
ner served in the capacity of section foreman and extra gang fore-
man on the Saginaw division from March, 1884, until May 28, 1912,
at which time he was promoted to assistant roadmaster; that on May
1, 1913, he was reduced to the position of general foreman; that on
March 1, 1916, he was again promoted to the position of assistant
roadmaster, serving in that capacity until March 28, 1921, when due
to a reduction in force the position of assistant roadmaster was
abolished and Mr. Fenner was assigned as section foreman at North
Lansing, Mich., displacing Dell Canute who had been employed as
section foreman at that point since August 1, 1918.
The employees have protested the action on the part of the carrier
in displacing Dell Canute, their position being that Mr. Fenner as
assistant roadmaster was an official of the carrier and thereby had
no seniority rights that would permit him to displace a foreman,
calling attention to Article I of the scope of the agreement then in
effect which reads in part, 66 * * *
not including supervisory
forces above the rank of foreman * * *" also to paragraph
(c-1), Article II, which reads, "Seniority rights of all employees
are confined to the subdepartment in which employed.
""
It is the employees' further contention, that if there had been a
vacancy at this point it should have been handled in accordance with
paragraphs (f) and (g) of Article III, as only in that way, according
to their position, can vacancies be filled, and officials can only obtain
such positions by bidding in as new employees.
The carrier does not agree that Mr. Fenner was an official, but
does admit that he was a subordinate official as defined by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, and also admits that while serving in
the capacity of subordinate official, he did not come within the scope
of the national agreement covering maintenance of way employees
in so far as applying the rules and regulations of that agreement to
DECISIONS.
9
his duties as a supervisory official is concerned. The carrier, how-
ever, holds that there is no provision of the national agreement affect-
ing maintenance of way employees which provides that an employee
who does properly come within the scope of that agreement and who
rises to a position in the same department above the rank of fore-
man shall not be returned to a position within the scope of the_agree-
ment when through force of circumstances, as in this case, he can
no longer hold the position to which he advanced by reason of his
fitness, ability, energy, etc.
It is the further contention of the carrier that it has always been
their practice to return promoted employees to the rank and service
from which promoted when positions were abolished or discontinued,
or reductions in forces were made.
Decision. On the evidence submitted the Labor Board decides
(a) That the appointment of Charles E. Fenner to the position of
assistant roadmaster did not constitute a temporary appointment.
(b) That the continuity of Mr. Fenner's service with the carrier
was not disturbed by said appointment.
(c) That Mr. Fenner as a result of being demoted is entitled to a
position as section foreman by displacing the junior (in point of
service) section foreman as provided in section (e), Article II, of the
agreement in force at the time of such demotion.
(d) That Dell Canute is entitled to retain the position of section
foreman at North Lansing, Mich., provided he is not the junior sec-
tion foreman on the seniority district, as provided in section (e),
Article II, of the above-referred-to agreement.
DECISION NO. 595.-DOCKET 919.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. (Denver & Rio
Grande Railroad).
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the inter-
pretation of rules 5 and 7 of the so-called national agreement be-
tween the Director General of Railroads and the International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers.
Statement.-Rule 5 of the above-referred-to agreement reads:
Time worked on Sundays and the following holidays, New Year's, Wash-
ington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving,
and Christmas, shall be paid for at the pro rata hourly rate when the entire
number of hours constituting the regular week-day assignment is worked.
On roads where an agreement or practice more favorable to the employees
is in effect, such agreement or practice, in so far as it relates to this rule, may
be retained.
Rule 7 of the same agreement reads:
To compute the hourly rate of monthly-rated employees, take the number of
working days constituting a calendar year, multiply by eight, and divide the
annual salary by the total hours, exclusive of overtime and disregarding time
absent on vacations, sick leave, holidays, or for any other cause. In deter-
mining the hourly rate, fractions less than one-fourth of 1 cent shall be as
one-fourth of 1 cent; over one-fourth and under one-half, as one-half cent;
over one-half and under three-fourths, as three-fourths; over three-fourths,
as 1 cent.
10
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
On March 22, 1920, the Director General of Railroads issued the
following interpretation regarding the meaning and intent of rule
5 above quoted:
The following interpretation is made as to the intent of rule 5 of the na-
tional agreement between the Director General of Railroads and the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers:
"RULE NO. 5.
Question. Should monthly-rated employees who are required to work on
Sundays or on holidays be paid for such time in addition to their regular
monthly salary?
"Decision.-The monthly salary of employees covered by this agreement is
based upon the actual week days in a month and work performed on Sundays
and/or the holidays mentioned in rule 5 will be paid for in addition to the
monthly salary, when the entire number of hours constituting the regular
week-day assignment is worked."
I shall be obliged, therefore, if railroads which were under Federal control
in the period between January 16, 1920, and February 29, 1920, will, for the
account of the Railroad Administration, make such readjustments, if any, as
may be necessary in accord with this interpretation for the period from Jan-
uary 16, 1920, to February 29, 1920, both inclusive.
Employees' position.—The employees' position is quoted as fol-
lows:
We, the committee, believe under rules 5 and 7 of the agreement between
the Director General of Railroads and International Brotherhood of Firemen
and Oilers, rule 5 of the said agreement gives these men their monthly salary
in effect as of January 16 on the basis of 306 days per year, and extra com-
pensation for Sundays and the seven designated holidays.
Rule 7 computes the hourly rate of monthly-rated employees by taking the
number of working days constituting a calendar year, multiply by eight, and
divide the annual salary by the total hours, exclusive of overtime and disre-
garding time absent on vacation, sick neave, holidays, or for any other cause.
We, the committee, ask that the following interpretation be applied and back
pay paid accordingly:
$100 (monthly salary for monthly assignment) times 12 (months in year),
$1,200.
$1,200 divided by 306 days equals $3.92 per day or 49 cents per hour for
eight-hour day.
Article VIII of Decision No. 2 adds to above hourly pay 13 cents per hour,
establishing an hourly rate of 62 cents per hour for men paid on the basis of
$100 per month, from the effective date of said national agreement.
Carrier's position.-The position of the carrier has been summa-
rized by the Labor Board as follows:
The carrier has construed the above rules and the interpretation
placed thereon by the Director General of Railroads to mean that the
employees carried on a monthly salary should be placed on a 26-work-
ing-day basis and allowed pro-rata time as overtime for Sundays
and holidays. The following is an example of how the rates were ad-
justed and the above-referred-to rules applied on the Denver & Rio
Grande Railroad:
$105 (monthly salary for calendar-month assignment) times 12
(months in year) equals $1,260.
$1,260 divided by 365 equals $3.452 per day.
$3.452 per day times 306 (working days in year, exclusive of
Sundays and standard holidays) equals $1,056.31.
$1,056.31 divided by 12 equals $88 (monthly salary for assign-
ment covering week days only).
DECISIONS.
11
In addition to the monthly rate of pay as above determined, over-
time in accordance with the national agreement is paid for Sundays
and holidays and all work outside of the assigned hours. As a result
of this salary basis, the rate of pay to firemen working the calendar
days of the month remained the same.
The above application resulted in men on the monthly salary
being paid for the full calendar month, including Sundays and holi-
days, with no increase in their wages for the month, although they
all show on a monthly rate to cover the 26 working days, and the
time worked on Sundays and holidays is reported as pro-rata over-
time at hourly rate.
Decision.—The Labor Board does not concur in the construction
placed by the carrier upon the interpretation issued by the Director
General of Railroads regarding the application of rule 5, and de-
cides that up to the effective date of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No.
119-namely, July 1, 1921-the monthly rate shall be predicated
upon 306 days per year and additional pay allowed for time required
to work on Sundays and holidays. Subsequent to July 1, 1921, the
provisions of said Addendum No. 2 shall apply unless an agreement
on this question has been reached pursuant to the issuance of De-
cision No. 119, in which event the rule so agreed upon shall apply.
DECISION NO. 596.-DOCKET 1003.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rail-
road Co.
Question. Under date of July 27, 1921, an application for decision
was filed by representative of the above-named organization regard-
ing the extension of practice of contracting work to apply to track
forces.
Decision. In accordance with advice contained in communication
from representative of the above-named organization dated Decem-
ber 10, 1921, this case is closed.
DECISION NO. 597.-DOCKET 967.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Minneapolis & St. Louis
Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall A. P. Johanson formerly employed as car car-
penter at Marshalltown, Iowa, and dismissed from the service on
June 13, 1921, be reinstated and paid for time lost?
Decision.-Based upon written and oral evidence presented, the
Labor Board decides that the carrier was justified in the action taken
and therefore denies the claim for reinstatement.
20936°-23——2
12
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 598.-DOCKET 968.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the reinstate-
ment of C. H. Drake, boiler maker, who was dismissed from the
service February 27, 1921, for alleged violation of rule 25 of the
Federal locomotive inspection laws.
Statement.-The written and oral evidence presented in this case
shows conclusively that the conditions preceding and upon which
the dismissal was based were such as to be entirely within the control
of the carrier, and that the employee in question was not the respon-
sible party.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the carrier was not justified in relieving this employee from the
service and that he shall, therefore, be reinstated to his former posi-
tion with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for time lost, deduct-
ing any amount that he may have earned in other employment since
the date of his dismissal.
DISSENTING OPINION,
I feel compelled to dissent from the decision reached by the
majority of the members of the Labor Board in Docket 968 for the
following reasons:
Boiler-maker Drake's inspection report showed only four broken
stay bolts, while inspection conducted by the boiler-maker foreman
showed nine broken stay bolts.
Rule 25, Federal inspection laws, reads as follows:
RULE 25.-Broken stay bolts.-No boiler shall be allowed to remain in service
when there are two adjacent stay bolts broken or plugged in any part of the
fire box or combustion chamber, nor when three or more are broken or plugged
in a circle four feet in diameter, nor when five or more are broken or plugged
in the entire boiler.
The employees contend that Mr. Drake's dismissal should have
been on the grounds of incompetency if he failed to discover the
proper number of bolts broken, and not on the charge that he vio-
lated rule 25, quoted above.
In my judgment the responsibility for proper boiler inspection is
a very important one that devolves upon the carrier, which must
rely on its supervising forces to see that proper inspection is made.
To absolve from blame a man who failed by reason of incompetency,
neglect, or otherwise, to properly inspect boilers and report those
which need attention, places a responsibility upon the Labor Board
not contemplated by the transportation act, 1920. Action taken in
this case is not only an injustice to the carrier, but may result in a
serious menace to the public and employees of the carrier, to say
nothing of damage to property.
HORACE BAKER,
DECISIONS.
13
DECISION NO. 599.-DOCKET 970.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the reinstate-
ment of Homer LaBounty, who was formerly employed at Topeka,
Kans., and dismissed from the service December 3, 1920, account of
alleged improper drilling of locomotive frame.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the carrier was justified in the discipline administered in this
case and, therefore, sustains such action. The board, however, fur-
ther decides that in view of this employee's past record and of the
apprenticeship which had accrued to him in the capacity of step-
rate mechanic, his previous seniority shall be restored, and that if
such seniority entitles him to employment at this time he shall be
restored to the service.
This decision does not involve any payment for time lost.
DECISION NO. 600.-DOCKET 983.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Question-Proper application of section (a-7), Article V, of the
National Agreement between the United Brotherhood of Mainte-
nance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and the
Director General of Railroads, effective December 16, 1919.
Statement. The Lehigh & New England Railroad Co. makes no
distinction between temporary and permanent gangs, paying all
alike-pro rata rates for the ninth and tenth hours.
Section (a-7), Article V, of the so-called national agreement
covering maintenance of way employees reads:
(a-7) Overtime for laborers in extra or floating gangs whose employment
is seasonal and temporary in character, when engaged in work not customarily
done by regular section gangs, such as ballasting and rail laying including the
tie renewals incident thereto, and ditching or in improvement work such as
bank widening, grade and line changes, riprapping and similar work, shall
be computed for the ninth and tenth hour of continuous service, exclusive of
the meal period, pro rata, on the actual minute basis and thereafter at the rate
of time and one-half time. Such extra or floating gangs will not be used to
displace regular section gangs.
Section (a-8), Article V of the same agreement reads:
(a-8) Overtime for regular section laborers and other employees except those
covered in sections (a-7) and (a-12) of this article shall be computed after
the eighth hour of continuous service, exclusive of the meal period, on the
actual minute basis at the rate of time and one-half time.
Employees' position. The men comprising the Pen Argyl work-
train gang claim that before the issuance of the maintenance of
way agreement, effective December 16, 1919, they were recognized
by the carrier as regular yearly gang, and when called for duty on
14
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
Sundays or holidays were paid 12 hours for a 10-hour day. Since
the agreement, effective December 16, 1919, the carrier has classified
them as an extra or floating gang whose employment is seasonal.
They are being allowed only 10 hours straight time when called for
duty on Sundays or holidays. These men contend that they should
be paid time and one-half time after 8 hours' work on regular days,
regardless of whether the work is put in on Sundays, holidays, or
regular working days. The committee feels that these men are justi-
fied in their claim. and should be classified under section (a-8)
instead of section (a-7), of Article V of agreement effective De-
cember 16, 1919.
Carrier's position. The carrier denies that prior to the effective
date of the agreement between it and its maintenance of way em-
ployees the Pen Argyl work-train gang was recognized by the car-
rier as a regular yearly gang, and denies that the employees in said
gang were paid 12 hours for 10-hour day when called for duty on
Sundays or holidays.
The records of the Lehigh & New England Railroad Co. establish
that in the year 1916 the work-train gang was out on 27 Sundays and
holidays. On three of these days they had no regular work-train
crew, and on 12 of the remaining 24 days they received more time
than was allowed the train crew. On the other 12 days they re-
ceived less than the train crew. On some of the occasions when they
received more than the train crew they were working on wrecks and
returned home on another train.
In 1917 the work-train gang was out on 13 Sundays and holidays.
On five of these days they received less time than the train crew and
on eight occasions they received more. On two of the latter occasions
the greater allowance to said gang was due to the following facts:
On October 7, 1917, a trestle was removed on the Bethlehem branch at Santee
and concrete pipe restored in its place. All service was annulled on Bethlehem
branch during the work and the roadmaster, in order to encourage the men to
complete the work that afternoon, gave them 13 hours' time. The train crew
on the same day made 11 hours and 40 minutes' time.
On December 16, 1917, steel ties were being removed from the Catasauqua
tunnel and wooden ties inserted in their place. The roadmaster again, in
order to complete the work on that date, gave the work-train gang 13 hours'
time, while the train crew made 12 hours' time.
In 1918 the work-train gang was out on eight Sundays and holi-
days. On two of these days they received less time than the train
crew and on six, more. On two of the latter occasions they were
employed at a wreck, and it is likely they returned home on an-
other train. On two other occasions when they received more time
than the train crew they were employed shoveling snow which con-
tinued after the return of their train to Pen Argyl.
In 1919 the work-train gang was out three Sundays and holidays.
On two of said days they received less time than the train crew
and on the third day-namely, November 3, 1919-they received 15
hours' pay for picking up coal which had been wrecked at Sillwater,
N. J. The train crew on this last date received 13 hours and five
minutes' time. The roadmaster gave this concession in order to
hurry the wreck work and to get off a foreign road.
The carrier denies that any permanent arrangement existed by
which the work-train gang was classified as a permanent gang and
DECISIONS.
15
directs the Labor Board's attention to the facts stated above in this
exhibit in support of its contention.
Decision. The Labor Board calls attention to Decision No. 501
and decides that the provisions thereof shall apply to the dispute in
question.
DECISION NO. 601.-DOCKET 987.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Proper classification and rate of pay of Tony Benino,
assistant foreman, March 1, 1920, to September 1, 1920.
Statement. Tony Benino was employed as assistant foreman in
the extra track gang, and when not so employed worked as a laborer
at the regular laborer's rate.
The assistant foreman's rate on January 1, 1918, prior to the appli-
cation of General Order No. 27, was $85 per month.
On September 1, 1918, the $85 monthly rate was increased $25 and
a new monthly rate of $110 per month established. This rate was
paid Mr. Benino when he was working as assistant foreman at vari-
ous times between September 1, 1918, and February 1, 1919.
From February 1 to June 1, 1919, Mr. Benino worked as a laborer
in the extra gang at a rate of 40 cents per hour. In the first half of
June, 1919, he again acted as assistant foreman, and was granted
a differential of 5 cents per hour over the laborer's rate; on June 15
he was reduced to position of laborer at 40 cents per hour, which
position he held until July 1, 1919, when he was again made assist-
ant foreman and served in that capacity at a rate of 5 cents per hour
in excess of the rate paid laborers until September 1, 1920. On
September 1, 1920, he was appointed extra-gang foreman at a
monthly rate of $140, this being the rate established for extra-gang
foremen under Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
Employees' position. The position of the employees is quoted as
follows:
It is claimed that Mr. Benino should have been paid at the rate of $110 per
month during the period between March 1, 1920, and April 30, 1920, and at the
rate of $140.60 per month from May 1, 1920, to September 1, 1920, when serving
as assistant foreman, instead of being paid 5 cents per hour in excess of the
rate paid laborers whom he supervised.
We contend that inasmuch as Mr. Benino has held the position of assistant
foreman at various times and that in September, 1918, he held that position at
the rate of $110 a month, he has since that time held the position of assistant
foreman at the rate of 45 cents per hour. We also stated that the cause of
Mr. Benino having held the position of assistant foreman at various times was
not that he was laid off on account of his inefficiency, but on account of reduc-
tion of forces at various times.
We claim that Mr. Benino instead of receiving 5 cents per hour in excess of
the rate paid laborers from March 1, 1920, to September 1, 1920, should have
been paid the rate of $110 per month from March 1, 1920, to April 30, 1920, and
$140.60 per month from May 1, 1920, to September 1, 1920, and that he should
receive the difference between these amounts and the amounts that he was
allowed on the current pay rolls.
Further that Mr. Benino has proved his ability both as to the work and the
handling of men at these various times by the fact that he is now holding the
16
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
position of extra-gang foreman on the same division. The carrier contends that
Mr. Benino was promoted, as he had been at various times, from trackman to
assistant foreman, and they therefore claim that they were right in giving
this man 5 cents per hour over and above the rate paid the men he supervised;
but we contend that this man holding the position of assistant foreman in 1919
and being paid at that time the rate of $110 per month is certainly worth the
same amount in 1920 up to May 1, and from May 1 the same amount plus the
increase under Decision No. 2, and should be paid the difference.
Carrier's position. The position of the carrier is quoted as fol-
lows:
The only authority for establishing a rate for an assistant track foreman ap-
pears in section (d), Article I, of Supplement No. 8 to General Order No. 27,
reading:
Rates of pay for all assistant track foremen will be 5 cents per hour in
excess of the rate paid laborers whom they supervise.”
The carrier holds that when they established the 5-cent differential for Mr.
Benino as assistant foreman, they had complied with the wage board order of
the Director General of Railroads.
Decision-The rate established by or under the authority of the
United States Railroad Administration for assistant track foreman
was 5 cents per hour in excess of the rates paid laborers whom they
supervise.
The position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 602.-DOCKET 990.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1982.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Question.-Does Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 cancel over-
time of employees in the maintenance of way department authorized
by the United States Railroad Administration, where an agreement
was not reached in conference on rules establishing an assignment
of hours that constitute a day's work?
Decision.-Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was intended to
supersede the overtime conditions established by or under the author-
ity of the United States Railroad Administration, and the provisions.
thereof shall be applied in the manner prescribed therein in lieu of
rulings promulgated by the United States Railroad Administration.
DECISION NO. 603.-DOCKET 991.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
Question-The question in dispute is in regard to claim of E. J.
Finney and J. B. Williams, bridge and building mechanics, for
wages from July 19, 1921, the date a bridge and building gang was
organized on the Chattanooga division, to the date this gang was
disbanded, September 9, 1921.
Statement. Written and oral evidence filed in connection with
this case indicates that E. J. Finney, bridge and building mechanic,
DECISIONS.
17
was granted a leave of absence some time prior to July 18, 1921,
which expired July 30, 1921; that J. B. Williams, also a bridge and
building mechanic, was laid off on account of a reduction in force
some time prior to July 18, 1921. Both of the employees herein
mentioned were temporarily out of the service when the carrier
claims to have mailed to all eligible employees, including these two
men, a bulletin announcing that a new paint gang would be put on,
extending them opportunity to exercise their seniority to positions
in the new gang if they so desired.
Messrs. Finney and Williams claim that they did not receive notice,
and that as soon as they were aware that the gang was put on, they
made application for positions, but were denied employment in said
gang account of the full quota having been obtained. These two
employees claim that they are entitled to pay from the date this
gang was organized to the date it was disbanded—namely, from
July 18, 1921, to September 9, 1921.
At oral hearing the representative of the carrier stated that the
seniority of these men was then and is still recognized, that due
notice was forwarded to them, and that they would have been ac-
cepted had they made application for positions.
Decision. The claim for pay for the period July 18, 1921, to Sep-
tember 9, 1921, is denied.
DECISION NO. 604.-DOCKET 994.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Question.—Are labor foremen in shops and shop yards, who super-
vise laborers, covered by the agreement entered into between the
Director General of Railroads and the United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers?
Statement.-At oral hearing conducted in connection with this
case, it developed that the question involved was of general applica-
tion, and that any decision of the Labor Board would so apply. It
developed further that the dispute had been handled with the car-
rier predicated only upon several specific positions and not as a
general matter. Upon being advised that the transportation act,
1920, had not been complied with, the representative of the employees
stated that it was their desire to withdraw the case and again handle
with the carrier on the basis of general application.
Decision. In view of the request for withdrawal of this case, the
file of the Labor Board is closed.
DECISION NO. 605.-DOCKET 602.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis
Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of J. W. Wilke, F. J. Corby, and M. A. Krom-
bach, employees in the office of the auditor of freight accounts, for
18
LABOR BOARD.
DECISIONS UNITED STATES TES
pay for time off account sickness during the months of November and
December, 1920.
Statement. The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, the rules of which govern the working conditions of
employees in the class of service in which the employees involved
in this dispute are engaged, does not contain any specific rule on the
question of pay for sickness or vacation, but under date of January
30, 1920, the director, division of operation, United States Railroad
Administration, issued the following telegraphic instructions to the
regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by the Federal
managers.
The employees claim that prior to the period of Federal control it
was the practice in the office in question to pay employees for time
lost account of sickness, and contend that under the provisions of
the telegraphic instructions above quoted the employees involved in
this dispute are entitled to pay for the time they were off duty
account of sickness in the months of November and December, 1920.
The carrier states that no instructions have ever been issued cover-
ing pay for time lost account sickness, and contends that it has been
the practice for the head of the department to handle each individual
claim on its merits the contributing features being length of service,
previous time off account of sickness, and time already allowed for
vacations.
The carrier has submitted to the Labor Board a statement showing
that for the period April, 1910, to December, 1917, 28 employees in
the auditor of freight accounts department, who were off duty
account sickness, had deductions made from their pay for the period
of their absence from service.
Decision. The request of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 606.-DOCKET 631.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad.
Question.-Dispute with reference to leave of absence for W. N.
Smith, general chairman, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
Statement. On March 28, 1921, Mr. Smith made application for
a 30-day leave of absence with the privilege of extending it for a
longer period. The application was approved with the understand-
ing that extension would be granted provided request was made be-
fore the 30-day period expired, but the extension privilege was sub-
sequently canceled in writing by the carrier. On April 23, 1921,
Mr. Smith requested an extension of his leave of absence, and his
DECISIONS.
19
request was denied. Rule 47 of the clerks' national agreement reads,
in part, as follows:
Employees elected as representatives of employees, shall be considered on
leave of absence and in the service of the railroad and shall retain their senior-
ity rank and rights, if asserted within 30 days after the release from excepted
employment.
Decision. It appears that after this dispute was submitted to the
Labor Board, Mr. Smith was relieved from the carrier's service but
with an appeal for reinstatement. Therefore, there is nothing for
the board to decide in this dispute. However, if Mr. Smith should
be reinstated it follows that in line with the time-honored practice.
of granting leave of absence to regularly elected general chairmen,
the board would then find that a leave of absence was proper and
should be allowed so long as he remained the regularly chosen repre-
sentative of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
DECISION NO. 607.-DOCKET 831.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Question. Claim of clerks in the local freight office at Chicago,
Ill., for payment for overtime worked in excess of eight hours per
day in connection with the establishment of a 45-hour week.
Statement. Prior to January 1, 1919, the employees involved in
this dispute were working 52 hours per week. They originated and
presented to the carriers a petition requesting that their hours be
reduced to 48 per week and arranged so that they would work 84
hours on week days and 44 hours on Saturdays. This arrangement
was agreed to by the carrier, placed in effect on January 1, 1919,
and continued in effect after the issuance of the clerks' national
agreement. In October, 1920, an employee who had been dismissed
from the service made claim for the payment of overtime worked
in excess of eight hours the first five days of the week. When the
question was taken up with the carrier, the committee claimed that
all employees who had worked under this arrangement should be
paid overtime from the effective date of the clerks' national agree-
ment-namely, January 1, 1920.
Under date of December 16, 1920, an agreement was entered into
between the employees and the superintendent of terminals at Chi-
cago, which established an eight-hour day for the first five days of
the week and a five-hour day on Saturdays, in consideration of
which the employees agreed to waive all claims for overtime for the
first five days of the week which had been worked prior to this agree-
ment. Under date of January 31, 1921, the carrier canceled this
agreement after having conferred with the employees, and gave
notice to the employees that thereafter the hours of service would
be eight hours per day, six days per week.
The carrier states that the agreement of December 16, 1920, was
canceled for the reason that the officer who entered into same with
20
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the employees exceeded his authority in doing so.
This was pro-
tested by the employees, and under date of February 7, 1921, an
agreement was made restoring the conditions which existed from
January 1, 1919, to December 16, 1920. Under the agreement of
February 7, 1921, the employees waived all claims for overtime which
might be worked while this agreement was in effect, pending the
settlement of their claim for overtime worked from the effective date
of the clerks' national agreement to December 16, 1920.
In the original submission to the Labor Board, the case involved a
claim for overtime worked in excess of eight hours the first five days
of the week, from January 1, 1920, to December 16, 1920, inclusive.
This request was modified at the hearing conducted by the board on
November 8, 1921, to cover the period from March 1, 1920, to Decem-
ber 16, 1920.
The carrier contends that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction in
this case, inasmuch as it involves a claim for wages alleged to be due,
and that the board has no authority to make any decision either deny-
ing or sustaining a claim for wages; that this is a matter for the
courts to determine under the working agreement in effect during the
period for which the claim is made; and that the board has no
authority to decide the claim for the period of Federal control, Janu-
ary 1, 1920, to March 1, 1920.
The carrier further contends that all previous contracts were an-
nulled by the agreement of February 7, 1921, that the claim for over-
time is not justified, inasmuch as these employees were by agreement
working a 48-hour week, and the hours were changed at their request
in order that they might be off Saturday afternoons; that the 45-hour
week should not be allowed because the agreement of February 7,
1921, provided for a 48-hour week. Furthermore, that inasmuch as
this agreement was made subsequent to the period of Federal con-
trol it was not affected by Decision No. 119 and no request was made
by the employees to amend or modify it during the negotiations
held subsequent to the issuance of Decision No. 119, and that the
question of the 45-hour week is not one of the disputed rules in the
submission on rules governing working conditions for these em-
ployees made to the Labor Board as a result of the aforesaid nego-
tiations.
The employees contend that they are entitled to the pay for over-
time worked in excess of eight hours the first five days of the week
under rule 57 of the national agreement, and that they are entitled
to the continuance of the 45-hour week under the same rule, as well
as under the agreement entered into on December 16, 1920. It was
admitted at the hearing in this case that there was no evidence pro-
duced to show that the claim was presented to the carrier prior to
October, 1920, and it was further admitted that no claims for over-
time worked in excess of 8 hours per day can be made for the period
the employees were working under the agreement of February 7,
1921. It was also admitted by the employees that the arrangement
of working in excess of 8 hours per day the first 5 days of the
week in order to obtain the Saturday afternoons off was made at
their request on January 1, 1919. It is likewise admitted by the
employees that no rule to cover this situation was presented in the
agreement negotiations held subsequent to the issuance of Decision
No. 119 of the Labor Board.
DECISIONS.
21
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that it has jurisdiction in
this dispute and has authority to grant or deny the claim for over-
time for the period from March 1, 1920, to December 1, 1920, in
accordance with its findings.
As it is conclusively shown that the employees requested and were
granted the 48-hour week on January 1, 1919, and that the hours
were arranged to suit their convenience, the claim for overtime for
work performed in excess of 8 hours the first 5 days of the week is
denied.
For the reasons herein set forth in denying the claim for overtime,
the Labor Board denies the request for the establishment of the
45-hour week in this dispute, and considers it is a question to be
determined as a part of the submission made as a result of the con-
ference held under the directions contained in Decision No. 119.
DECISION NO. 608.-DOCKET 857.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Miss Anna Lifshitz.
Decision-The employees having requested that this dispute be
withdrawn and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 609.-DOCKET 879.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. El Paso & Southwestern System.
Question. Is the telegraph operator at Octavia Street yard office,
El Paso, Tex., entitled to the rate of pay of the position of operator
in the general telegraph office at that point from January 21, 1921,
on which date the latter position was abolished?
Statement.-On January 1, 1921, a telegraph operator in the SW
general telegraph office, El Paso, Tex., assigned to duty 9 p. m. to 5
a. m., was taken off and the work assigned to the operators at Oc-
tavia Street yard office, El Paso, Tex. The operator in the general
relay office was paid at the rate of 764 cents per hour while the op-
erators at Octavia Street yard office were paid at the rate of 741
cents per hour. The working conditions of the employees involved
are governed by agreement between the carrier and employees ef-
fective May 1, 1919.
The employees contend that the operators at Octavia Street yard
office are now handling the relay work formerly handled at SW of-
fice and are entitled to the rate paid the operator at said office under
the provisions of section (a), Article II, of the telegraphers' agree-
ment, reading as follows:
(a) The entering of employees in the positions occupied in the service, or
changing their classification or work, shall not operate to establish a less favor-
able rate of pay or condition of employment than is herein provided.
22
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier states that the telegraph business in the general tele-
graph office at El Paso, Tex., decreased sufficiently to enable them to
lay off the operator at this point between 9 p. m. and 5 a. m. and
transfer what work there was to do to the yard office at Octavia
Street. The carrier contends that the relay work handled in the
general telegraph office was not transferred to Octavia Street yard
office and that the operators at the latter point are not now and never
have been required to perform any relay work, and, furthermore,
that the change made is not in conflict with the provisions of the
telegraphers' agreement.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 610.-DOCKET 903.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Question.-Request for restoration of past practice said to exist
in certain general offices of letting clerical employees off without
deduction in pay the afternoon of the day before Christmas; and
claim for pay for clerical employees who were denied the privilege
December 24, 1920.
Decision-Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 611.-DOCKET 908.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
Question.-Request for increase in rates of pay of train directors
and lever men to restore differentials previously existing between
those positions and the positions of dispatchers and signal main-
tainers, respectively.
Statement. The application of the various orders issued by the
United States Railroad Administration affecting the classes of em-
ployees involved in this dispute has resulted in train dispatchers,
who prior to Federal control received a lower rate than train di-
rectors, receiving a higher rate than the latter class, and lever men,
who previously received a higher rate than signal maintainers,
receiving a lower rate than the latter class.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that all of the orders
of the Railroad Administration and the Labor Board affecting the
classes of employees involved have been properly applied.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 612.-DOCKET 913.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question-Request for reinstatement of Coral Williams to posi-
tion of assistant bill clerk and expense clerk at Tacoma, Wash.
DECISIONS.
23
Decision-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, the Labor
Board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 613.-DOCKET 1015.
Chicago, IU., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for equalization of wages of express messen-
gers on trains operated between St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal, and the case is removed from the
docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 614.-DOCKET 1026.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of W. H. Smith, San Antonio, Tex., for back
pay under Decision No. 3 of the Labor Board.
Decision.—The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal, and the case is removed from the
docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 615.-DOCKET 1029.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper compensation of ex-
press messengers on trains operated between Iometa and Eden, Tex.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal, and the case is removed from the
docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 616.-DOCKET 1034.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for equalization of rates of pay of express
messengers engaged on trains operated between Kansas City, Mo.,
and Memphis, Tenn.
24
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision-The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor
Board grants the request for withdrawal, and the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 617.—DOCKET 1054.
Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of S. A. Slosson, express messenger, San Fran-
cisco, Calif., for free transportation from San Francisco to Los An-
geles, Calif.
Decision.-The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor
Board grants the request for withdrawal, and the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 618.-DOCKET 979.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Rail-
road Co.
Question.-Has the American Federation of Railroad Workers
the right to negotiate an agreement covering car-department em-
ployees on the eastern division of the Minneapolis & St. Louis rail-
road?
Decision.-Principle 15 of Decision No. 119 provides that "the
majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft
or class," and in view of the fact that the American Federation of
Railroad Workers does not represent a majority of the carmen on
the entire system of the Minneapolis & St. Louis railroad, the Labor
Board sustains the position of the carrier in refusing to enter into
negotiations regarding rules and working conditions covering car-
men on the eastern division with the American Federation of Rail-
road Workers..
DECISION NO. 619.-DOCKET 567.
Chicago, Ill, January 11, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question-Dispute with reference to train dispatchers whose posi-
tions were abolished, displacing employees in telegraph service.
Statement. On January 1, 1921, the positions of four train dis
patchers at Cherry Tree, Pa., were abolished, and the dispatchers
affected displaced telegraphers on the same division who were
younger in the service. The working conditions of the employees in
DECISIONS.
25
telegraph service are governed by an agreement between the em-
ployees and the carrier, effective March 1, 1921, the rules of which
provide that employees who accept positions in train dispatchers'
office shall retain their seniority.
The employees concede that the agreement provides for employees
promoted from the telegraph service to dispatchers' positions re-
taining their seniority in the telegraph service, but contend that it
does not give such employees who return to the telegraph service
the right to displace regularly assigned employees in that service.
The carrier contends that the action taken was proper and in
accordance with the rules of the agreement and also in accordance
with the past practice.
Decision-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it and
the Board's construction of the rules of the agreement involved, the
Labor Board decides that position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 620.-DOCKET 658.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Wabash Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to H. L. Smith, train dispatcher,
displacing D. M. Merchant, agent, Iles, Ill.
Statement.-Mr. Smith entered the service of the carrier November
24, 1907, and was promoted to train dispatcher January 25, 1918.
On April 4, 1921, the train-dispatching force was reduced, and he
was permitted to displace D. M. Merchant, agent-telegrapher, Iles,
Ill. Mr. Merchant entered the service of the carrier January 24,
1919, and was the youngest employee on the seniority list. The work-
ing conditions of the employees in telegraph service are governed
by an agreement between the employees and the carrier, effective
November 1, 1920, the rules of which provide that employees covered
by the agreement assigned to official positions with the company
will retain their seniority so long as they remain in such official
positions. It is agreed by both parties to the dispute that the posi-
tion of dispatcher is one of an official nature within the intent of the
rules involved.
The employees concede that the rules of the agreement preserve
the seniority of employees in the telegraph service promoted to
official positions, but do not permit such employees who return to
telegraph service to displace regularly assigned employees in that
service.
The carrier contends that the action taken was proper and in
accordance with the rules of the agreement.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it and
the board's construction of the rules of the agreement involved, the
Labor Board decides that position of the carrier is sustained.
26
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 621.-DOCKET 717.
Chicago, Ill., January 11; 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
Question.-Under what section of Addendum No. 1 to Decision
No. 147 shall the pay of foremen, assistant foremen, yard checkers,
and counter clerks in the baggage department of the Terminal Rail-
road Association of St. Louis, be reduced?
Statement.—On April 1, 1920, the employees in the baggage room
of the Union Station at St. Louis, Mo., including those involved in
this dispute, received an increase in pay of 17 cents per hour. Arti-
cle II of Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board provided certain in-
creases to be added to the rates established by or under the author-
ity of the United States Railroad Administration, and under this
decision these employees, with the exception of clerks with less than
one year's experience, were entitled to an increase of 13 cents added
to the rates in effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920. Clerks with less
than one year's experience were entitled to an increase of 61 cents
under section 3 of Article II of the above-mentioned decision.
The carrier did not make any adjustment in the rates, but allowed
the 17-cent increase to stand in consideration of the agreement made
at the time the increase became effective. Section 4 of Addendum
No. 1 to Decision No. 147 authorizes a decrease of 10 cents per hour
for baggage and parcel room employees; section 1 authorizes a de-
crease of 6 cents for foremen, subforemen, etc.; paragraph (a) of
section 2 authorizes a decrease of 6 cents for clerks with two or more
years' experience in railroad clerical work, etc.; paragraph (b) of
section 2 authorizes a decrease of 13 cents for clerks with an experi-
ence of one year or less than two years in railroad clerical work, etc.
In this case the employees contend that Addendum No. 1 to De-
cision No. 147 should be applied exactly as it reads, and that the
carrier should segregate the employees into various classes and apply
the decrease authorized for each class.
The carrier contends that as the employees were treated as one
class in increasing their wages and that to segregate them into dif-
ferent classes and apply the decrease authorized by Decision No. 147
would create differentials which have not heretofore existed, they
should now be considered as one class in applying the decrease, and
that the 10 cents per hour authorized for baggage and parcel room
employees is the proper decrease to be applied for all the employees
in the baggage department.
Decision, Position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 622.-DOCKET 733.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Company (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute with reference to preservation of rates es-
tablished under the authority of the United States Railroad Admin-
istration for certain clerical employees in the office of the auditor.
DECISIONS.
27
Statement.-Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27 of the
United States Railroad Administration established for certain cleri-
cal employees in the service of the carrier named rates of pay which
were less than those established by General Order No. 27. "Section
(a) of Article VIII, Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27,
provides that:
The minimum rates, and all rates in excess thereof, as herein established,
and higher rates which have been authorized since January 1, 1918, except
by General Order No. 27, shall be preserved.
At a conference on March 3, 1919, between the general manager
and the representatives of the employees, the carrier agreed to pre-
serve the higher rates established by General Order No. 27, subject
to the approval of the Director General of Railroads. The question
was submitted to the regional director, and the Federal manager
was subsequently authorized to continue the higher rates established
by General Order No. 27 in effect. In December, 1919, the Federal
manager issued instructions that all rates established by General
Order No. 27 which were higher than those authorized by Supplement
No. 7 thereto shall be reduced when the positions to which they
applied shall have become vacant. The dispute before the Labor
Board involves only reductions made since March 1, 1920.
The employees contend that the action of the carrier in reducing
the rates of the positions involved in this dispute is a violation of
rule 86 of the clerks' national agreement, Decision No. 2 of the Labor
Board, and the transportation act, 1920, and request that the rates.
of pay established by General Order No. 27, in effect 12.01 a. m.,
March 1, 1920, be restored and that the employees who suffered
reduction in wages since that date be reimbursed for monetary loss.
sustained.
The carrier contends that when the agreement to continue in effect
the higher rates of pay established by General Order No. 27 was
reached in March, 1919, it was the Federal manager's understanding
that when the positions affected became vacant, the lower rates of
pay prescribed in Supplement No. 7 would immediately be applied,
and he confirmed this understanding in letter written by him some
time after the approval of the agreement of March, 1919, above
referred to. The carrier further contends that they were without
authority to continue in the cases referred to in this dispute the
higher rates established by General Order No. 27 after the employees
who were holding the positions at the time Supplement No. 7 be-
came effective had left such positions, and that their action in apply-
ing the rates of pay established by Supplement No. 7 when said po-
sitions became vacant was fully authorized and justified.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the rates established
by General Order No. 27 and preserved by agreement between rep-
resentatives of the employees and the carrier in March, 1919, which
agreement was subsequently approved by the regional director, were
the rates established by or under the authority of the United States
Railroad Administration in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and
should have remained in effect until changed by mutual agreement
or decision of the Labor Board. The subsequent action authorized
by the Federal manager, but without conference or agreement, seems
20936°-23———3
28
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
to have been an afterthought, and while in equity may have had
some justification, it was not so properly handled as to give it full
force and effect.
The employees in the accounting department involved in this dis-
pute shall therefore be reimbursed for the difference between the
rates of pay they received while holding the positions affected and
the rates which should have been established for such positions by
applying the decisions of the Labor Board to the rates in effect
12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
DECISION NO. 623.-DOCKET 861.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.—Request that R. W. Maggett, train dispatcher, be per-
mitted to displace F. R. Doud, night chief dispatcher, Deer Lodge,
Mont.
Statement.—In the month of January, 1921, the train-dispatching
force at Deer Lodge was curtailed. Train Dispatcher R. W. Mag-
gett applied for position of night chief dispatcher held by Mr.
Doud, but his application was denied. Mr. Doud was older in the
service of the carrier as a train dispatcher, but Mr. Maggett was his
senior in the Deer Lodge office. The rule in effect governing
seniority for train dispatchers reads as follows:
Where the ability and merit of two men is equal, the choice of positions,
either within the same office or between different dispatching offices of a divi-
sion, so far as possible, should be determined upon the basis of seniority.
The employees contend that the rule above quoted established the
principle of division seniority, and that Mr. Maggett, having had
greater seniority in the Deer Lodge office, is entitled to the position
held by Mr. Doud, the night chief dispatcher.
The carrier contends that Mr. Doud had greater seniority in the
service as a train dispatcher than Mr. Maggett and considerable
experience as a train dispatcher, whereas Mr. Maggett never had
permanent appointment to any position above that of trick train
dispatcher; furthermore, that the position of chief dispatcher is
one for which they have the right to select the best man available.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 624.-DOCKET 875.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for equalization of rates of pay of messen-
gers on trains operated between Eau Claire and Duluth, Minn., with
messengers on trains between Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn.
Decision.-The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this case and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
DECISIONS.
29
grants request for withdrawal. The case is therefore removed from
the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 625.-DOCKET 882.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.—Request for reinstatement of Charles J. Wethe, train
dispatcher, Austín, Minn.
Statement. The employee named was taken out of service on Jan-
uary 23, 1921, and requested and was granted a leave of absence for
a period expiring April 15, 1921. Employee reported to superin-
tendent by letter on April 13, 1921, for instructions in connection
with his service as agent or operator, but did not report in person.
He was notified on June 29, 1921, that in view of having overstayed
his leave of absence he was considered out of the service.
Decision. Basing this decision on the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that request for reinstatement of Mr. Wethe to
position of train dispatcher is denied. However, the evidence shows
conclusively that he reported by letter to the superintendent on
April 13, 1921, two days before the expiration of his leave of ab-
sence, for instructions as to when to report to the chief dispatcher
for assignment to a position in the telegraph service, and that in-
structions were not forthcoming. Therefore, if Mr. Wethe still de-
sires to return to the telegraph service, he shall be permitted to do
so and be entitled to the same consideration as it was the intent of
the carrier to extend him had he personally reported to the super-
intendent on April 15, 1921.
DECISION NO. 626.-DOCKET 900.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question.-Was the position of personal stenographer to shop ac-
countant, Miles City, Mont., included within the scope of the na-
tional agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, as de-
fined in rule 1, Article I, thereof?
Statement. In the month of February, 1921, Labonna Homewood,
clerk in the office of the shop accountant, Miles City, Mont., made
application for position of personal stenographer held by Miss
Menaugh. Her application was declined on the ground that the posi-
tion held by Miss Menaugh was not included within the scope of the
clerks' national agreement. It is not denied that Miss Homewood
was senior to Miss Menaugh or that she had sufficient fitness and
30
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ability to qualify for the position. The position was abolished
April 15, 1921.
The employees contend that the work of the position held by Miss
Menaugh is of a routine nature and consists of making disburse-
ment reports of material used, expenditures for labor, typing pay
rolls, taking dictation from shop accountant and other clerks, and
that it was not one of a direct and confidential character referred to
in paragraph (b), rule 1, of Article I of the clerks' national agree-
ment, and request that Miss Homewood be reimbursed for the mone-
tary loss sustained by reason of not being assigned to the position on
February 10, the date she made application for same.
The carrier states that the shop accountant at Miles City reports
direct to a general officer in Chicago, and that in February, 1912,
there were 10 employees under his jurisdiction. The carrier con-
tends that the shop accountant is an official, that the work he handles
is of a direct and confidential nature, that he is entitled to a personal
stenographer as a part of his personal office force excepted from the
provisions of the clerks' national agreement, and that Miss Home-
wood should not be entitled to the position.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the position of stenog-
rapher to the shop accountant at Miles City, Mont., was included
within the scope of the clerks' national agreement and that Miss
Homewood should have been assigned to same when she made appli-
cation therefor on February 10, 1921. She shall therefore be reim-
bursed for the monetary loss sustained by reason of not being
assigned to the position from February 10 to April 15, 1921, the
date the position was abolished, less any amount earned in other em-
ployment during that period.
DECISION NO. 627.-DOCKET 1010.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to express messengers on trains
operated over the Southern Railway between Norfolk and Danville,
Va., exercising their seniority over certain junior employees.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor
Board grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 628.-DOCKET 1209.
Chicago, Ill., January 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of E. L. Raymond, Hart-
ford, Conn.
DECISIONS.
31
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this case and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 629.-DOCKET 950.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics v. Chicago &
Alton Railroad Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the right of
the International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics
to negotiate rules and working conditions affecting mechanical su-
pervisory forces of the above-named carrier.
Statement. Written evidence was submitted by the respective
parties to this controversy, which was supplemented by oral presen-
tation before the Labor Board. A summarization of the evidence
so submitted follows:
It is shown that under date of May 4, 1921, a communication was
addressed to A. P. Titus, general manager of the Chicago & Alton
Railroad, by a committee representing the International Associa-
tion of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics, requesting a conference
for the purpose of negotiating rules and working conditions in
accordance with the provisions of Decision No. 119. Under date
of June 3 the general manager replied stating that the request
would be given prompt consideration consistent with meetings then
being held with other organizations. It appears that a conference
was not held, it being the position of the carrier that they did not
feel that the organization in question represented a majority of
the subordinate officials of mechanics as designated by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, and, further, for the reason that they
had received letters and requests from a number of officials stating
their preference to deal with the carrier direct or through a com-
mittee of their own choosing rather than to be governed by a fixed
set of rules.
Upon failure on the part of the organization to secure a confer-
ence, an ex parte submission was filed with the Labor Board setting
forth the claim of said organization to the right of representation
of mechanical department foremen on that line, it being their con-
tention that they represent a majority of said foremen. They submit
in evidence a petition circulated in April and May, 1921, bearing
the signatures of 90 foremen, authorizing that organization to rep-
resent them in agreement negotiations, which list it is claimed bears
the names of the majority of the foremen in the mechanical de-
partment.
It is further shown that some time subsequent to July 1, 1921, the
carrier made a canvass of the foremen in the maintenance of way
and maintenance of equipment departments, submitting to each of
said foremen a petition captioned as follows:
We, the undersigned subordinate officers (supervisors of mechanics), desire
to deal with the company direct as our own representative or through the
32
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
duly authorized committee as here below designated, which is as follows, and
to be considered officers of the company rather than be governed by any fixed
set of rules.
The names of seven foremen appear at the heading of this petition
as a committee.
The result of such canvass was that the following supervisors of
mechanics signed the petition:
Maintenance of way department..
Locomotive department--
Car department---
Total______
21 or 100 per cent.
42 or 69 per cent.
35 or 75 per cent.
98 or 76 per cent.
The representatives of the organization take exception to the
method followed by the carrier in canvassing the foremen, and to
the wording of the question submitted to them in which it is asked
whether they desire to be represented by the management and con-
sidered and classed as officials. It is the claim of the organization
that the Interstate Commerce Commission has designated the classes
of the employees which shall be considered officials and that the car-
rier has no right to vary from the provisions; that the foremen were
misled when the question was placed before them; and that the car-
rier, should, therefore, recognize and deal with the duly authorized
representatives of the International Association of Railroad Super-
visors of Mechanics in accordance with the wishes of the men as ex-
pressed in the petition circulated and signed immediately following
the promulgation of Decision No. 119 and prior to the canvass of the
foremen by representatives of the carrier.
Decision. From the evidence submitted it is indicated that there
has been a lack of cooperation on the part of the interested parties.
in ascertaining the wishes of the foremen in regard to representation.
It is also noted that the petitions bear the names of general foremen
who are in the official class under the rulings of the Interstate Com-
merce Commission.
The method followed by both parties was not in accordance with
the meaning and intent of Decision No. 119, and it is therefore the
decision of the Labor Board that a conference shall be held as soon
as possible after receipt of this decision, at such place as the carrier
may designate, between the duly authorized representatives of the
carrier, the duly authorized representatives of the International As-
sociation of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics, the duly authorized
representatives of any other organization representing mechanical
foremen whose by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that the
organization was established for the purpose of performing the
functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of
the transportation act, 1920, and the duly authorized representatives
of 100 or more unorganized employees, for the purpose of arriving
at a clear understanding as to the distribution, casting, counting, and
tabulation of the ballots and announcing the results thereof.
NOTE.-Representatives of unorganized employees authorized and desiring
to attend this conference must have the individual and personal signature and
authorization of not less than 100 employees directly interested in the dispute;
such authorization shall likewise name the place of employment and their
pay-roll classification.
DECISIONS.
33
+
BALLOTS.
The form of ballot shall be as follows:
CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY, SUPERVISORS OF MECHANICS.
OFFICIAL BALLOT.
A dispute exists between the carrier and the system council of the Interna-
tional Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics as to whom the fore-
men above referred to desire to be represented by in handling matters relating
to rules and working conditions with the carrier.
The foremen, irrespective of membership or nonmembership in any organi-
zation, are therefore to be given an opportunity to designate by a majority
vote the representation of their choice as follows:
Those who desire to be represented by system council, International
Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics, mark an X in this
square
Those who desire to be represented by individuals or by any other
organization, write the name of such individual or organization here
and mark an X in this square..
Those who desire any other form of representation, mark an X in
this square--
and indicate below the form of representation desired.
A separate ballot shall be prepared covering bridge and building
department foremen and distributed to such foremen of mechanics
in that department in the same manner as followed for other fore-
men. This ballot shall be considered separate and distinct from the
ballot covering other foremen and the result of the tabulation of
said ballots shall govern the question of representation for bridge
and building department foremen.
In preparing ballot for the bridge and building department fore-
men, the following should appear in addition to the information as
shown on the illustrative ballot above:
Those who desire to be represented by the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, mark an
X in this square..
In the conference which the Labor Board has directed to be held
between the interested parties to this dispute preparatory to con-
ducting the ballot, the said authorized representatives shall make
such arrangements as will be necessary to preserve the absolute
secrecy of the above-referred-to ballot.
EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
All employees directly interested in this dispute who are in-
cluded in the transportation act as "subordinate officials" and who
are included in the act as within the jurisdiction of the Labor
Board are eligible to vote. The act provides that the term "sub-
ordinate officials" includes officials of carriers of such class or rank
as the Interstate Commerce Commission shall designate by regula-
tion duly formulated and issued; therefore, this ballot is intended
to apply only to such classes of subordinate officials as are now or
may hereafter be defined and classified by the Interstate Commerce
Commission as such subordinate officials. This shall include all
employees coming under the provisions of this decision who have
34
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
been temporarily demoted account of reduction in forces and em-
ployees who have been laid off or furloughed and are entitled to
return to the service under the seniority rules when the force is re-
stored to what is generally recognized as constituting a normal
force, if accessible, which employees shall be furnished a ballot and
be permitted to vote.
DISTRIBUTION, VOTING, AND COUNTING.
A general committee, composed of duly authorized representatives
of the carrier and the duly authorized representatives of any or-
ganization or 100 or more unorganized employees participating in
accordance with the provisions of this decision, will be located at
designated places for the purpose of distributing, receiving, counting,
and tabulating the results of the ballot.
A local committee, composed of the duly authorized representatives
as above outlined, will be established at each division point for the
purpose of receiving, distributing, packing, and forwarding the bal-
lots by express or registered mail to the general committee. Local
committees will see that each employee is given every opportunity to
vote and that his ballot is placed in envelope and sealed; the local
committee shall also keep a record of the ballots received.
Only the general committee is authorized to open envelopes and
count the ballots. Where the force is limited and the local committee
can not be procured, arrangements shall be made to place ballots in
the hands of such employees and they shall be properly instructed
as to the manner of getting their ballot to the general committee.
The ballot should be completed at the earliest possible date. No
one but the general committee is authorized to open, count, and tabu-
late the returns of the ballot, and all parties to the dispute are en-
titled to be present when any ballots are opened and counted.
When the ballots have been canvassed the result shall be reported
to the Labor Board, and the representatives of the carrier and the
employees will proceed with the negotiation of rules if the majority
vote in favor of such a procedure.
If either party to this dispute believes that the spirit and intent
of this decision is not being complied with, the complaint should be
filed with the Labor Board with all supporting data.
DECISION NO. 630.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., January 23, 1922-Effective February 1, 1922.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees;
* Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
Subject of the dispute. This decision is upon a series of contro-
versies or disputes between the organizations of employees of car-
riers and the carriers named below. The subject matter of the dis-
pute is what shall constitute just and reasonable rules and working
conditions.
* See foot note on p. 37.
DECISIONS.
35
Parties to the dispute.-(1) The carriers parties hereto, each of
which has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out,
are:
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.-New York Terminals.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
* Boston & Maine Railroad.
Central Union Depot & Railway Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Cupples Station (St. Louis, Mo.).
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
El Paso & Southwestern System.
El Paso Union Passenger Depot.
Erie Railroad Co.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Galveston Wharf Co.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in United States).
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
Jacksonville Terminal Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Railroad.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
36
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
*Maine Central Railroad Co.
*Portland Terminal Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Nashville Terminals.
New York Central Railroad Co.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Brownwood North & South Railway Co.
Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railway Co.
St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas.
St. Paul Union Depot Co.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and affiliated lines.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Toledo Terminal Railroad Co.
Trans-Mississippi Terminal Railroad Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Ogden Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
St. Joseph Terminal Railroad Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
(2) The organizations parties hereto which have a dispute on
one or more of the rules hereinafter set out are:
See footnote on p. 37.
DECISIONS.
37
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees.
* Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
Nature of the proceedings.—Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, a
large number of carriers have held conferences on rules and working
conditions with the representatives of their respective employees.
Each of these carriers individually negotiated with its own em-
ployees and they jointly certified to the Railroad Labor Board the
rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they disagreed,
with respective proposals of the parties as to the latter; therefore,
each of the carriers party to this decision has a dispute with its
employees on one or more of the rules. There are still other carriers
which have not yet completed their negotiations.
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at
the original hearing, including a vast amount of evidence, data, and
arguments, oral, written, and documentary, and information gathered
by its own forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along with
the certification of the disputed rules.
Decision.-The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out,
corresponding to the rules of the national agreement, and the addi-
tional rules hereby promulgated, are just and reasonable.
Reference is made to the numbers of the rules in the national
agreement because the rules are not numbered uniformly in the sub-
missions from the various carriers. For easy reference and identifi-
cation, the additional rules have been given succeeding numbers in
consecutive order.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
February 1, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are
as follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
ARTICLE 1.—SCOPE.
RULE 1. These rules shall govern the hours of service and working
conditions of the following employees, subject to the exception noted
below:
(1) Clerks-
(a) Clerical workers.
(b) Machine operators.
(2) Other office and station employees-such as office boys, mes-
sengers, chore boys, train announcers, gatemen, baggage and parcel
room employees, train and engine crew callers, operators of certain
office or station appliances and devices, telephone switchboard oper-
ators, elevator operators, office, station, and warehouse watchmen and
janitors.
* Except employees who come under the provisions of schedules or agreements which
have been negotiated by other organizations named in Decision No. 119.
38
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(3) Laborers employed in and around stations, storehouses, and
warehouses.
EXCEPTIONS.
(a) These rules shall not apply to laborers on coal and ore docks;
or to laborers on elevators, piers, wharves, or other water-front fa-
cilities not a part of the regular freight-station forces; or to indi-
viduals where amounts of less than $30 per month are paid for spe-
cial services which take only a portion of their time from outside
employment or business; or to individuals performing personal serv-
ice not a part of the duty of the carrier.
RULE 2. Eliminated.
RULE 3. Eliminated.
EXISTING AGREEMENTS.
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
ARTICLE II.-DEFINITION OF CLERICAL WORKERS, ETC.
QUALIFICATIONS.
RULE 4. (a) Clerical workers.-Employees who regularly devote
not less than four hours per day to the writing and calculating in-
cident to keeping records and accounts, rendition of bills, reports,
and statements, handling of correspondence, and similar work.
(b) Machine operators.-Employees who regularly devote not less
than four hours per day to the operation of office or station mechani-
cal equipment requiring special skill and training, such as typewrit-
ers, calculating machines, bookkeeping machines, dictaphones, and
other similar equipment.
The foregoing definitions, paragraphs (a) and (b), shall not be
construed to apply to:
(1) Employees engaged in assorting tickets, waybills, etc., nor to
employees operating office or station appliances or devices not re-
quiring special skill or training, such as those for duplicating letters
and statements, perforating papers, addressing envelopes, number-
ing claims and other papers, adjusting dictaphone cylinders, and
work of like nature, nor to employees gathering mail or other similar
work not requiring clerical ability.
(2) Office boys, messengers, and chore boys, or to other employees
doing similar work.
(3) Students and apprentices qualifying for specific clerical work
or as machine operators.
(4) Employees performing manual work not requiring clerical
ability.
ARTICLE III-SENIORITY.
RULE 5. Seniority datum.-Seniority begins at the time em-
ployee's pay starts on the seniority district and in the class to which
assigned.
Where two or more employees enter upon their duties at the
same hour on the same day, employing officer shall at that time
designate respective rank of such employees.
DECISIONS.
39
RULE 6. Promotion basis.-Employees covered by these rules.
shall be in line for promotion. Promotion shall be based on senior-
ity, fitness, and ability; fitness and ability being sufficient, senior-
ity shall prevail except, however, that this provision shall not ap-
ply to the excepted positions.
NOTE. The word "sufficient" is intended to more clearly establish the
right of the senior clerk or employee to bid in a new position or vacancy
where two or more employees have adequate fitness and ability.
RULE 7. Seniority districts.-Seniority districts as now estab-
lished shall be continued unless and until changed by mutual agree-
ment between the management and the accredited representative
of the employees.
ARTICLE IV-DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCES.
RULE 32. Investigation.—An employee who has been in service
more than 60 days or whose application has been formally ap-
proved shall not be disciplined or dismissed without investigation,
at which investigation he may be represented by an employee of
his choice. He may, however, be held out of service pending such
investigation. The investigation shall be held within 10 days of
the date when charged with the offense or held from service.
decision will be rendered within 10 days after the completion of in-
vestigation.
A
Investigation and hearings shall be held whenever possible at
home terminal of employees involved. They will also be held at
such time as not to cause employees to lose rest or time, whenever
possible to do so.
ARTICLE VI-HOURS OF SERVICE AND MEAL PERIOD.
RULE 48. Except as otherwise provided in this article, eight
consecutive hours' work, exclusive of the meal period, shall consti-
tute a day's work.
RULE 49. Intermittent service.-Where service is intermittent, 8
hours' actual time on duty within a spread of 12 hours shall constitute
a day's work. Employees filling such positions shall be paid over-
time for all time actually on duty or held for duty in excess of 8
hours from the time required to report for duty to the time of release
within 12 consecutive hours, and also for all time in excess of 12
consecutive hours computed continuously from the time first required
to report until final release. Time shall be counted as continuous
service in all cases where the interval of release from duty does not
exceed 1 hour.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for indi-
vidual positions when agreed to between the management and duly
accredited representatives of the employees. For such excepted posi-
tions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply.
This rule shall not be construed as authorizing the working of
split tricks where continuous service is required.
Intermittent service is understood to mean service of a character
where during the hours of assignment there is no work to be per-
formed for periods of more than one hour's duration and service of
the employees can not otherwise be utilized.
40
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Employees covered by this rule will be paid not less than 8 hours
within a spread of 12 consecutive hours.
RULE 50. Reporting and not used.-Employees required to report
for work at regular starting time, and prevented from performing
service by conditions beyond control of the carrier, will be paid for
actual time held with a minimum of two hours.
If worked any portion of the day, under such conditions, up to a
total of four hours, a minimum of four hours shall be allowed. If
worked in excess of four hours, a minimum of eight hours shall
apply.
All time under this rule shall be at pro rata.
This rule does not apply to employees who are engaged to take
care of fluctuating or temporarily increased work which can not be
handled by the regular forces; nor shall it apply to regular em-
ployees who lay off of their own accord before completion of the
day's work.
RULE 51. Length of meal period.-Unless agreed to by a majority
of employees in a department or subdivision thereof, the meal period
shall not be less than 30 minutes nor more than one hour.
RULE 52. Continuous work without meal period.-For regular
operations requiring continuous hours, eight consecutive hours with-
out meal period may be assigned as constituting a day's work, in
which case not to exceed 20 minutes shall be allowed in which to eat,
without deduction in pay, when the nature of the work permits.
RULE 53. Meal period.-When a meal period is allowed, it will be
between the ending of the fourth hour and beginning of the seventh
hour after starting work, unless otherwise agreed upon by the em-
ployees and the employer.
RULE 54. Work during meal period.-If the meal period is not
afforded within the allowed or agreed time limit and is worked, the
meal period shall be paid for at the pro-rata rate and 20 minutes,
with pay, in which to eat shall be afforded at the first opportunity.
RULE 55. Changing starting time.-Regular assignments shall
have a fixed starting time and the regular starting time shall not
be changed without at least 36 hours' notice to the employees affected.
RULE 56. Three-shift positions.-Where three consecutive shifts
are worked covering the 24-hour period no shift will have a starting
time after 12 o'clock midnight and before 5 a. m.
ARTICLE VII.-OVERTIME AND CALLS.
RULE 57. Overtime.-Except as otherwise provided in these rules,
time in excess of eight hours, exclusive of meal period, on any day,
will be considered overtime and paid on the actual minute basis, at
the pro rata rates for the ninth hour and at time and one-half there-
after.
RULE 58. Notified or called.-Except as provided in rule 59, em-
ployees notified or called to perform work not continuous with, be-
fore, or after the regular work period shall be allowed a minimum
of three hours for two hours' work or less and if held on duty in
excess of two hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the minute
basis.
RULE 59. Employees who have completed their regular tour of
duty and have been released, required to return for further service,
DECISIONS.
41
may, if the conditions justify, be compensated as if on continuous
duty.
RULE 60. Absorbing overtime.—Employees will not be required to
suspend work during regular hours to absorb overtime.
RULE 61. Authorizing overtime.-No overtime hours will be
worked except by direction of proper authority, except in cases of
emergency where advance authority is not obtainable.
RULE 62. Computing overtime.-Eliminated.
RULE 63. Notified when disallowed.-When time is claimed in
writing and such claim is disallowed, the employee making the claim
shall be notified in writing and reason for nonallowance given.
ARTICLE VIII.-SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY WORK.
RULE 64. Full-day period.-Except as otherwise provided in these
rules, time worked on Sundays and the following holidays-namely,
New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth
of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas (provided
when any of the above holidays fall on Sunday, the day observed
by the State, Nation, or by proclamation shall be considered the
holiday)-shall be paid for at the pro rata hourly rate when the
entire number of hours constituting the regular week-day assign-
ment are worked.
RULE 65. Less than full-day period.-Except as otherwise pro-
vided in these rules, when assigned, notified, or called to work on
Sundays and or the above-specified holidays a less number of hours
than constitutes a day's work within the limits of the regular week-
day assignment, employees shall be paid at the pro rata hourly rate
for actual time worked with a minimum of three hours. Time
worked before or after the limits of the regular week-day assign-
ment shall be paid for as per rule 57.
RULE 66. Basis of pay.-Employees covered by groups (1) and
(2), rule 1, heretofore paid on a monthly, weekly, or hourly basis,
shall be paid on a daily basis. The conversion to a daily basis of
monthly, weekly, or hourly rates shall not operate to establish a rate
of pay either more or less favorable than is now in effect.
Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the reduction of days
for the employees covered by this rule below six per week, excepting
that this number may be reduced in a week in which holidays occur
by the number of such holidays.
RULE 67. Day of rest.—So far as practicable, consistent with the
requirements of the service, employees shall be allowed one day of
rest (not necessarily Sunday) in seven. When the assigned day of
rest for an employee is other than Sunday, rule 64 and rule 65 of this
article shall apply to such assigned day but shall not apply to Sun-
day. Days of service may be reassigned when necessary to comply
with the intent of this rule.
ARTICLE IX.-ROAD SERVICE.
RULE 68. Temporary assignment.-Employees not regularly as-
signed to road service, who are temporarily required to perform serv-
ice away from their headquarters which necessitates their traveling,
shall be allowed necessary expenses while away from their headquar-
42
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ters, and will be paid pro rata for any additional time required in
traveling to and from the temporary assignment, except that where
lodging is furnished or paid for by the carrier, no additional compen-
sation will be allowed unless actually required to perform service in
excess of eight consecutive hours exclusive of the meal period.
The foregoing paragraph shall not apply to an employee tem-
porarily filling a position during the absence of the employee reg-
ularly assigned to road service, or pending a permanent assign-
ment as provided in Article III, but in such cases the basis of com-
pensation shall be the same as for the regular employee except as
provided in rule 72, Article XI.
RULE 69. Travel time in camp cars.-Employees required by the
management to travel on or off their assigned territory in boarding
cars will be allowed straight time traveling during regular working
hours, and for Sundays and holidays during hours established for
work periods on other days.
ARTICLE X.-ATTENDING COURT.
RULE 70. Witnesses.-Employees taken away from their regular
assigned duties, at the request of the management, to attend court or
to appear as witnesses for the carrier, will be furnished transporta-
tion and will be allowed compensation equal to what would have
been earned had such interruption not taken place and, in addition,
necessary actual expenses while away from headquarters. Any fee
or mileage accruing will be assigned to the carrier.
ARTICLE XI.-RATING POSITIONS.
RULE 71. Rating positions.-Positions (not employees) shall be
rated and the transfer of rates from one position to another shall
not be permitted.
RULE 72. Preservation of rates-Employees temporarily or per-
manently assigned to higher-rated positions shall receive the higher
rates while occupying such position; employees temporarily as-
signed to lower-rated positions shall not have their rates reduced.
A "temporary assignment" contemplates the fulfillment of the
duties and responsibilities of the position during the time occupied,
whether the regular occupant of the position is absent or whether the
temporary assignee does the work irrespective of the presence of the
regular employee. Assisting a higher-rated employee due to a
temporary increase in the volume of work does not constitute a
temporary assignment.
RULE 73. Women.-The pay of women employees, for the same
class of work, shall be the same as that of men, and their working
conditions must be healthful and fitted to their needs. The laws
enacted for the government of their employment must be observed.
RULE 74. New positions.-The wages for new positions shall be
in conformity with the wages for positions of similar kind or class
in the seniority district where created.
ARTICLE XII.-GENERAL.
RULE 75. Posting notices.—At points or in departments where 25
or more employees covered by this schedule are employed suitable
DECISIONS.
43
provision will be made for posting notices of interest to the em-
ployees.
KULE 76. Duly accredited representative.-Where the term “duly
accredited representative" appears in this agreement it shall be
understood to mean the regularly constituted committee represent-
ing the class of employees on the railroad where the controversy
arises, or any representative or representatives the employees directly
interested may select or designate.
RULE 77. Transfer by management.-Employees transferred by
direction of the management to positions which necessitate a change
of residence will receive free transportation for themselves, depend-
ent members of their families, and household goods, when it does not
conflict with State or Federal laws.
RULE 78. Transfer by seniority.-Employees exercising seniority
rights to new positions or vacancies which necessitate a change of
residence will receive free transportation for themselves, dependent
members of their families, and household goods, when it does not
conflict with State or Federal laws, but free transportation of house-
hold effects under this circumstance need not be allowed more than
once in a 12-month period.
RULE 79. Transportation.-Free transportation of household ef-
fects will be limited to the railroad on which employed.
RULE 80. Incapacitated employees.-Efforts will be made to fur-
nish employment (suited to their capacity) to employees who have
become physically unable to continue in service in their present
positions.
RULE 81. Machines furnished.-Typewriters and other office-equip-
ment devices will be furnished by the carriers at offices where the
management requires their use.
RULE 82. Bond premiums.-Employees shall not be required to
pay premiums on bonds required by the carrier in handling its
business.
RULE 83. Free transportation.-Employees covered by this agree-
ment and those dependent upon them for support will be given the
same consideration in granting free transportation as is granted other
employees in service.
General committees representing employees covered by this agree-
ment will be granted the same consideration as is granted general
committees representing employees in other branches of the service.
RULE. 84. Rates.-Established positions shall not be discontinued
and new ones created under a different title covering relatively the
same class of work for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay or
evading the application of these rules.
RULE 85. Printing schedules.-Eliminated.
RULE 86. Preservation of rates.-Eliminated.
RULE 87. Date effective.-Provided for in rule 90.
RULE 88. Employees temporarily assigned.-Employees assigned
to temporary positions or duties for a period not exceeding six
months will retain their service and seniority standing, and at the
conclusion of such assignment will be returned to and take their
proper place in the seniority district from which assigned.
RULE 89. Service letters.-Employees whose applications are ap-
proved and who have been in the service 60 days or longer will upon
request, if they leave the service of the carrier, be furnished with a
20936°-23- 4
44
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
service letter showing length of service, capacity in which employed,
and cause for leaving.
RULE 90. Date effective and changes.-This agreement shall be
effective as of February 1, 1922, and shall continue in effect until it
is changed as provided herein or under the provisions of the trans-
portation act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be held im-
mediately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is
mutually agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1. Application of adopted rules.-The rules approved by
the Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers parties to the
dispute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such in-
stances as any particular carrier may have agreed with its em-
ployces upon any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule
or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply
on said road.
SEC. 2. Disposition of eliminated rules.-The rules eliminated
by the Labor Board shall cease and terminate, except in such in-
stances as any particular carrier may have agreed or may hereafter
agree with its employees upon any one or more of such rules, in
which case the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its
employees shall apply on said road.
SEC. 3. Disposition of omitted rules.-Because a very large ma-
jority of the carriers and their employees have agreed upon the
major part of Article III comprising the seniority rules, Article
IV governing discipline and grievances, and Article V covering
leave of absence, practically all the rules contained in these three
articles are omitted. In further negotiations, attention is directed
to the principles set forth in Exhibit B of Decision No. 119 in so
far as these principles relate to the subjects herein referred to.
The Labor Board believes that certain other subject matters now
regulated by the rules of the national agreement may not be covered
in all localities by rules of general application, and require further
consideration by the parties directly concerned.
The omission of the rules governing the above matters is indi-
cated herein by not including the number of the article or the sec-
tion thereof, as the case may be, as used in the national agreement,
and all such rules which involve a dispute between a particular
carrier and its employees are hereby remanded to said carrier and
its employees for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions
of Section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 4. Vacations and sick leave with pay.-In the opinion of
the Labor Board the question of vacations and sick leave with pay
is one which should be left at this time to the carriers and their
respective employees for the adoption of such rules as may be sever-
ally and mutually agreed upon.
SEC. 5. Proposed new rules not herein decided. In addition to
the rules included in the clerks' national agreement and the new
DECISIONS.
45
rules herein promulgated, there were submitted to the Labor Board
for decision certain proposed new rules, none of which is in dispute
on any appreciable number of carriers, and which have not been
specifically covered in this decision.
The proposed new rules, above referred to, which involve a
dispute between a particular carrier and its employees, are hereby
remanded to said carrier and its employees for the purpose of
adjustment under the provisions of section 301 of the transportation
act, 1920.
SEC. 6. Interpretation of this decision.-The rules herein adopted,
where similar to the rules in the national agreement, are not to be
understood or construed as carrying with them the interpretations
placed on same by the United States Railroad Administration, by
the adjustment boards, or by other agencies acting under said
administration, but are to be considered and construed as new rules
adopted by the Labor Board in accordance with the transportation
act, 1920, and the principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the em-
ployees of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this
decision which can not be decided in conference between the parties
directly interested, such dispute shall be handled in the manner
provided by the transportation act, 1920.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We dissent from Decision No. 630, Docket 475, of a majority of the
members of the board with respect to rule 57, which provides puni-
tive payment for service rendered beyond the ninth hour, for the
following reasons:
Prior to Federal control of railroads, clerical forces generally
were paid on a monthly-rate basis which covered all service rendered.
Other classes of employees covered by the clerks' agreement, in-
cluding freight-house laborers and other station employees, generally
worked 10 hours per day and were paid at pro-rata rates for all time
worked; ordinarily the same hours of service per day are now re-
quired to meet business needs throughout the country along the lines
of the carriers.
The clerks' rules govern a large class who are not clerks either by
training or special skill required-such as yard clerks, messenger
boys, chore boys, laborers, students, apprentices, etc.
The work of all classes covered by this agreement is to an extent
intermittent and does not require constant application. With a lesser
day than 10 hours the carriers can not, with economy and efficiency,
meet the demands of the public.
Punitive payment has but one justification-namely, preventing
the working of unreasonable hours; therefore, it is our judgment
that the imposing of rules requiring punitive payment for any serv-
ice rendered by employees covered by this decision within the 10-hour
period is unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and burdens the carrier with
an uneconomical condition.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER.
46
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ANSWER TO DISSENTING OPINION.
Due to the character of the statements in the preceding dissenting
opinion and the fact that the dissent deals only with the provisions
of rule 57 of Article VII, the majority members decided it would
be necessary to make answer in some detail and have therefore
departed from the usual procedure to the extent of making a direct
answer to certain portions of the dissenting opinion.
The dissenting opinion states:
Prior to Federal control of railroads, clerical forces generally were paid on a
monthly-rate basis which covered all service rendered.
This statement is in error to the extent that a number of carriers
were paying overtime to clerical and station employees prior to
Federal control.
Referring to the paragraph reading:
Other classes of employees covered by the clerks' agreement, including
freight-house laborers and other station employees, generally worked 10 hours
per day and were paid at pro-rata rates for all time worked; ordinarily the
same hours of service per day are now required to meet business needs
throughout the country along the lines of the carriers.
The above statement must be considered in connection with the
following: It is obvious that the statement is erroneous to a very
large degree; it is also rather indefinite, but in any event the em-
ployees referred to therein would certainly have been included in
Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, promulgated by the
Railroad Administration, which included the following classes of
employees:
All clerical forces in all departments and all employees who devote a ma-
jority of their time to clerical work of any description, including train an-
nouncers, gatemen, checkers, baggage and parcel room employees, train and
engine crew callers, and the operators of all office station equipment devices,
chief clerks, foremen, subforemen and other similar supervisory forces of em-
ployees, office boys, messengers, chore boys and other employees under 18 years
of age filling similar positions, and station attendants, janitors, elevator and
telephone switchboard operators, office, station and warehouse watchmen, all
laborers in and around stations, store houses and warehouses such as truckers,
stowers, shippers, etc., and all common labor in all departments not other-
wise provided for.
In August, 1919, about one year after the effective date of Sup-
plement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, the representatives of the
carriers who appeared before the Board of Railroad Wages and
Working Conditions of the United States Railroad Administration
were requested to investigate and advise the situation on the vari-
ous railroads with respect to certain conditions of employment
governing employees covered by Supplement No. 7. A question-
naire was sent out by the chairman of the regional directors' com-
mittee to the representatives of the carriers containing, among
others, the questions set forth below.
One of the questions reads as follows:
Is it necessary in yards, warehouses, offices, and elsewhere to work em-
ployees coming under the provisions of Supplement No. 7 more than eight
hours? If so, what number of hours?
In response to this query the following replies were received:
New York Central Railroad." It is necessary in yards, warehouses, and
other places regularly to work employees coming under the provisions of Sup-
DECISIONS.
47
plement No. 7 in excess of eight hours at points where the operation requires
service in excess of eight hours and less than sixteen hours, thereby preventing
two shifts. This condition generally does not obtain in large yards nor in
offices but does prevail in stations, freight houses, etc., which are open to the
public for eight hours and therefore necessarily required to exceed eight hours
from the employees. The excess hours required vary, but generally do not
exceed two hours."
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.-"As a general proposition, it is not necessary
in yards, warehouses, offices, and elsewhere to work employees coming under
the provisions of Supplement No. 7 more than eight hours a day, as an effort
has been made to place all such employees on an eight-hour basis. However,
we still have a few such employees who work from one to three hours over-
time, particularly at places where the business does not justify the employment
of two men or to take care of a temporary condition."
Pennsylvania Railroad.—“This condition does not obtain generally, but where
it is required the time worked in excess of eight hours is from one to three
hours, dependent upon the circumstances surrounding each case."
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad.-"Not necessary as a rule to work
employees coming under the provisions of Supplement No. 7 more than 8 hours
except in emergency. However, in accounting department some overtime is
required each month, not to exceed 12 hours for male clerks and 10 hours for
female clerks."
Chicago & North Western Railroad.—“ It is necessary in yards, warehouses,
and offices at some points to work employees coming under the provisions of
Supplement No. 7 in excess of 8 hours-9 to 10 hours."
Great Northern Railroad.---"Yes; in dining and sleeping car department; also
at warehouses, merchandise docks, and ore docks; 9 to 12.”
Northern Pacific Railroad.—"A portion of the men, yes; 9 to 11 hours."
Southern Region (including the Southern, Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard Air
Line, and Louisville & Nashville).—“As a general proposition it is not necessary
to work these employees more than eight hours. However, in several depart-
ments it is necessary to work employees 9 to 10 hours."
Pocahontas region (embracing the Chesapeake & Ohio, Norfolk & Western,
and Virginian Railroad).—“As a general proposition it is not necessary to work
employees coming under Supplement No. 7 more than 8 hours. We have in
yards and at small stations a considerable number of employees-such as bag-
gagemien, mailmen, gatemen, watchmen, etc., who are required to work more
than 8 hours, being assigned to 10 hours' service in a spread of 11 hours. The
payment of time and one-half time after 8 hours would considerably increase
this cost."
Central western region.—“ In yards, storehouses, freight houses, and ware-
houses where the business day of the public is greater than 8 hours it is nec-
essary for some railroad forces to be on duty to exceed 8 hours."
Southwestern region.—“Yes. In some cases at certain points and for certain
employees 9 and 10 hours."
Another question propounded to the carrier at that time was:
How prevalent are they, i. e., numerically, what percentage of these employees
are required to work more than 8 hours?
The answers from the carriers' representatives were as follows:
“5,366 out of a total of 27,430, or 19 per cent."
New York Central Railroad.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. "Not over 4 per cent."
Pennsylvania Railroad.-"Based on a check of 49,313 employees on the
Pennsylvania lines, east, classified under Supplement No. 7, 677 employees, or
1.4 per cent were required to work in excess of 8 hours."
Great Northern Railroad.-" Dining and sleeping car department, 5 per cent
or less required to work irregular hours and those only four months during
heaviest summer business; at Duluth forwarding station, seven men, and that
during the heavy shipping season; at Minneapolis, Minot, and other large
stations, only required occasionally to work force beyond 8 hours; at mer-
chandise docks, Superior, 10 men during lake shipping season only; at Allouez
Docks, 90 per cent of force."
NOTE.-Laborers on docks are excluded from the rules promulgated
by the Labor Board.
48
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Northern Pacific Railroad.-" Three to five per cent."
Southern region." The percentage varies throughout this region, but a
general average might be stated to be 10 to 20 per cent of the clerical em-
ployees in warehouses and freight terminals, etc."
Pocahontas region.—“Numerical percentage of employees required to work
more than 8 hours is possibly under 5 per cent of the total employees.”
Central western region—“It is estimated that not over 5 per cent of all the
employees coming under Supplement No. 7 now are assigned to more than eight
hours."
In this connection it is interesting to note the answers received to
the following question:
Would it be possible to work the employees coming under the provisions of
Supplement No. 7 on a 44-hour work week without punitive overtime in general
offices, division offices, warehouses, station ticket offices, and other miscella-
neous points?
New York Central Railroad.-" General office: Now generally on a 44-hour
week except for such employees as are necessary to the efficient operation of
train service. Division office: Now generally on a 44-hour week except such
employees as are necessary to the efficient operation of train service."
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.-Reply indicates that 44-hour week could be
established in general offices and warehouses, with a 5-per-cent increase in the
force and in division offices with a 25-to-30-per-cent increase in force.
Southern region.—“General offices and division offices: Yes; as a general
proposition, although this would not be practicable with a few employees in
the transportation offices."
Pocahontas region.-Reply indicates that all but 5 per cent of the employees
in the general offices and warehouses could be given a 44-hour week without
the payment of punitive overtime.
Central western region.-" In general offices with some few exceptions the
Saturday afternoon holiday is in vogue already; although on account of the
special statements required on short notice, it is occasionally necessary to work
Saturday afternoons.
Southwestern region.—“ On some of the lines it would be possible for the
reason that in certain offices, principally general offices, 44 hours per week are
being worked. On some roads it would be impossible, under present conditions,
as a number of clerks now work 45 hours per week. To work 44 hours per week
under such conditions would result in punitive overtime when paid in excess of
45 hours."
The summary of monthly reports made to the Interstate Com-
merce Commission by the Class I carriers showing employees, serv-
ice, and compensation for the month of July, 1921, shows the fol-
lowing hours worked by the various classes of employees covered
by the clerks' national agreement:
Hours worked per employee per month.

Classes of employees.
Clerks (b).
Clerks (c)
Mechanical device operators.
Stenographers and secretaries (a)…….
Stenographers and typists..
Storekeepers, etc..
Telephone switchboard operators, etc.
Messengers and office boys.
Elevator operators, etc..
Assistant general foremen, freight stations, warehouses, etc.
Baggagemen, agents, and assistants, parcel-room and station attendants..
General foremen, freight stations, warehouses, etc.
Gang foremen, freight stations, etc.
Callers, loaders, sealers, etc..
Truckers (stations, warehouses, and platforms)..
Laborers (coal and ore docks and grain elevators)……..
Common laborers, stations, warehouses, platforms, and grain elevators.
1 Less than one hour or day per month.
2 Days.
Straight Over-
time. time.
189
4
187
6
169
1
185
176
CC
202
179
32
2 24
(¹)
207
7
222
8
199
10
194
8
201
10
180
4
194
4
181
17
191
DECISIONS.
49
The above statement so clearly speaks for itself that very little
can be added except to call attention to the fact that in not a single
instance is the number of straight-time hours worked equivalent to
a full month of regularly assigned eight-hour days.
Referring to the paragraph in the dissenting opinion reading:
The clerks' rules govern a large class who are not clerks either by training
or special skill required-such as yard clerks, messenger boys, chore boys,
laborers, students, apprentices, etc.
The information reported to the Labor Board by the carriers in
connection with the new classification of employees will show that
yard clerks are among the most important clerks on the railroad and
that their work not only requires training and special skill but con-
siderable responsibility. As to the messenger boys, chore boys, and
laborers, attention is called to the statement herein shown giving the
number of such employees in the carriers' service as reported by
them to the Interstate Commerce Commission in the month of July,
1921. In regard to students and apprentices, it is assumed that
reference is made to so-called inexperienced clerks, but no accurate
figures are available as to the number of such employees in service.
Assuming, however, that all of the clerical employees reported under
the caption of "Clerks, Class B" to the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission are inexperienced, they still comprise a very small per-
centage of the total.
In the dissenting opinion it is stated that-
The work of all classes covered by this agreement is to an extent inter-
mittent and does not require constant application. With a lesser day than 10
hours the carrier can not, with economy and efficiency, meet the demands of
the public.
It is true that there are in railroad service some employees whose
service is, to a certain extent, intermittent and does not require con-
stant application, but they comprise a comparatively small number
of the total employees covered by the clerks' rules.
The number of employees by classes subject to the provisions of
the clerks' rules as reported by the carriers to the Interstate Com-
merce Commission for the month of July, 1921, is as follows:
Classes of employees.
Chief clerks (minor departments) and assistant chief clerks and super-
vising cashiers
Number
12, 087
13, 615
Clerks and clerical specialists (a)
Clerks (b).
Clerks (c)
Mechanical device operators.
Stenographers and secretaries (a)
Stenographers and typists (b)
Storekeepers, sales agents and buyers--
Telephone switchboard operators and office assistants_
128, 712
22, 543
6,896
3, 150
21,080
3.488
5,061
Messengers and office boys-
Elevator operators and other office attendants.
Watchmen (without police authority)
Janitors and cleaners__
Baggage agents, and assistants_
Baggage, parcel room and station attendants.
6.977
1,206
3,962
8, 025
876
Assistant general foremen (freight stations, warehouses, grain ele-
vators, and docks)
General foremen (freight stations, warehouses, grain elevators, and
docks)
10, 823
658
446
50
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Gang foremen (freight station, warehouse, grain elevator, and dock
labor) ____
Callers, loaders, scalers, sealers, etc__-
Truckers (stations, warehouses, and platforms)
Laborers (stations, warehouses, platforms, and grain elevators).
Total____.
Number.
3, 656
14, 670
36, 216
5, 646
309, 793
It will be noted that approximately 205,000 of these employees are
clerical workers. It has been conservatively estimated by certain
railroad managers that about 50 per cent of the clerical workers in
railroad service are employed in the general offices and certainly a
large percentage of the balance are in the larger freight stations,
division offices, and store departments where the work performed re-
quires continuous application throughout the entire tour of duty.
In any event, rule 49 of this decision (Decision No. 630) provides
that the 8 hours' work may be distributed within a spread of 12
hours without payment of any overtime.
The total number of laborers is approximately 45,000, and a large
majority of this class of employees are employed at the larger sta-
tions where intermittent service does not prevail, or if it does, rule
50 provides for the employment of fluctuating forces.
}
STATEMENT.
W. L. McMENIMEN.
•
BEN W. HOOPER.
G. W. W. HANGER.
I concur in the statement made by the majority, although opposed
to the provisions of rule 57 for reasons set out in the majority state-
ment and because the principle of punitive payment for overtime
after eight hours, for service of this character, is so well established
and so generally recognized, and for the further reason that it is not
my conception of the purpose of the transportation act, 1920, wherein
the Labor Board is charged with the duty of establishing "just and
reasonable" working conditions.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 631.-DOCKET 951.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics v. Chicago
and North Western Railway Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the right of
the International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics
to negotiate rules and working conditions affecting mechanical super-
visory forces of the above-named carrier.
Statement.-Written evidence was submitted by the respective
parties to this controversy, which was supplemented by oral presenta-
tion before the Labor Board. A summarization of the evidence so
submitted follows.
It is shown that on May 4, 1921, a communication was addressed to
Frank Walters, general manager of the Chicago & North Western
Railway, by a committee representing the International Association
DECISIONS.
51
of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics requesting a conference for the
purpose of negotiating rules and working conditions in accordance
with the provisions of Decision No. 119. On May 10, 1921, the
carrier advised the representative of the organization that arrange-
ments would be made to meet the committee as soon as possible and
would advise later with respect to the date of meeting.
On July 2, 1921, the general manager of the carrier in question
addressed another communication to the representative of the organi-
zation advising that the management had caused a canvass to be
made to determine if a majority of its supervisory foremen (loco-
motive and car departments) desired to have an organization repre-
sent them, and that the results of such canvas indicated that there
was not a majority of supervisory foremen who desired representa-
tion by the International Association of Railroad Supervisors of
Mechanics.
•
Upon failure on the part of that organization to secure conference,
an ex-parte submission was filed with the Labor Board setting forth
the claim of said organization to the right of representation of me-
chanical department foremen on that line, it being their contention
that they represent a majority of said foremen. They submit in evi-
dence a petition, circulated in April, 1921, bearing the signatures of
385 foremen, authorizing that organization to represent them in
agreement negotiations, which list it is claimed bears the names of a
majority of the foremen in the mechanical department.
It is further shown that in the latter part of May and the first
part of June the carrier submitted to each foreman a so-called ballot
which embodied the following items:
For the purpose of understanding as to wage and working condi-
tions, I desire to be represented by the management.___.
For the purpose of understanding as to wage and working condi-
tions, I desire to be represented by the Internatonal Association of
Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics_.

For the purpose of understanding as to wage and working condi-
tions, I desire to be represented by-
コロ
​These ballots were distributed by representatives of the carrier,
and were collected and counted by representatives of the carrier
without conference with or the assistance of representatives of the
organization herein referred to.
The result of this ballot was tabulated in accordance with the
order in which items appeared on the ballot, as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Not voting-
Total_
393
124
4
2
523
The carrier considers that the result of the above ballot clearly in-
dicates that the majority of the supervisory foremen do not desire
representation by the organization referred to.
At oral hearing conducted the carrier contended that no dispute
existed between it and the foremen as contemplated in section 301
of the transportation act, 1920, and that they have been personally ad-
vised by certain local representatives of the organization and indi-
52
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
vidual foremen that they do not desire to be represented by said or-
ganization, but desired to be considered in accordance with the first
item appearing on the ballot circulated by the carrier.
The representatives of the organization take exception to the
method followed by the carrier in canvassing foremen, and to the
wording of the question submitted to them in which it is asked
whether they desire to be represented by the carrier and consid-
ered and classed as officials. It is the claim of the organization that
the Interstate Commerce Commission has designated the classes of
the employees which shall be considered officials, and that the car-
rier has no right to vary from the provisions; that the foremen were
misled when the question was placed before them; and that the car-
rier should therefore recognize and deal with the duly authorized
representatives of the International Association of Railroad Super-
visors of Mechanics in accordance with the wishes of the men as
expressed in the petition circulated and signed immediately follow-
ing the promulgation of Decision No. 119 and prior to the canvass
of the foremen by representatives of the carrier.
Decision.-The Labor Board has taken cognizance of statements
made by representatives of the carrier that they do not feel that a
dispute within the meaning and intent of the transportation act,
1920, exists regarding this question. It is, however, definitely shown
that over 100 employees have designated the organization in ques-
tion to represent them. The board therefore considers that a dis-
pute does exist between the parties herein referred to, and accord-
ingly assumes jurisdiction of the case.
From the evidence submitted it is indicated that there has been
a lack of cooperation on the part of the interested parties in ascer-
taining the wishes of the foremen in regard to representation. It
is also noted that the petitions bear the names of general foremen
who are in the official class under the rulings of the Interstate Com-
merce Commission.
The method followed by both parties was not in accordance with
the meaning and intent of Decision No. 119, and it is therefore the
decision of the Labor Board that a conference shall be held as soon
as possible after receipt of this decision, at such place as the carrier
may designate, between the duly authorized representatives of the
carrier, the duly authorized representatives of the International As-
sociation of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics, the duly authorized
representatives of any other organization representing mechanical
foremen whose by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that the
organization was established for the purpose of performing the
functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of
the transportation act, 1920, and the duly authorized representatives
of 100 or more unorganized employees for the purpose of arriving
at a clear understanding as to the distribution, casting, counting, and
tabulation of the ballots and announcing the results thereof.
NOTE. Representatives of unorganized employees authorized and
desiring to attend this conference must have the individual and per-
sonal signature and authorization of not less than 100 employees
directly interested in the dispute; such authorization shall likewise
name the place of employment and their pay-roll classification.
DECISIONS.
53
BALLOTS.
The form of ballot shall be as follows:
CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY Co., SUPERVISORS OF MECHANICS.
OFFICIAL BALLOT.
A dispute exists between the carrier and the system council of the Inter-
national Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics as to whom the fore-
men above referred to desire to be represented by in handling matters relating
to rules and working conditions with the carrier.
The foremen, irrespective of membership or nonmembership in any organiza-
tion, are therefore to be given an opportunity to designate by a majority vote
the representation of their choice as follows:
Those who desire to be represented by system council, Interna-
tional Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics, mark an
X in this square-----
Those who desire to be represented by individuals or by any other
organization, write the name of such individual or organization here

and mark an X in this square..
Those who desire any other form of representation, mark an X
in this square__.
and indicate below the form of representation desired.
A separate ballot shall be prepared covering bridge and building
department foremen and distributed to such foremen of mechanics
in that department in the same manner as followed for other fore-
men. This ballot shall be considered separate and distinct from the
ballot covering other foremen and the result of the tabulation of said
ballots shall govern the question of representation for bridge and
building department foremen.
In preparing ballot for the bridge and building department fore-
men, the following should appear in addition to the information as
shown on the illustrative ballot above:
Those who desire to be represented by the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, mark an
X in this square__
In the conference which the Labor Board has directed to be held.
between the interested parties to this dispute preparatory to con-
ducting the ballot, the said authorized representatives shall make
such arrangements as will be necessary to preserve the absolute
secrecy of the above-referred-to ballot.
EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
All employees directly interested in this dispute who are included
in the transportation act as "subordinate officials" and who are in-
cluded in the act as within the jurisdiction of the Labor Board are
eligible to vote. The act provides that the term "subordinate offi-
cials" includes officials of carriers of such class or rank as the In-
terstate Commerce Commission shall designate by regulation duly
formulated and issued; therefore, this ballot is intended to apply
only to such classes of subordinate officials as are now or may here-
after be defined and classified by the Interstate Commerce Commis-
54
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
sion as such subordinate officials. This shall include all employees
coming under the provisions of this decision who have been tempo-
rarily demoted account of reduction in forces and employees who
have been laid off or furloughed and are entitled to return to the
service under the seniority rules when the force is restored to what
is generally recognized as constituting a normal force, if accessible,
which employees shall be furnished a ballot and be permitted to vote.
DISTRIBUTING, VOTING, AND COUNTING.
A general committee, composed of duly authorized representa-
tives of the carrier and the duly authorized representatives of any
organization or 100 or more unorganized employees participating
in accordance with the provisions of this decision, will be located at
designated places for the purpose of distributing, receiving, count-
ing, and tabulating the results of the ballot.
A local committee, composed of the duly authorized representa-
tives as above outlined, will be established at each division point for
the purpose of receiving, distributing, packing, and forwarding the
ballots by express or registered mail to the general committee.
Local committees will see that each employee is given every oppor-
tunity to vote and that his ballot is placed in envelope and sealed;
the local committee shall also keep a record of the ballots received.
Only the general committee is authorized to open envelopes and
count the ballots. Where the force is limited and the local committee
can not be procured, arrangements shall be made to place ballots in
the hands of such employees and they shall be properly instructed as
to the manner of getting their ballot to the general committee.
The ballot should be completed at the earliest possible date. No
one but the general committee is authorized to open, count, and tabu-
late the returns of the ballot, and all parties to the dispute are en-
titled to be present when any ballots are opened and counted.
When the ballots have been canvassed the result shall be reported
to the Labor Board, and the representatives of the carrier and the
employees will proceed with the negotiation of rules if the majority
vote in favor of such procedure.
If either party to this dispute believes that the spirit and intent
of this decision is not being complied with, the complaint should be
filed with the Labor Board with all supporting data.
DECISION NO. 632.-DOCKET 870.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rule 49 of the clerks' national agree-
ment to "other office and station employees" enumerated in para-
graph 2 of rule 1 of the agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handler, Express and Station
Employees.
Statement.-Prior to January 1, 1920, or the effective date of the
clerks' national agreement, "all other office and station employees "
DECISIONS.
55
on the New York Central Railroad, east of Buffalo, were paid
monthly rates which were converted into daily rates under rule 66
of the agreement. This basis of payment was continued in effect
until the carrier received Decisions Nos. 156 to 172, inclusive, of
the Labor Board. Effective July 1, 1921, the monthly basis of
compensation, as provided in rule 49 of the agreement, was restored.
On August 22 the representatives of the employees agreed with
the carrier to make a check of a number of positions at several
stations to determine if the employees were continuously applied
and subject to the application of rule 49. This check was made,
but a further difference of opinion arose regarding the extent of
identical time necessary to qualify the employees as not being con-
tinuously applied, and no definite disposition of the matter was
reached. It is admitted by the representatives of the employees
that had this check disclosed that any of the positions were prop-
erly subject to rule 49 the carrier would not be requested to com-
pensate the employees for the difference in earnings from July 1 to
the date it was agreed that the positions were properly placed un-
der rule 49.
The representatives of the carrier admit that if the check dis-
closed that any employees had been improperly placed under rule
49 they would have been restored to the daily basis and compensated
for the difference in earnings from July 1 to the date it was agreed
that the employees had been improperly placed on the monthly basis.
The carrier further admits that some of the positions which had
been placed on the monthly basis should not have been so classified,
but claim that certain others-which the employees are not willing
to admit are subject to rule 49-are subject to the provisions of
said rule.
The carrier contends that rule 49 permits of all the employees
enumerated in paragraph 2 of rule 1 being placed upon a monthly
basis and that the burden of demonstrating the exceptions to this
rests with the employees.
The employees contend that section 301 of the transportation act
was not complied with by the carrier in this case in that no confer-
ences were held prior to the change from the daily to the monthly
rates, and that principle 7 of Decision No. 119 was also violated in
this respect; and request that the carrier be directed to restore the
daily rates which were in effect prior to July 1, 1921, and that the
employees who were changed to a monthly basis be compensated for
the difference in their earnings since the change was made.
Decision. It is apparent from the evidence before the Labor
Board in this dispute that there are stations at which the employees.
subject to the provisions of this rule perform service that is intermit-
tent or does not require continuous application and to whom rule 49
manifestly applies. It is equally manifest that there are stations at
which the employees subject to the provisions of this rule perform
service which is not intermittent or does require continuous ap-
plication and to whom rule 49 does not apply.
The Labor Board believes that the representatives of the employees
and the carrier are fully capable of determining and deciding for
themselves in many instances the stations at which the provisions of
rule 49 should be applied to the positions designated as" other office
56
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and station employees." The board also recognizes that there are
many stations where the application of rule 49 to the employees who
are subject to its provisions may reasonably be a matter of dispute;
however, in order to decide the question, the details of the service-
particularly as to the degree of intermittency or the extent to which
continuous application is required—should be presented for the
board's consideration,
It is therefore ordered that this dispute shall be remanded to the
employees and the carrier and that their representatives shall con-
fer upon receipt of this decision and eliminate from the dispute the
employees at those stations where it is plainly manifest that rule 49
of the clerks' national agreement does or does not apply. Where an
agreement can not be reached, the employees and the carrier shall
jointly submit for the decision of the Labor Board their contentions
with respect to each specific position in dispute.
In the meantime it is ordered that at stations where the carrier is
willing to concede in the conference with the employees-held in
compliance with this decision-that rule 49 does not apply, they
shall restore such employees to the daily basis of pay and reimburse
all of the employees affected for the monetary loss sustained since
July 1, 1921. It shall also be understood that where the Labor Board
shall decide on the basis of evidence to be submitted that certain po-
sitions were improperly placed under rule 49 and readjustment is
ordered, such readjustment shall be retroactive to July 1, 1921.
DECISION NO. 633.-DOCKET 905.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees v. New York Central Rail-
road Co.
Question.-Application of rule 49 of the agreement of the Broth-
erhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Ex-
press and Station Employees to certain employees enumerated in
paragraph 2 of rule 1 thereof employed at Albany and Troy, N. Y.
Statement. Prior to January 1, 1920, or the effective date of the
clerks' national agreement, the employees involved in this dispute
were paid monthly rates, which were converted into daily rates.
under rule 66 of the agreement. This basis of payment was con-
tinued in effect until the carrier received Decisions Nos. 156 to 172,
inclusive, of the Labor Board. Effective July 1, 1921, the monthly
basis of compensation as provided in rule 49 of the agreement was
restored.
The employees contend that the employees at the stations named
are not properly subject to the provisions of rule 49 of the clerks'
national agreement, and, furthermore, that the carrier should not
have applied the provisions of this rule with the resultant decrease
in earnings until authorized to do so by the United States Railroad
Labor Board.
The carrier contends that the employees in question performed
service of an intermittent character which does not require con-
tinuous application, and therefore they should be paid under the
DECISIONS.
57
provisions of rule 49; and, further, that the action taken on July 1,
1921, was an appropriate correction of a misapplication of the rule.
Decision. It appears from the evidence before the Labor Board
in this case that all of the pertinent facts are similar to the facts
presented in dispute between the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees and the carrier named designated as Decision No. 632 and
it is therefore decided that the representatives of the carrier and
the employees shall make a further effort to settle this dispute in
conference in accordance with said decision and, failing to reach
an agreement, shall jointly submit for decision of the board their
contentions with respect to each specific position in dispute.
In the meantime it is ordered that where the carrier is willing to
concede in the conference with the employees-held in compliance
with this decision-that rule 49 does not apply, they shall restore
such employees to the daily basis of pay and reimburse all of the
employees affected for the monetary loss sustained since July 1,
1921. It shall also be understood that where the Labor Board shall
decide on the basis of evidence to be submitted that certain posi-
tions were improperly placed under rule 49 and readjustment is or-
dered, such readjustment shall be retroactive to July 1, 1921.
DECISION NO. 634.-DOCKET 723.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Dispute with reference to carrier abrogating past prac-
tice in regard to vacations, and request that clerical employees in
certain offices who were not granted annual vacation with pay in
the year 1921 will be compensated therefor.
Statement. The National Agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, the rules of which govern the working conditions of the
class of employees involved in this dispute, does not contain any
specific rule covering vacations, but under date of January 30, 1920,
the director, division of operation, United States Railroad Admin-
istration, issued the following instructions:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for the time lost account of vaca-
tions and sick leave, by employees covered by the national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on
this point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations
and sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
Prior to the effective date of the clerks' national agreement there.
was no agreement in effect in the department involved in this dispute
governing vacations, but it was the practice of the carrier to grant
annual vacations to certain employees when in the judgment of the
head of the department it was warranted and where it could be
granted without additional expense. In the month of October, 1920,
5.8
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
instructions were issued by the comptroller of the carrier discon-
tinuing vacations with pay or pay for employees paid on an hourly
or daily basis for time absent account of sickness. In the year 1921
many employees in the office involved in this dispute where annual
vacations with pay had previously been allowed were denied this
privilege.
The employees contend that under past practice the employees
in offices where vacations had previously been allowed are entitled
to annual vacations with pay and that this practice should not have
been rescinded by the carrier unless agreed to by the employees or
so decided by the Labor Board.
Decision. Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board continues in effect
the rules established by or under the authority of the United States
Railroad Administration until such rules are changed by mutual
agreement between the representatives of the employees and the
carrier or by decision of this board. The representatives of the
employees and the carrier having been unable to agree on a rule
covering the vacation privilege, the question is now before the Labor
Beard for decision.
Pending a decision by the board, the instructions of the director,
division of operation, of the United States Railroad Administration,
herein quoted, shall remain in effect. However, since the period
during which vacations are ordinarily granted has passed for the
year 1921, it is not practicable to require the carrier to allow vaca-
tions for that year and, for reasons set forth, it is not possible to
grant the employees any relief in this dispute.
The evidence shows that it was not the practice of the carrier to
compensate employees for annual vacations which were not granted,
and the claim of employees who were not granted annual vacation
with pay in the year 1921 for compensation in lieu thereof, is there-
fore denied.
DECISION NO. 635.-DOCKET 747.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.-Request that N. C. Grogan, train dispatcher, Deer
Lodge, Mont., who was laid off on account of reduction in force Jan-
uary, 1921, be permitted to exercise his seniority to a position in dis-
patchers' office at that point and reimbursed for monetary loss sus-
tained since the date he was laid off.
Statement. In January, 1921, Mr. Grogan was relieved as train
dispatcher, Deer Lodge, Mont., account of reduction in force, and
returned to service in the telegraph department.
The employees contend that when the reduction in force was made
night Chief Dispatcher Doud, who was younger in the service than
Train Dispatcher Grogan, was retained. The employees do not
claim that Dispatcher Grogan should be permitted to displace night.
Chief Dispatcher Doud, but that when the reduction in force was
made night Chief Dispatcher Doud, being younger in the service than
the train dispatchers in the office, should have been laid off and
DECISIONS.
59
Train Dispatcher Magett, who was also employed in the Deer Lodge
office and who had greater seniority in that office than Mr. Doud and
the requiste ability and merit to qualify for the night chief dis-
patcher's position, should have been permitted to exercise his senior-
ity rights thereto. It is claimed that if this had been permitted
there would have been created in the Deer Lodge office a vacancy
to which Dispatcher Grogan could have exercised his seniority.
The carrier contends that the action taken was proper and not in
conflict with the existing rules governing seniority for train dis-
patchers.
The Labor Board has decided, in Decision No. 623, that R. W.
Magett, train dispatcher, is not entitled to the position of night chief
dispatcher held by F. R. Doud.
Decision. It appears that the employees' contentions are based
upon a contingency which has not occurred; therefore, there is noth-
ing for the Labor Board to decide so far as N. C. Grogan's claim is
concerned. The case is therefore removed from the docket and the
file closed.
DECISION NO. 636.—DOCKET 782.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of F. H. Morton, platform
man, Los Angeles, Calif., dismissed from the service December 26,
1920.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, includ-
ing proceedings of hearing, the Labor Board decides that request
for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 637.-DOCKET 809.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. B. Constable, driver,
Elkins, W. Va., dismissed from the service on January 19, 1921.
Decision. Basing this decision on the evidence before it, includ-
ing proceedings of hearing, the Labor Board decides that request
for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 638.-DOCKET 848.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for increase in rates of pay of express mes-
sengers on trains operated by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
20936°-23—5
60
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Chicago, Ill., to equalize with rates
of pay of express messengers on trains operated by Cleveland, Cin-
cinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. between the same points.
Statement. The express messengers on trains of the Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway Co. between the points named receive $25 per
month less than express messengers on trains operated by the
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. between the
same points. The employees contend that this disparity in wages
constitutes an unjust inequality.
The carrier admits that the disparity exists, but contends that
such differentials have always existed and are warranted by dif-
ferences in working conditions and the greater importance of a
higher-paid run.
It is agreed by both parties to the dispute that all of the orders
and decisions of the Labor Board affecting the positions in dis-
pute have been properly applied.
Decision-Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 639.—DOCKET 864.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.-Request that J. W. Curry, train dispatcher, Deer Lodge,
Mont., who was laid off on account of reduction in force January,
1921, be permitted to exercise his seniority to a position in the dis-
patchers' office at that point and reimbursed for monetary loss sus-
tained since date he was laid off.
Statement. In January, 1921, Mr. Curry was relieved as train
dispatcher, Deer Lodge, Mont., account of reduction of force, and
returned to service in the telegraph department.
Employees contend that when the reduction in force was made
Night Chief Dispatcher Doud, who was younger in the service than
Train Dispatcher Curry, was retained. Employees do not claim
that Train Dispatcher Curry should be permitted to displace night
Chief Dispatcher Doud, but that when the reduction in force was
made night Chief Dispatcher Doud, being younger in the service than
the train dispatchers in the Deer Lodge office, should have been laid
off and Train Dispatcher Magett, who was also employed in the Deer
Lodge office and who had greater seniority in that office than Mr.
Doud and the requisite ability and merit to qualify for the night
chief dispatcher's position, should have been permitted to exercise
his seniority rights thereto. It is claimed that if this had been per-
mitted a vacancy would have been created in the Deer Lodge office
to which Dispatcher Curry could have exercised his seniority.
The carrier contends that the action taken was proper and not in
conflict with the existing rules governing seniority for train dis-
patchers.
The Labor Board has decided, in Decision No. 623, that R. W.
Magett, train dispatcher, is not entitled to the position of night chief
dispatcher held by F. R. Doud.
DECISIONS.
61
Decision. It appears that the contentions of the employees are
based upon a contingency which has not occurred; therefore, there
is nothing for the Labor Board to decide so far as J. W. Curry's
claim is concerned. The case is therefore removed from the docket
and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 640.-DOCKET 890.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of certain daily-rated employees in the ware-
house, Grand Rapids, Mich., for pay for Saturdays during the period
January 22 to March 5, 1921, on which days they were notified in
advance not to work.
Statement. It appears that in December, 1920, following a con-
ference with the representatives of the employees, arrangements
were made for one of each of the seven gangs of employees handling
freight at the station named to lay off one day each alternate week.
On January 22, 1921, it was arranged to close the warehouse on Sat-
urday of each week.
The employees claim that this latter arrangement was made with-
out conference or their consent, whereas the carrier states, and it is
not denied, that at least one of the committeemen representing the
employees at this point stated that the arrangements for closing the
freight house on Saturday of each week was more desirable to the
employees than that of laying off one gang each alternate week. It
appears that the carrier was not advised by any of the employees
of their unwillingness to subscribe to the closing of the freight house
on Saturdays during the period above stated.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that inasmuch as the em-
ployees accepted this arrangement without complaint and that no
protest was made by the employees' representative until March 10,
1921, five days after the six-day week had been restored, the claim
of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 641.-DOCKET 914.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of E. C. Anderson, interline
clerk, office of auditor of freight traffic, dismissed from the service on
June 16, 1921.
Statement. Mr. Anderson was dismissed from his position on
June 16, 1921. At hearing held by the Labor Board the representa-
tives of the employees stated that they were not seeking the rein-
statement of Mr. Anderson to position of interline clerk, but con-
tended that he should have been permitted to retain his seniority
62
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A
and bid in any position which might be vacant and which he was
competent to handle.
Since the dispute was submitted to the board Mr. Anderson has
been afforded an opportunity by the carrier to return to its service,
which offer he has not accepted on the grounds that he should be
reimbursed for monetary loss sustained since the date he left the
service.
Decision. Request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 642.-DOCKET 935.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to seniority date of F. H.
Thompson, clerk, superintendent's office, Jersey City, N. J.
•
Statement.-Mr. Thompson entered the service of the carrier
April 22, 1902, and filled various positions of a clerical nature in
station service until March 24, 1917, when he was relieved by the
agent in charge on the ground that his services were not satisfactory.
He later returned to the carrier's service under date of September
21, 1917. His seniority date was shown on the clerks' seniority ros-
ter as September 22, 1917, but has since been changed by the car-
rier to April 22, 1902. An employee who entered the service of the
carrier in the year 1913, and whose position has been abolished, is
now seeking to displace Mr. Thompson.
The carrier states that after Mr. Thompson was dismissed in 1917,
investigation revealed that his dismissal was unjust and he was
thereupon reinstated in the service. When the first clerks' seniority
roster was issued in 1920, in accordance with the provisions of the
clerks' national agreement, Mr. Thompson's seniority date was erro-
neously shown as September 22, 1917. The carrier contends that Mr.
Thompson, having been reinstated to the service in 1917, his seniority
date should be April 22, 1902.
The employees contend that Mr. Thompson was dismissed from
the service in March, 1917; that he was not reinstated, but was re-
employed; and that therefore his seniority date should be Septem-
ber 21, 1917.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the seniority of F. H.
Thompson shall date from April 22, 1902.
DECISION NO. 643.-DOCKET 1118.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
1.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper seniority date of G.
H. Boone, clerk, Hazelton, Pa.
DECISIONS. .
63
Decision.-At a hearing conducted by the Labor Board the rep-
resentatives of the carrier and the employees expressed a willingness
to make a joint investigation for the purpose of determining whether
or not the employee named was a clerk prior to June 16, 1918. If
after such investigation it is found that an agreement can not be
reached, the matter may be again submitted to the Labor Board in
accordance with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
With this understanding the dispute is removed from the docket
and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 644.-DOCKET 689.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Question.-How shall overtime under Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 apply to employees of the maintenance of way department
on the Colorado & Southern Railway?
Decision.-Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 covers the question in dispute.
DECISION NO. 645.-DOCKET 736.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question. How shall overtime under Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 apply to employees of the maintenance of way department
of the Norfolk & Western Railway?
Decision. Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 covers the question in dispute.
DECISION NO. 646.-DOCKET 984.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Question.-The question in dispute is in regard to the right of a
maintenance of way work-train conductor to have general charge of
both the train operation and the maintenance of way work.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted and applicable only
to the case in question, the Labor Board decides that the practice fol-
lowed by the carrier is not in violation of any rules or agreements
affecting maintenance of way employees and, therefore, sustains the
carrier's position.
64
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 647.-DOCKET 989.
Chicgo, Ill., January 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question. Should A. J. Miller, roustabout carpenter, Knoxville
division, be paid for travel time under section (m), Article V of the
national agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, or should he be paid
under section (2), Article V, of said agreement?
Statement. Reference is made in this submission to the following
sections of Article V of the national agreement covering maintenance.
of way employees:
ARTICLE V.
(b) No assigned hours will be designated for employees performing inter-
mittent service, requiring them to work, wait, or travel, as regulated by train
service and the character of their work, and where hours can not be definitely
regulated.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Employees temporarily or permanently assigned to duties requiring vari-
able hours, working on or traveling over an assigned territory and away from
and out of reach of their regular boarding and lodging places or outfit cars,
will provide board and lodging at their own expense and will be allowed time
at the rate of 10 hours day at pro-rata rates and in addition pay for actual
time worked in excess of 8 hours on the bases provided in these rules, excluding
time traveling or waiting. When working at points accessible to regular
boarding and lodging places or outfit cars, the provisions of this rule will not
apply.
(m) Employees not in outfit cars will be allowed straight time for actual
time traveling by train, by direction of the management, during or outside of
regular work period or during overtime hours either on or off assigned territory,
except as otherwise provided for in these rules. Employees will not be allowed
time while traveling in the exercise of seniority rights or between their homes
and designated assembling points or for other personal reasons.
Reference is also made to the decision handed down by Railway
Board of Adjustment No. 3 in Docket M-706, dated July 26, 1920,
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers per-
taining to "roustabout carpenters.
""
Decision.-Roustabout carpenters who have a regularly assigned territory to
keep up and no headquarters or assigned hours and who direct their own work
come under section (b) of Article V and shall be paid under section (i),
Article V of the national agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
Roustabout carpenters who have regular headquarters, a regular starting
time, and who work under the direction of the management, come under section
(m), Article V of said agreement.
During the period March, 1920, to December, 1920, inclusive, A. J.
Miller was employed as a roustabout carpenter and was assigned
to the duty of taking care of small miscellaneous repairs to the
carrier's buildings on its Knoxville division. His headquarters were
located at Knoxville, Tenn., where a supply of materials was kept.
Foreman Carr, who with his gang lived in boarding cars which
were moved as occasion required from place to place on the Knox-
DECISIONS.
65
ville division, carried Mr. Miller on his pay roll. Mr. Miller reported
to and received instructions from Foreman Carr, as well as from
Mr. King, supervisor of bridges and buildings. After being in-
structed regarding the work to be done, Mr. Miller went out alone
and worked under his own supervision. Mr. Miller did not live in
these boarding cars because his work could be done to better advan-
tage from his headquarters in Knoxville.
Mr. Miller handled most of this repair work without instructions
from anyone, because in going over the line if he saw anything in
his line of work in a dangerous condition it was his duty to make the
repair and put it in safe condition without orders from anyone;
however, after doing so he was expected to report to Foreman Carr
what repairs were made and what material was used in order that
the cost of the work could be charged to the proper account.
Mr. Miller went to and from his work on regular passenger
trains. This roustabout work was regulated by train service which
required variable hours, hence Mr. Miller had no regularly as-
signed hours but was allowed 10 hours per day at pro-rata rate in
accordance with section (i) of Article V of the national agreement.
It is the contention of the employees that section (m), herein
quoted, is applicable to the employee in question and that he should
be compensated accordingly for the time so served.
It is the contention of the carrier that section (i), herein quoted,
is properly applicable to this employee and that he has therefore
been properly paid.
Decision. The position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 648.-DOCKET 1002.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Kansas City Terminal Rail-
way Co.
Question. What is the proper application of Addendum No. 2 to
Decision No. 119 as it applies to the maintenance employees in the
signal department of the Kansas City Terminal Railway Co. who
are regularly assigned to work seven days per week?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in this case in-
dicates that while the Kansas City Terminal Railway Co. was not
specifically listed in Decision No. 119, the signal department main-
tenance employees and the management of that property mutually
agreed that the provisions thereof would be made applicable to
that line, and pursuant to the issuance of said Decision No. 119
they accordingly entered into negotiations regarding the revision
of rules and working conditions. It is admitted by representatives
of both the carrier and the employees that Decision No. 119 and
addenda thereto were considered as applicable to the carrier and
the employees in question.
It is shown in the evidence submitted that prior to the period
of Federal control of railroads, an agreement was in effect gov-
erning the signal department employees, in which was incorpo-
66
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
rated the following rule covering regularly assigned Sunday and
holiday work:
No extra compensation will be allowed maintenance men who work on a
monthly basis for Sundays and holidays, unless called for extra duty.
In accordance with the provisions of Supplement No. 4 to
General Order No. 27, issued by the United States Railroad Admin-
istration, the employees in question were allowed payment at the
rate of time and one-half for Sunday and holiday work up to July
1, 1921, the effective date of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119,
on which date the overtime conditions prevailing prior to Govern-
ment control for regular assigned seven-day workers were reestab-
lished.
The represenatives of the employees take the position that Deci-
sion No. 119 and Addendum No. 2 thereto do not abrogate the pro-
visions of agreement entered into between the carrier and its em-
ployees dated May 1, 1919, which agreement it is claimed is still in
force and effect, except for the payment of overtime, but contend
that said Decision No. 119 and Addendum No. 2 thereto had reference
to the so-called national agreements promulated by the United States
Railroad Administration.
While the employees and the carrier have entered into negotia-
tions pursuant to Decision No. 119 for the purpose of reaching an
agreement covering rules and working conditions, no agreement has
as yet been arrived at nor has a proposed agreement been submitted
to the Labor Board for its consideration. It is the employees' con-
tention that pending the submission to the board of disputed rules
and the issuance of a decision thereon that the overtime conditions
specified in agreement dated May 1, 1919, should remain in force and
effect.
Decision-In view of the acceptance of the provisions of Decision
No. 119 as being applicable to the carrier and the employees in ques-
tion, it is the decision of the Labor Board that Addendum No. 2
thereto shall likewise be considered applicable.
The Labor Board further decides that the carrier has complied
with the meaning and intent of said Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 in reestablishing the overtime conditions in effect prior to
the issuance by the United States Railroad Administration of any
supplement to General Order No. 27.
DECISION NO. 649.-DOCKET 1147.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Question. How should the increase in wages granted by Decision
No. 2 be applied to laborers working around storerooms, scrap docks,
and material yards?
Statement.-The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts-In applying Decision No. 2 to the above-named
laborers, they were granted only 84 cents per hour. Special assigned men,
gang leaders, and truck drivers were granted 12 and 13 cents per hour increase.
DECISIONS.
67
The employees in question are under the jurisdiction of the general storekeeper
and their work consists of transferring, loading, and unloading all kinds of
company material, assorting and loading and unloading all kinds of scrap iron
under the supervision of foreman.
Employces' position.-We contend that laborers doing the class of work
mentioned in the statement of facts should have been granted 12 cents per
hour increase instead of 83 cents. We base our contention on the words "and
others similarly employed" of section 7, Article II of Decision No. 2.
Carrier's position.-These men do common laborers' work under direct
supervision of foremen and subforemen, assume no responsibility, require no
knowledge of materials, and are entitled to an increase of 83 cents per hour
under section 9, Article IX, of Decision No. 2.
Decision. The evidence indicates that the carrier has properly
applied Decision No. 2 to the employees in question and their position
is accordingly sustained.
DECISION NO. 650.-DOCKET 1148.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the claim of
Albert Pawlisch, Edward Roger, and E. F. Loas, bridge and build-
ing department, Madison division, for compensation under the pro-
visions of section (f), Article V, of the agreement covering main-
tenance of way employees and railway shop laborers for deadheading
from their home to a point of employment, 7 a. m. to 10 a. m., Mon-
day morning, November 1, 1920.
Statement. This dispute was submitted to the Labor Board in
ex-parte form, it being indicated that an effort had been made to
adjust the matter prior to submission to the board, but that an
agreement could not be effected. The claim in question is for the
payment of three hours' back time to three employees for time trav-
eling from their home point to point at which their outfit cars were
located after having spent Sunday at their home point.
While the Labor Board must, in accordance with provisions of
the transportation act, 1920, accept jurisdiction over disputes which
can not be decided between the parties thereto, there is imposed upon
the carriers and their officers, employees, and agents the duty to
exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available means to ad-
just grievances that may arise. The board does not understand that
the spirit and intent of the transportation act has been complied
with in the handling of this dispute by the parties thereto, and is,
therefore, reluctant to assume jurisdiction in a case of such minor
importance until it can be definitely established that a proper effort
has been made to effect a settlement.
Decision-In view of the circumstances above cited, the Labor
Board remands this case and directs that the spirit and intent of
the labor provisions of the transportation act. 1920, be given proper
consideration by the parties to this dispute. Upon evidence that this
has been done and no agreement reached, the board will render its
decision.
68
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 651.—DOCKET 1150.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Knights of Labor v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question. Should punitive rates be paid after eight hours' service,
or the same number of hours after which it was paid prior to Fed-
eral control, pending further decisions of the United States Railroad
Labor Board?
Decision.-Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 covers the question in dispute.
DECISION NO. 652.-DOCKET 847.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of certain platform employees in the express
service at Nashville, Tenn., for additional compensation alleged to
be due under the proper application of the rules governing their
conditions of employment.
Statement. There are employed at Nashville, Tenn., a number of
porters who are, and have been for many years, paid on a daily
basis. Prior to the application of Decision No. 3 of the Labor Board
their rates of pay were $2.75 and $3 per day. When these employees
work seven days a week they receive seven days' pay at the rate of
their position, and if a less number of days are worked they receive
pay for the actual number of days worked.
The employees contend that employees heretofore paid on a
monthly or weekly basis were given the benefit of a 306 divisor in
computing the daily rate of their position, and that to not apply the
same principle to the employees involved in this dispute who are
paid on a daily basis constitutes a discrimination. It is therefore
requested that the daily rate of the employees in question shall be
multiplied by 365, the number of days constituting their yearly as-
signment, and divided by 306, thus establishing for the employees
who are regularly assigned to work seven days per week a daily rate
of pay of 49 cents in excess of the rate per day paid such employees
by the American Railway Express Co.
The carrier contends that prior to February 15, 1920, the effective.
date of the agreement between the employees and the carrier, the
employees involved in this dispute received pay for all time worked
on Sundays and are now receiving pay for work performed on Sun-
days. When this agreement went into effect it obviously benefited
only employees who were receiving no additional compensation for
Sunday work; furthermore, the fact that the rules thereof pertain-
ing to the rate of pay did not operate to increase the compensation
of employees paid on a daily basis was because they were then and
had been previously receiving extra pay for work performed on
Sundays.
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
69
DECISION NO. 653.-DOCKET 1007.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request that express messengers on trains operated
over the Lehigh Valley and Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Rail-
roads between Buffalo, N. Y., and Jersey City, N. J., and Buffalo,
N. Y., and Hoboken, N. J., respectively, be increased to equalize with
wages of express messengers on trains operated over the New York
Central Railroad between Buffalo, N. Y., and New York, N. Y.
Statement.—The express messengers on trains of the Lehigh Val-
ley and Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroads between Buffalo,
N. Y., and Jersey City, N. J., and Buffalo, N. Y., and Hoboken, N. J.,
are paid at the rate of $168.40 per month. The express messengers
on trains of the New York Central Railroad between Buffalo, N. Y.
and New York, N. Y., are paid at the rate of $183.40 per month.
The employees contend that this disparity in wages constitutes an
unjust inequality which should be adjusted by increasing the rates
of pay of the messengers on the trains operated over the rails of the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. and Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroad Co. to equalize with rates paid messengers on trains oper-
ated by the New York Central Railroad Co. between the points above
named. The carrier admits that the disparity exists, but contends
that such differentials have always existed and are warranted by
the differences in the conditions and the relative importance of the
runs.
It is not denied by the employees that all of the orders, agree-
ments, rules, and decisions affecting the rates of pay of the em-
ployees involved in this dispute have been properly applied.
Decision.-Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 654.-DOCKET 1009.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request that express messengers on trains Nos. 15
and 16, of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway
Co., between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Chicago, Ill., be increased to
equalize their wages with the rates of pay of express messengers on
trains Nos. 43 and 34 of the same carrier operated between the same
stations.
Statement. The express messengers on trains Nos. 15 and 16, of
the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., be-
tween Cincinnati, Ohio, and Chicago, Ill., are paid at the rate of
$168.40 per month. Express messengers on trains Nos. 43 and 34 of
the same carrier and operated between the same stations are paid at
the rate of $178.40 per month.
The employees contend that this disparity in wages constitutes an
unjust inequality which should be adjusted by increasing the rates
70
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
of pay of the express messengers on trains Nos. 15 and 16 to equalize
their wages with the wages paid express messengers on trains Nos.
43 and 34 operated between the same points. The carrier admits
that the disparity exists, but contends that such differentials have
always existed and that they are warranted by differences in working
conditions and the relative importance of the runs.
The evidence shows that all of the orders and decisions affecting
the wages of the employees involved in this dispute have been prop-
erly applied.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 655.-DOCKET 1055.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request that train agents on trains operated over the
Pennsylvania Railroad between Pittsburgh, Pa., and Chicago, Ill.,
be increased to equalize their wages with the wages of train agents
on trains over the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail-
way between the same stations.
Statement. It appears that the train agents on the trains of the
Pennsylvania System between Pittsburgh, Pa., and Chicago, Ill., are
paid a rate of $17.50 per month less than train agents on trains
operated by the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway
Co. between those stations.
The employees contend that this disparity in wages constitutes
an unjust inequality which should be adjusted by increasing the
wages of the train agents on the trains operated by the Pennsylvania
System to the rates of train agents on trains operated by the Cleve-
land, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
The carrier admits that the disparity exists, but contends that such
differentials have always existed and that they are warranted by
differences in working conditions and the relative importance of the
runs.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 656.-DOCKET 1025.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for increase in pay of express messengers on
trains operated by the Norfolk & Western Railway Co. between
Bristol and Lynchburg, Va., to equalize with the rates of pay of
express messengers on other trains operated by the same carrier be-
tween stations named.
Statement. It appears that there is a difference of $15 a month
between the express messengers on trains Nos. 13, 14, 17, 18, 30, and
DECISIONS.
71
37 as compared with the messengers on trains Nos. 1, 2, 11, and 12
of the Norfolk & Western Railway Co. between Bristol and Lynch-
burg, Va.
The employees contend that this disparity in wages constitutes
an unjust inequality which should be adjusted by increasing the
wages of the express messengers to the highest rate paid that class
of employees on trains operated between the points named.
The carrier admits that a disparity exists as stated by the em-
ployees, but contends that such differentials have always existed and
that they are warranted by differences in working conditions and
the relative importance of the runs.
It is agreed by the parties to the dispute that all of the orders
and decisions affecting the wages of the employees involved have
been properly applied.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 657.-DOCKET 1138.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of the employees that Martha Hopkins, who was
laid off on account of reduction in force, had sufficient seniority to
entitle her to position of night clerk, Michigan City, Ind.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute, and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 658.-DOCKET 1139.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of the employees that Fred Leonard, freight
handler, Joliet, Ill., who was laid off on account of reduction in
force January 6, 1921, be reinstated to his former position and paid
for all time lost.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute, and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 659.-DOCKET 1048.
Chicago, Ill., January 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for increase in wages of express messengers
on trains operated between Pittsburgh, Pa., Fort Wayne, Ind., and
+72
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Chicago, Ill., to equalize with the highest rate paid express mes-
sengers on trains running between the stations named.
Statement. It appears that one group of messengers on trains
operated between Pittsburgh, Pa., Fort Wayne, Ind., and Chicago,
Ill., are paid at a rate which is $10 per month higher than that paid
certain other express messengers on trains operated between the same
stations.
The employees contend that this disparity in wages constitutes
an unjust inequality, which should be adjusted by increasing the rates
of the lower-paid messengers to the highest rate paid express mes-
sengers on trains operated between these stations.
The carrier admits that the disparity exists, but contends that
such differentials have always existed and that they are warranted
by differences in working conditions and the relative importance of
the runs.
It is agreed by both parties to the dispute that all of the orders
and decisions affecting the wages of the employees involved have
been properly applied.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 660.-DOCKET 1124.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of Mrs. E. B. Pemberton for the right to exercise
her seniority in connection with reduction of force, car record office,
Wilmington, N. C.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute, and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 661.—DOCKET 1131.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of Clay Taylor for the right to exercise his
seniority rights to position of express messenger on trains operated
between Cairo, Ill., and New Orleans, La.
Statement.-Mr. Taylor is employed as express messenger, and
under date of January 3, 1920, he made request to exercise his
seniority rights on an express-messenger run on trains operated be-
tween Cairo, Ill., and New Orleans, La. His request was denied on
the ground that he resides at Fulton, Ky., and the carrier requires
the messenger on this run to reside at the home terminal thereof.
DECISIONS.
73
The employees state that Mr. Taylor owns a home in Fulton, Ky.,
where he can reside to best advantage and contend that he is entitled
to the run between Cairo and New Orleans. It is further claimed
that at least one other employee has been permitted to reside at a
place other than at the home terminal of his run and that to deprive
Mr. Taylor of the same privilege constitutes an unjust discrimina-
tion.
The carrier states that owing to the uncertainty of train service
it is necessary to call upon train employees to perform extra service
and that express messengers who elect to reside at a distance from
the terminals of their runs and who are not available for such extra
service are not desired on important runs. The carrier contends
that when Mr. Taylor applied for the run in question he was ad-
vised that he would be assigned to it provided he would maintain.
a residence at the home terminal thereof, but this he declined to do.
The carrier further contends that its action in this case is consistent
with a practice and requirement which is reasonable and essential to
economic and efficient operation.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 662.-DOCKET 1132.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper compensation for an
employee required to perform extra service on train on which there
was no regular express messenger assignment.
Statement.-C. A. Doerr, an employee of the express company,
was instructed to accompany a carload of horses from St. Louis,
Mo., to Indianapolis, Ind. This service was performed on a train
on which there is no regular express messenger assignment, and Mr.
Doerr was paid at the express messenger helpers' rate of pay.
The employees contend that Mr. Doerr was in full charge of the
carload of horses, was acting as a messenger on a run where there
was no regular messenger service, and is therefore entitled to com-
pensation at the messengers' rates of pay. They further contend
that a helper must necessarily be an assistant or in a position where
he is helping a messenger, and that in this instance the employee
was not helping another individual, but was performing the regular
duties of a messenger in attending the car of horses in his charge.
The carrier states that compensation for the service performed by
Mr. Doerr is clearly provided for by rule 73, section C, of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier, effective February 15,
1920, reading as follows:
If employed in train service where there is no regular assignment, they shall
be paid 50 cents per hour (40 cents per hour for helpers), with a minimum
guaranty of eight hours.
The carrier further states that there is no dispute with the em-
ployees regarding the character of the service or the rule governing
74
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
same, or as to the correctness of the rates paid; that the only dispute
is whether or not Mr. Doerr is entitled to compensation under the
rule above quoted as a messenger or as a helper.
The carrier contends that the employee in question did not ride in
the car with the horses, but rode in a coach or other car on the same
train and carried the waybill covering the car. The carrier admits
that there was no messenger on the same train, but contends that the
character of service performed under these circumstances did not con-
stitute messenger service and should not be paid for at the mes-
sengers' rate. It is further claimed that the rule herein quoted is
intended to apply only when the service performed by the employee
is that of express messenger and not when the only duty consists in
acting as an attendant or guard.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
*
DECISION NO. 663.-DOCKET 1181.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Joseph Union Depot Railroad.
Question. Request for reinstatement of L. E. Merritt, dismissed
from the service on January 18, 1921.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, including
proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 664.-DOCKET 1230.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute concerning the right of Frances T. Graham
and four other employees engaged as rate clerks, Philadelphia, Pa.,
whose positions were abolished, to exercise their seniority' to positions
of waybill writers held by junior employees.
Decision. At the hearing conducted on this case it was found that
the evidence in the dispute is not sufficiently clear for the Labor
Board to render a decision thereon. The case is, therefore, returned
to the parties at interest and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 665.-DOCKET 1231.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper classification and rate
of pay of D. Keane, platform man, Chicago, Ill.
DECISIONS.
75
Statement. The employee in question is classified as a platform
man and paid at the rate of $30.76 per week. The rate of pay for
assorters at the same office is $34.22 per week.
The employees contend that when the employee involved in this
dispute entered the service at Chicago on September 19, 1920, he was
required to perform the duties of an assorter, to familiarize himself
with the details of routes, and to acquire other knowledge of the
work necessary for the efficient performance thereof; that he was re-
quired to become familiar with all of the changes in routes and other
handling of the work of which the employees classified as assorters
were advised; and that he assumed responsibility for any irregulari-
ties in the handling of express packages which he may have handled.
The employees further contend that the employee in question should
be assigned to the higher-rated position of assorter provided his
seniority is sufficient, and that he should be paid the difference be-
tween the rate of that position and the rate of the position he has
held in the service since September 19, 1920.
The carrier contends that the employee in question was not an
assorter or he would have been paid at the rate of pay of that posi-
tion. It was admitted that he was from time to time afforded an
opportunity to learn an assorter's work, and it is claimed that it is
a common and recognized practice for employees holding one posi-
tion to familiarize themselves with the work of other positions in
order to qualify themselves for promotion. The carrier further con-
tends that the work performed by the platform man involved in this
dispute was substantially the same as work performed by other
employees in the same occupational group and receiving the same
compensation; that he accepted the position with a full knowledge
of the rates of pay and the nature of the work; and that he con-
tinued thereon for approximately nine months before any exception
was taken to either his classification or rate of pay.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 666.-DOCKET 1234.
Chicago, Ill., January 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request of Inspectors A. A. Price and J. R. Lodge for
increase in compensation to equalize the rate of their positions with
the rate paid employees classified as street inspectors, Philadelphia,
Pa.
Statement. The employees named above are classified as inspec-
tors and paid at the rate of $100 per month. The street inspectors
referred to are paid at the rate of $130 per month. The work per-
formed by the employees classified as inspectors was transferred to
other positions on June 18, 1920.
The employees contend that during the period for which claim
is presented, namely, March 1 to June 18, 1920, the employees classi-
fied as inspectors were doing exactly the same work as that per-
formed by those classified as street inspectors, and that they should
20936°——23- -6
· 76
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
have been paid at the same rate as that of the latter employees, i. e.,
$130 per month. This claim is made on a basis of the language in
section (b), Article I, Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27
of the United States Railroad Administration, which provides for
equalizing the rate of pay of employees doing relatively the same
class of work at the same agency.
The carrier states that Messrs. Price and Lodge occupied positions
designated as inspectors and that their duties consisted of collect-
ing prepays and expense for a period of about seven hours per day
and inspecting bad-order shipments about one hour per day; and
that the duties of the street inspectors-whose correct title is "Street
inspectors of vehicle service"-consist of direct supervision over all
vehicles operated in a designated territory, keeping in touch with the
shippers, and arranging for wagon service. The carrier contends
that there is no similarity whatever between the duties of the two
classes of inspectors herein referred to and that the employees in-
volved were not performing the same work at the same agency as
contemplated by section (b) of Article I, Supplement No. 19 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27.
Section (b), above referred to, reads in part as follows:
(b) Where two or more employees are assigned to the same agency, or mes-
senger run, and performing the same general duties at different rates of pay,
the pay of the position as of January 1, 1918, mentioned in section (a) shall
be assumed to be the highest standard wage paid by any of the express com-
panies succeeded by the American Railway Express Co. for that position, it
being the intent to equalize the rates of pay for the same work at the same
agency, or upon the same messenger run
Decision.Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 667.-DOCKET 1016.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of W. H. Grace, who was
employed as driver, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Decision-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 668.-DOCKET 1021.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question-Request that suspension of 10 days given L. Kinney.
Matawan, N. J., be canceled and that he be reimbursed for the mone-
tary loss sustained by reason of serving said suspension.
DECISIONS.
77
Statement. Mr. Kinney was suspended from the service for a
period of 10 days without pay for alleged neglect of duty in having
failed to unload a shipment of freight from a car at Matawan, N. J.
The employees contend that Mr. Kinney did remove all of the
freight that it was possible for him to remove from the car and
placed same in the warehouse in accordance with instructions, and
that he left in the car the freight referred to in order to avoid ex-
posure to theft and inclement weather.
The carrier contends that the employee was given an investiga-
tion in accordance with the rules of the agreement, at which it was
shown that he failed to satisfactorily perform the duties of his posi-
tion and was therefore disciplined with a suspension of 10 days.
Decision-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, the La-
bor Board decides that the claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 669.-DOCKET 1022.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of Miss
E. Stolpman, stenographer, district accountant's office, Chattanooga,
Tenn.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board both
parties to the dispute expressed a willingness to conduct a further
joint investigation thereof, with a view to developing certain infor-
mation which may enable them to reach a settlement of the dispute.
With this understanding the dispute is remanded to the parties at
interest and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 670.-DOCKET 1023.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Shall the increase granted to employees in express serv-
ice at Taunton, Mass., under Article II of Decision No. 3, be added
to the rates in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, or shall the increase
be added to the rates which include increases granted by the carrier
since that date?
Statement.-Article II, Decision No. 3, issued by the Labor Board,
reads in part as follows:
For each of the hereinafter-named classes, add the following amounts per
hour to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m. March 1, 1920, provided that in-
creases in rates of pay made since March 1, 1920, where such increases were
made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities, will be preserved and the in-
creases herein established added thereto.
During the month of March, 1920, certain employees in the express
service at Taunton, Mass., received increases of from $5 to $10 per
month.
78
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees, contend hat the increases granted after March 1,
1920, were for the purpose of adjusting inequalities within the mean-
ing and intent of the language of Decision No. 3, above quoted, and
that the increases set forth in said decision should therefore be added
to the rates established after March 1, 1920.
The carrier states that the increases granted by Decision No. 3
were added to the rates of pay in effect March 1, 1920, and contends
that the increases granted after March 1, 1920, were not for the
purpose of adjusting inequalities, but on the contrary were made
to retain employees who had threatened to leave the service if in-
creases were not granted. The carrier further contends that there
is no fixed relationship between the positions in the express service
at Taunton and positions in other towns in the district in which
Taunton is located, and that the term "adjusting inequalities," as
used in Decision No. 3, has reference solely to inequalities in the rates
of pay of positions in the same office or on the same messenger run.
The Labor Board does not consider the increases granted to the
employees in express service at Taunton, Mass., referred to in this
dispute as increases made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities
within the meaning and intent of Article II of Decision No. 3.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the increases granted
under Article II of Decision No. 3 shall be added to the rates of pay
in effect 12.01 a. m. March 1, 1920.
Claim of the employees is, therefore, denied.
DECISION NO. 671.-DOCKET 1024.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for increase in rate of pay of receiving clerks
at the Union Depot, Portland, Oreg., to equalize with rates paid
counter clerks in the city office at that point.
Statement. The receiving clerks in the express office at the Union
Depot, Portland, Oreg., are paid at the rate of $142.64 per month.
The counter clerks in the city office at the same point are paid at the
rate of $147.64 per month.
The employees contend that the duties of the receiving clerks in
the Union Depot office and the counter clerks in the city office are
identical and that the disparity in wages which exists constitutes
an unjust inequality which should be adjusted in accordance with.
section (b), Article I, Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27
of the United States Railroad Administration.
The carrier contends that the duties of the positions herein referred
to are not identical and that the employees are not performing the
same work at the same agency with the intent of section (b), Article
I. Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27, which reads as
follows:
(b) Where two or more employees are assigned to the same agency, or mes-
senger run, and performing the same general duties at different rates of pay,
the pay of the position as of January 1, 1918, mentioned in section (á), shall
DECISIONS.
79
be assumed to be the highest standard wage paid by any of the express com-
panies succeeded by the American Railway Express Co. for that position, it
being the intent to equalize the rates of pay for the same work at the same
agency, or upon the same messenger run, to which will be added the increase
of $25 per month.
**
다
​Decision.-Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 672.-DOCKET 1056.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of E. M. Steele, messenger,
San Angelo, Tex.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, includ-
ing the proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 673.-DOCKET 1058.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Order of Railway Expressmen v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Shall the increases granted to express messengers on
certain trains terminating at Portland, Me., under Article II of deci-
sion No. 3 be added to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1,
1920, or shall the increases be added to the rates of pay which include
increases granted by the carrier after March 1, 1920?
Statement.-Article II, Decision No. 3 of the Labor Board reads in
part, as follows:
For each of the hereinafter-named classes, add the following amounts per
hour to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, provided that in-
creases in rates of pay made since March 1, 1920, where such increases were
made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities, will be preserved and the
increases herein established added thereto.
The employees in question received subsequent to 12.01 a. m., March
1, 1920, an increase of $15 per month. Upon the issuance of Deci-
sion No. 3, the express company applied the increase specified therein
for the classes of employees involved in this dispute to the rate of
pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, thus absorbing the increase of
$15 per month granted the messengers in question after March 1,
1920.
The employees claim that the increase of $15 per month granted
by the carrier was made in connection with a change in the terminals
of the runs to which the messengers in question were assigned, and a
resultant increase in mileage and hours on duty. The employees
therefore contend that the increase granted by the carrier after
March 1, 1920, was for the purpose of adjusting an inequality within
the meaning and intent of the language of Article II of Decision
80
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
No. 3, above quoted, and that the increase specified therein should,
therefore, be added to the rate established after March 1, 1920.
The carrier contends that the increases granted these messengers
were simply increases granted in the usual course of business and in
compliance with an application made by them for an increase in
compensation. The carrier further contends that the increases were
not granted for the purpose of adjusting inequalities within the
meaning and intent of the language of Article II of Decision No. 3.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on a basis of the evidence
before it that the increases granted to the messengers in question sub-
sequent to March 1, 1920, were not for the purpose of adjusting
inequalities within the meaning and intent of Article II of Decision
No. 3, and that the increases granted by said article of said decision
shall, therefore, be added to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m.,
March 1, 1920.
DECISION NO. 674.—DOCKET 1168.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Claim of Thurlow Harmon, clerk, general superin-
tendent's office, Parsons, Kans., for pay for time absent from duty
on account of sickness.
Decision.-The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute, and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 675.-DOCKET 1169.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of W. C. Peters, clerk,
Nevada, Mo., dismissed from the service March 3, 1921.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute, and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 676.-DOCKET 977.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago & North Western
Railway Co.
Question.-Shall G. L. Hutchinson, train dispatcher, Eagle Grove,
Iowa, be paid for time absent during the month of March, 1921,
account of having his eyes treated?
DECISIONS.
81
Statement. The rule in effect governing pay for time lost by
train dispatchers on account of sickness is as follows:
Chief, assistant chief, regular trick, and regular relief dispatchers will be
extended the same treatment as is accorded other division officers account time
lost due to illness.
The employee in question laid off March 26 to 29, inclusive, for
the purpose of having his eyes treated.
The employees claim that under the rule in effect governing pay
for time lost by train dispatchers account of sickness, Dispatcher
Hutchinson is entitled to pay for the time he was absent from duty.
The carrier states that it was necessary to fill the position held
by Mr. Hutchinson during the period of his absence, and contends
that it is not the general practice to allow division officers pay for
time off duty under similar circumstances when it is necessary to
fill their positions during their absence.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the practice in
effect G. L. Hutchinson is not entitled to pay for time absent from
duty on the dates named.
Claim of employees is, therefore, denied.
DECISION NO. 677.-DOCKET 1014.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Claim of Lena Chenault employed as telephone switch-
board operator, Dallas, Tex., for the right to a 30-day trial in posi-
tion of Wahl operator.
Statement. Miss Chenault is employed at Dallas, Tex., as tele-
phone switchboard operator. On April 6, 1920, the position of Wahl
operator was bulletined and Miss Chenault applied for same. Inas-
much as she had had no previous experience in the operation of the
machine, she was allowed a period of 15 days in which to learn the
work and acquire the necessary proficiency in its operation. At the
end of the 15-day period her work was considered unsatisfactory and
the position was thereupon assigned to an employee experienced in
the operation of the machine.
The employees contend that when the position of Wahl operator
became vacant and Miss Chenault applied for same, she was en-
titled to a 30-day trial under the provisions of the agreement be-
tween the express company and its employees, effective February
15, 1920; furthermore, that while she had not taken a
the operation of the machine in question, she had during the noon
hour and at other periods of time endeavored to acquire the neces-
sary ability to operate the machine, and that she had shown rapid
improvement and sufficient prospect of becoming proficient in the
operation of the machine.
The carrier states that when the position of Wahl operator was
bulletined and Miss Chenault later afforded an opportunity to qualify
for same, she was not actually assigned to the position, but was
82
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
merely given an opportunity to show her fitness and ability to
justify a trial in accordance with the provisions of the agreement
between the employees and the carrier, effective February 15, 1920;
that after a period of 15 days it was decided that she was not mak-
ing satisfactory progress to justify a trial on the position and it
was thereupon awarded to an experienced operator. Rule 4 of the
agreement between the employees and the carrier, effective February
15, 1920, reads as follows:
Rule 4. Promotion basis.-Employees covered by these rules shall be in line
for promotion. Promotion shall be based on seniority, fitness, and ability;
fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail;
Rule 8 of the agreement reads as follows:
*
Rule 8. Failure to qualify.-Employees awarded bulletined positions will be
allowed 30 days in which to qualify and, failing, shall retain all their seniority
rights, and may bid on any bulletined position, but may not displace any
regularly assigned employees.
It appears from the evidence before the Labor Board in this dis-
pute that Miss Chenault was not awarded the position of Wahl
operator, but was given an opportunity to demonstrate her fitness
and ability for same. After a period of 15 days it was decided that
she did not have the requisite fitness and ability to justify her as-
signment to the position.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 678.-DOCKET 1037.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of T. J. Weekly, employed
at Grafton, W. Va., dismissed from the service July 30, 1920.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, the Labor
Board decides that the request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 679.-DOCKET 1039.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for increase in wages of certain part-time
employees of the American Railway Express Co., San Francisco,
Calif., to equalize with wages paid regular employees at that point.
Statement.-At San Francisco, Calif., there are employed from
day to day a number of men who work from five to seven hours per
day. These employees are termed "short-hour men " and are en-
gaged in the handling of express shipments and the performance
of certain clerical work incident thereto.
The employees contend that these employees should be paid the
same rates of pay as are paid to the regular employees of the carrier,
DECISIONS.
83
whereas the carrier contends that these employees are regularly
employed in outside employment and that they are not subject to the
provisions of Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27, the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier effective February 15,
1920, the decisions of the Labor Board, or the transportation act,
1920.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 680.-DOCKET 1040.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of George Sperling, dis-
missed from the service March 28, 1921.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, including
proceedings conducted by the Labor Board, the board decides that
the request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 681.-DOCKET 1059.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Order of Railway Expressmen v. American Railway Express Co.
Question-Shall the increases granted by Article II, Decision No.
3 of the Labor Board, be added to the rate of pay in effect as of
12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, or to rate of pay which includes increases
granted since that date?
Statement.—The employees involved in this dispute are assigned
to messenger runs operating out of Bangor, Me. They received.
increases in their rate of pay subsequent to 12.01 a. m., March 1,
1920, which were absorbed by the increases provided in Decision
No. 3.
The employees contend that the increases granted the express
messengers involved in this dispute were for the purpose of prevail-
ing upon them to remain on the runs to which they were assigned in
preference to changing to other runs on which the employees were
paid higher rates and enjoyed better working conditions.
The employees therefore claim that the increases granted by Ar-
ticle II of Decision No. 3 should have been added to the rates estab-
lished after March 1, 1920, which include the increases granted by
the carrier subsequent to that date.
The carrier contends that the increases granted these employees
were for the purpose of keeping them on the runs to which they were
assigned at the time and was not in any sense an equalization, nor
was it for the purpose of adjusting inequalities within the intent of
Article II of Decision No. 3, which reads as follows:
For each of the hereinafter-named classes, add the following amounts per
hour to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, provided that in-
84
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
creases in rates of pay made since March 1, 1920, where such increases were
made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities, will be preserved and the in-
creases herein established added thereto.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
before it that the increases granted by the carrier subsequent to
March 1, 1920, were not for the purpose of adjusting inequalities
within the intent of Article II of Decision No. 3. The increases pro-
vided for in said article of said decisions shall therefore be added to
the rates of pay in effect as of 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
DECISION NO. 682.-DOCKET 1105.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question. Claim of several clerks employed in the freight station,
Cambridge, Ohio, for 15 days' pay in lieu of vacations which were
not granted in the year 1920.
Statement. The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, which governs the working conditions of employees in
the class of service in which these clerks were engaged, does not con-
tain any specific rule on the question of pay for time lost account.
sickness or vacation; however, on January 30, 1920, the director,
division of operation, United States Railroad Administration, issued
the following telegraphic instructions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the Broth-
erhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides on the evidence before it that
under the past practice the employees involved in this dispute are not
entitled to compensation in lieu of vacations which were not granted
during the year 1920.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 683.-DOCKET 1053.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Is C. R. Bass entitled to exercise his seniority rights to
displace an employee holding position of bill clerk, Nashville, Tenn.?
Statement. The employee in question was employed as a truck
driver at the station named, and when his position was abolished he
sought to exercise his seniority to displace an employee holding posi-
tion of bill clerk at that station. His application was denied on the
DECISIONS.
85
ground that he did not have sufficient fitness and ability to qualify
for the position.
The employees contend that Mr. Bass was not given a fair oppor-
tunity to qualify for the position in question in accordance with the
rules of the agreement between the employees and the carrier, effec-
tive February 15, 1920.
The carrier contends that Mr. Bass was never assigned to the posi-
tion but was given an opportunity to show his fitness and ability to
justify a trial as provided for in the agreement. After two days it
was decided that he could not qualify for the position, and he was
thereupon advised that his request to displace the employee then fill-
ing same was declined. The carrier further contends that in this
instance they merely offered Mr. Bass an opportunity to demonstrate
his fitness and ability to justify the exercise of his seniority rights,
and that the trial did not constitute a trial as referred to in the rules
of the agreement between the employees and the carrier effective
February 15, 1920.
Rule 24 of the agreement covering express employees reads as
follows:
Positions abolished. Rule 24.-Employees whose positions are abolished
may exercise their seniority rights over junior employees. Other employees
affected may exercise their seniority in the same manner.
Rule 4 of the agreement reads, in part, as follows:
Promotion Basis. Rule 4.
* * Promotion shall be based on senior-
ity, fitness, and ability; fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall
prevail,
*
*.
Rule 8 of the agreement reads as follows:
Failure to qualify. Rule 8.-Employees awarded bulletined positions will be
allowed 30 days in which to qualify, and, failing, shall retain all their seniority
rights and may bid on any bulletined positions, but may not displace any regu-
larly assigned employee.
It appears that in this instance Mr. Bass was not awarded the posi-
tion of bill clerk, but was merely given an opportunity to demon-
strate his fitness and ability for same. It was found that he did not
have the requisite fitness and ability to justify awarding him the
position.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 684.-DOCKET 1127.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. R. Griffis.
Statement.-Mr. Griffis was assigned to position of manufactured-
material clerk in the storekeeper's department, Waycross, Ga., June
16,.
1920. He was relieved from the position on August 18, 1920,
owing to his alleged inability to maintain a balance of the material
accounts and to perform the duties of the position satisfactorily.
86
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees contend that the balance sheet which Mr. Griffis
was required to maintain was attached to the position after he was
assigned to same, that he had never been properly instructed in the
handling thereof, and that when he was removed from the position
he should have been permitted to exercise his seniority in the office in
which he was employed.
The carrier states that Mr. Griffis was given approximately two
months' trial on the position and afforded every opportunity to dem-
onstrate his ability to handle the work attached to it. He was in-
formed during the period of his incumbency that if he could not bal-
ance his accounts he would have to be relieved from the service.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board in this dispute the
employees did not claim that Mr. Griffis should be returned to the
position of manufactured-material clerk, but contend that when he
was relieved from that position he should have been given a place
in the office or the right to exercise his seniority to a position for
which he was qualified.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 685.-DOCKET 1267.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of Manda Kies, George Horn, W. C. Miller,
and W. L. McHenry, South Bend, Ind., for time lost account of sick-
ness during the months of June, July, and August, 1921.
Statement.-The employees in question were absent from duty on
account of sickness for varying periods in the months of June, July,
and August, 1921, and deduction was made from their wages for the
time they were absent.
The employees state that it has been the practice at the station
in question to pay employees for time off on account of sickness
where the work was kept up by other employees during their
absence and where no additional expense was incurred by the car-
rier incident thereto. The employees contend that under rule 95
of the agreement between the employees and carrier, effective Febru-
ary 15, 1920, this practice should remain in effect, and in accordance
with said practice the employees herein named should be reim-
bursed for the time they were absent on account of sickness.
The carrier contends that it was not the practice at the station
named to pay employees for time off on account of sickness under the
circumstances stated by the employees; that any such action on the
part of the express agent at South Bend, Ind., was in violation of
the carrier's rules; and that such action was unauthorized and there-
fore improper. The carrier further contends that Supplement No. 19
to General Order No. 27 contained a provision which specifically
abolished all vacations and other time off with pay.
Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27 of the United States
Railroad Administration contains the following provision with
respect to pay for time off duty on account of sickness:
DECISIONS.
87
In consideration of the wage increases, hours of service, pay for overtime, and
other conditions of employment herein established, vacations and other time off
with pay are abolished, from the effective day of this order.
Rule 95 of the agreement between the employees and the carrier,
effective February 15, 1920, reads as follows:
Agreements or practices, except as changed by this agreement, remain in
effect.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 686.-DOCKET 1005.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of George Kreiger, Hazelton, Pa., for time lost
account of sickness on March 15, 1921.
Statement. The employee in question was off duty six hours, ac-
count of sickness, on March 15, 1921, for which period deduction was
made from his pay.
The employees contend that no expense was incurred by the car-
rier in keeping up the work handled by Mr. Kreiger, and that under
the practice in effect at the station named he should be reimbursed
for the time he lost on account of sickness on the date in question.
The carrier states that there is no rule, order, agreement, or deci-
sion requiring it to pay employees for time not worked, whether ab-
sent through sickness or otherwise, and that Supplement No. 19 to
General Order No. 27 specifically abolished all vacations and other
time off with pay.
Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27 of the United States
Railroad Administration contains the following provision with re-
spect to pay for time lost on account of sickness:
In consideration of the wage increases, hours of service, pay for overtime, and
other conditions of employment herein established, vacations and other time off
with pay, are abolished from the effective day of this order.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 687.-DOCKET 1013.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to R. J. Mills being relieved
from the service in connection with reduction of force and employees
with less seniority retained therein.
Statement.—Mr. Mills, who was employed as driver at Fort Scott,
Kans., was relieved from the service in connection with reduction of
force and employees with less seniority retained therein.
88
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees contend that Mr. Mills's services were admittedly
satisfactory to the carrier, and that under the rules of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier, effective February 15,
1920, he should have been retained in the carrier's service and an
employee with less seniority relieved therefrom when it became nec-
essary to reduce the force.
The carrier states that Mr. Mills was a minor and that when it be-
came necessary to reduce the force there was no position in the serv-
ice in which, under the rules of the carrier, a minor could be em-
ployed; therefore, Mr. Mills was not recognized as having the
requisite fitness to perform the duties of any of the remaining posi-
tions. The carrier further contends that under the rules of the
agreement between the employees and the carrier the exercise of
seniority in the reduction in force is subject to fitness and ability.
Rule 28 of the agreement between the employees and the carrier,
effective February 15, 1920, reads as follows:
Exercising seniority. Rule 28.-The exercise of seniority in reductions of force
or displacing junior employees provided for in this article is subject to the pro-
visions of rule 4 of this article.
Rule 4 of the agreement reads, in part, as follows:
Promotion basis. Rule 4.—Employees covered by these rules shall be in line
for promotion. Promotion shall be based on seniority, fitness, and ability; fit-
ness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail;
*
Decision-Basing this decision on the evidence before it and the
language of the rules above quoted, the Labor Board decides that the
position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 688.—DOCKET 1018.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to classification and rate of pay
for Catherine McFarland, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Statement.—Miss McFarland was employed by the carrier at
Pittsburgh, Pa., in the capacity of waybill writer from October 1,
1918, to October 31, 1919, and from January 12, 1920, to May 16,
1920. The salary of the position prior to the application of Decision
No. 3 was $75 per month.
The employees contend that during the period of her employment
Miss McFarland was billing freight and performing the same work
that was being performed by employees classified and paid as way-
bill clerks, and request that she be reimbursed for the difference be-
tween the rate of pay she received as waybill writer and the rate of
pay she would have received as waybill clerk during the period of
her employment as above stated. The basis of this claim is rule 81
of the agreement between the employees and the carrier effective
February 15, 1920, which provides that women employees performing
the same class of work as men shall be paid the same rate of pay.
DECISIONS.
89
The carrier contends that the employee in question was employed
as and assigned to the duties of waybill writer and paid the rate of
that position during the period of her employment; that she was at
no time performing the duties of position of waybill clerk and was
not entitled to the rate of pay of that position. The carrier denies
that her sex had anything to do with her rate of pay and that rule
81 has no bearing in this dispute.
Decision. Basing this decision on the evidence submitted, includ-
ing proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that the employee in question was not entitled to the rate of
pay of waybill clerk during the period of her employment.
Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 689.-DOCKET 1031.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of O. C. Ihlenfeld, New Orleans, La., for seven
days' vacation for the year 1920, or seven days' pay in lieu thereof.
Statement.—The employee named was not granted a vacation in
the year 1920. The employees contend that he was entitled to a vaca-
tion of seven days during that year and, failing to receive same, he is
entitled to seven days' pay in lieu thereof. The carrier states that
vacations are a privilege or benefit not covered by any rule, order, or
agreement, and one which it has been the practice to extend to em-
ployees at the discretion of the officer in charge. In this instance a
combination of circumstances and exigencies of the business would
not permit granting the employee in question a vacation.
The employees do not claim that the payment of the compensation
sought in lieu of vacation is required in any order or rule governing
their conditions of employment, nor have they produced any evidence
to show that it has been the practice of the carrier to pay employees
for vacations not granted.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 690.-DOCKET 1041.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to seniority date of L. B.
O'Brien, Moberly, Mo.
Statement. Mr. O'Brien entered the service of the Wells Fargo
Express Co. on July 1, 1917. From April, 1918, to July 1, 1918, he
served as messenger for that company. He was out of the service
from July 1, 1918, to September 1, 1919, having on the latter date
been released from the United States Navy. He was employed by
the American Railway Express Co. September 1, 1919, as a driver at
90
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Moberly, Mo., and has been continuously employed since that date in
various capacities in agency and train service. A dispute has arisen
in regard to the seniority of Mr. O'Brien under the rules of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier effective February 15,
1920.
The employees contend that Mr. O'Brien left the carrier's service
to enter the United States Navy, and that under the provisions of
Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27
his seniority should date from the date he entered the service of the
Wells Fargo Express Co., namely, July 1, 1917.
The carrier admits that if Mr. O'Brien had left the service in
July, 1918, to enter the United States Navy there would be no ques-
tion about his seniority dating from July 1, 1917, but contends that
Mr. O'Brien did not leave the service to enter the United States Navy
in July, 1918, but on the contrary, was dismissed from the service for
cause in July, 1918, and that, therefore, when he was permitted to
return to the service, September 1, 1919, as a driver at Moberly, Mo.,
it was as a new employee, and his seniority should date from that
date.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board in this dispute.
shows that Mr. O'Brien was dismissed from the carrier's service
prior to the date that he entered the United States Navy in the year
1918, and the board, therefore, decides that his seniority shall date
from September 1, 1919.
Position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 691.-DOCKET 1046.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of V. W. Lancaster, employee of the South Mis-
souri division, for vacation or compensation in lieu thereof.
Statement. Mr. Lancaster, who is employed in train service on
the South Missouri division, received no vacation during the year
1920. In 1921 he made claim for either seven days' pay in lieu of
vacation or seven days off in addition to the regular 1921 vacation.
The employees contend that vacations are a part of the employees'
compensation; that it had been the practice for a number of years
to grant vacations; and that the employee in question should be
allowed 7 days' pay, or 14 days off with pay during the year 1921
to cover the 7-day-vacation period to which he is said to be entitled
for the years 1920 and 1921.
The carrier states that prior to the formation of the American
Railway Express Co. Mr. Lancaster was an employee of the Southern
Express Co. which allowed no vacations whatever; that he was not
regularly employed, but an intermittent employee who substituted on
vacant messenger runs or performed extra duty as assigned. He was
paid no fixed salary but was paid the rate of pay of any position in
which he might work.
The carrier contends that it has never made a practice of paying
employees for vacations not taken, nor of allowing vacations to accrue
DECISIONS.
91
and permitting employees to be off for the cumulative period the fol-
lowing year; that the vacation practice is a benefit or privilege to
the employees which is not subject to any rule, order, or agreement.
The employees do not claim that there is any rule or agreement
requiring the granting of vacations, and at hearing conducted by
the Labor Board in this case the representatives of the employees
admitted that it was the practice of the carrier to exercise its own
discretion in the matter.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 692.-DOCKET 1095.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of Charles Conrad, division car clerk, El Paso,
Tex., for pay for vacation during the year 1920.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 693.-DOCKET 1096.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana...
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper application of in-
crease granted by Decision No. 2 to position held by D. L. Coles,
clerk, La Fayette, La.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 694.-DOCKET 1097.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of certain clerical employees in the general
shops, Houston, Tex., for vacations with pay.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
20936°—23————7
92
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 695.-DOCKET 1998.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of C. W. Morse, clerk, yard
office, Galveston, Tex.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 696.-DOCKET 904.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Does the position of storekeeper in the roundhouse at
Lehighton, Pa., come within the scope of the national agreement of
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han-
dlers, Express and Safety Employees, as defined in Article I thereof?
Statement. On February 1, 1921, the general storekeeper deemed
it necessary for the proper and prompt distribution of supplies to
establish an additional storehouse at Lehighton, Pa., and to appoint
a storekeeper at that point. The position was filled by assignment
and not bulletined in accordance with the rules of the clerks' national
agreement.
The employees contend that the position of storekeeper is not ex-
cepted from the supplementary agreement between the carrier and
employees, effective February 9, 1920, and that the position in ques-
tion is, therefore, included within the scope of the clerks' national
agreement and supplement thereto, and should be bulletined in
accordance with the rules thereof.
The carrier states that the duties of the storekeeper at Lehighton,
Pa., are the same as the duties of storekeepers at various other points.
on the railroad; that these employees are responsible for the care
and distribution of the supplies in the storehouse under their juris-
diction and supervise employees engaged in the handling thereof;
and contends that the position does not come within the scope of the
clerks' national agreement or supplement thereto.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides on the basis of the informa-
tion presented and the proceedings of hearing conducted in this dis-
pute that the position of storekeeper at Lehighton, Pa., does not come
within the scope of the clerks' national agreement.
Request of the employees that the position in question be bulletined
for bid is therefore denied.
DECISIONS.
93
DECISION NO. 697.-DOCKET 1027
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay for John
Franklin Whatley, driver, Houston, Tex.
Statement. The employee in question worked one month as a
driver at Houston, Tex., at a lesser rate of pay than that of certain
other drivers at that point. After being employed for one month, he
entered the service of the United States Army. Upon being released
from the Army he returned to the service of the carrier and for a
period of two months thereafter was paid a rate of pay which was
less than the regular rate of the position he held.
The employees contend that the practice of working employees on
a graduating scale of wages, as was done in this case, is not in accord-
ance with the spirit or intent of Supplement No. 19 to General Order
No. 27, and that Mr. Whatley should have been paid the full rate of
the position to which he was assigned from the date he entered the
service.
The carrier states that at Houston, Tex., there was in effect for
many years a graduating scale of wages under which there existed
a difference of $5 per month between the starting rate and the rate
paid after 3 months' service, and a difference of $15 per month be-
tween the starting rate and the rate paid at the end of 12 months'
service. This scale of wages was in effect on January 1, 1919, and
in the application of Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27
of the United States Railroad Administration and Decisions Nos. 3
and 217 of the Labor Board, the increases and decreases provided.
therein were applied to the graduating scales of wages in existence.
The carrier contends that Supplement No. 19 to General Order
No. 27, which was issued after January 1, 1919, made no provision
for abolishing the graduating scales of wages, but, on the contrary,
it specifically authorized a differential for employees lacking the
necessary experience to perform the work of their assignment.
-
Paragraph 3 of section (d), Article I, of Supplement No. 19 to
General Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administration
reads as follows:
3. Employees (except those named in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section)
entering the service, who lack the necessary experience to perform the work of
their assignment, shall receive $60 per month for the first six months of service;
$70 per month for the second six months of service; and thereafter the rate of
the job to which assigned. The period of experience in their line of work
shall be cumulative, and similar experience in other employment shall count
the same as if performed for the express company. Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to mean that former employees may not be reemployed and
paid the established rate of the position to which assigned.
The employees do not contend that Mr. Whatley was not correctly
paid under the scale of wages in effect at Houston, Tex., and pre-
served by Supplement No. 19 of the United States Railroad Admin-
istration, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
94
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 698.-DOCKET 1032.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for increase in rate of pay of depot foreman
in the Western Maryland railroad depot at Cumberland, Md., to
equalize with rate of pay of express foremen in the depot of the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad at the same point.
Statement.—At Cumberland, Md., the express foreman at the
Western Maryland Railroad depot receives $10 per month less than
the express foreman at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad depot at that
point.
The employees contend that these foremen are performing the
same class of work at the same agency and that the disparity in
wages constitutes an unjust inequality which should be adjusted in
accordance with section (b), Article I, of Supplement 19 to General
Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administration.
The carrier states that the Western Maryland Railroad depot at
Cumberland is a small and comparatively unimportant depot office,
whereas the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad depot is a large and very
important one. It is further stated that section (b), Article I, of
Supplement 19 to General Order No. 27, distinctly provides for the
equalization of wages of employees performing the same work at
the same agency and emphasizes that the work must be the same.
It is claimed that in this case the work is not the same, but on the
contrary is of very much less importance at the Western Maryland
Railroad depot than at the depot of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.
Section (6), Article I, of Supplement 19 to General Order No. 27,
reads, in part, as follows:
(b) Where two or more employees are assigned to the same agency, or
messenger run, and performing the same general duties at different rates of
pay, the pay of the position as of January 1, 1918, mentioned in section (a)
shall be assumed to be the highest standard wage paid by any of the express
companies succeeded by the American Railway Express Co. for that position,
it being the intent to equalize the rates of pay for the same work at the same
agency, or upon the same messenger run,
*.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 699.-DOCKET 1035.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of G. O. Foster, Willard, Ohio, for position
of messenger on trains operated between Willard, Ohio, and Cleve-
land, Ohio.
Statement. Mr. Foster was employed in station service at Willard,
Ohio, and held no seniority in road service. In May, 1920, a vacancy
occurred on a messenger run between Cleveland and Willard, Ohio,
and a Mr. Gildow, who had had previous experience as a messenger,
DECISIONS.
95
and who was at that time employed as platform man at Chicago,
was appointed to the vacancy temporarily, pending regular bulletin
and assignment.
The employees state that although the vacancy occurred in May,
1920, it was not bulletined until August, 1920, and that when it was
bulletined, Mr. Foster was the senior applicant for same and should
have been assigned to the run.
The carrier admits that there was some delay in bulletining the
position and states that when it was bulletined two applications were
received-one from Mr. Foster and one from Mr. Gildow. Mr.
Foster was an office employee with no seniority whatever in road
service. Mr. Gildow had been temporarily filling the run and was
awarded the position.
The facts before the board in this dispute show that neither Mr.
Foster nor Mr. Gildow had any seniority rights in road service, but
Mr. Gildow had had approximately eight years' previous experience
in road service in the territory in which this run is located. There
has been no evidence presented to show that any order, rule, or agree-
ment governing the employees' conditions of service was violated in
the action taken by the carrier in this case.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 700.-DOCKET 1036.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to application of agreement
between the employees and carrier, effective February 15, 1920, to
position of stable foreman, El Paso, Tex., and proper compensation
under said agreement for two employees engaged as hostlers at that
point.
Statement. Mr. J. M. Jones is employed as stable foreman at
El Paso, Tex., at the rate of $157.64 per month. His position is
classed by the carrier as supervisory with no regularly assigned
working days or regularly assigned hours on such days. Messrs.
Munoz and Ramirez are employed as hostlers in the same stable, and
at the time this controversy arose their assigned working hours
were from 7 a. m. to 12 noon, and from 4 p. m. to 7 p. m.
The employees contend that the position held by Mr. Jones is one
which should come within the scope of the agreement between the
employers and carrier, effective February 15, 1920, and that it should
be given a regular assignment as required by the rules of said agree-
ment. It is also claimed that the hours worked by Messrs. Munoz
and Ramirez are in conflict with rule 45 of the agreement which
provides for eight hours' work within a spread of nine hours.
The carrier states that the stable foreman in question is a super-
visory employee with authority to employ, discipline, and dismiss
employees under his jurisdiction, and contends that the position
does not come within the scope of the agreement of February 15,
1920, or the transportation act, 1920.
96
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
With reference to the hours of service of Messrs. Munoz and
Ramirez, the carrier states that the hours to which they were as-
signed at the time this controversy arose were established in com-
pliance with their own request, and that as soon as the carrier was
apprised of the fact that these employees no longer desired to work
the hours to which they were assigned by their own request and
agreement, their assignment was changed to eight hours within a
spread of nine hours.
The evidence before the Labor Board in this dispute shows that
the stable foreman at El Paso is in full charge of the stable and has
authority to employ and dismiss employees under his jurisdiction.
He is provided with free living quarters for himself and family, and
in addition thereto free light, water, and heat. He accepted the
position with a full knowledge of the requirements as to hours of
Service and conditions of employment, and the employees admit in
their testimony that the wages of the position and working condi-
tions thereof are just and reasonable. It appears that it is now
sought to include this position within the scope of the agreement for
the purpose of obtaining overtime payments for the hours which
are recognized as overtime under the rules thereof, retroactive to the
effective date of the agreement.
In the case of Messrs. Munoz and Ramirez, it appears that when
Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27, effective May 1, 1919,
was issued, they were placed on a straight 8-hour-day basis. After
working on this basis for some little time, they voluntarily came to
the stable foreman and requested that their previous hours of serv-
ice, which were 8 hours within a spread of 12, be restored in order
that they might have the benefit of a noontime siesta to conform
with a custom of certain classes of laborers in the territory in which
they were employed. In order that there would be no misunder-
standing, an agreement was drawn up and signed by them under the
terms of which they have specifically expressed a preference for the
hours of service which were in effect at the time this controversy
arose.
Decision. Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 701,-DOCKET 1042.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to application of Decision No. 3
to employees in express messenger service between East Radford and
Walton, Va.
Statement.-In May, 1920, a messenger run on shuttle train be-
tween East Radford and Walton, Va., a distance of 3 miles, became
vacant and was bulletined. No bids were received on this bulletin.
One terminal of the run-namely, Walton-is a junction point at
which the express company has no office. The other terminal-
namely, East Radford-is a commission office at which the agent
receives a commission for the handling of express business and the
employment of necessary assistance in connection therewith.
DECISIONS.
97
When the bulletin posted in May, 1920, failed to develop an
applicant to cover these shuttle trains, the agent at East Radford
was allowed a flat sum of $100 per month in addition to his commis-
sion in consideration of which he furnishes suitable help to handle
the express business on the shuttle trains between East Radford and
Walton. Neither the compensation of the agent paid on a com-
mission basis nor the compensation of the employees of the commis-
sion agent was increased under the provisions of Decision No. 3.
The employees contend that the payment of a flat sum to the
agent at East Radford for the purpose of maintaining shuttle serv-
ice between East Radford and Walton is not in accord with the
spirit and intent of the agreement between the employees and the
carrier, effective February 15, 1920.
The carrier contends that when they were unable to secure any
applicants for the vacancy on the run in question, it was deemed
expedient and conducive to the best interest of the service to have
the contract agent at East Radford perform the service and employ
any additional help necessary in connection therewith. It is claimed
that the employee on the trains operated between East Radford and
Walton is not a bona fide employee of the express company, but on
the contrary is an employee of the agent at East Radford-who is
also not an employee of the express company-and that therefore he
is not subject to the provisions of Decision No. 3 or any other de-
cision or order affecting the wages and working conditions of em-
ployees in express service.
Decision. Position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 702.-DOCKET 1043.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to bulletined position not
awarded to employee holding seniority.
Statement.-In October, 1920, the position of voucher clerk,
Houston, Tex., was bulletined. C. W. Campbell was the senior ap-
plicant for same but the position was awarded to E. W. Steger.
The employees contend that Mr. Campbell had sufficient fitness
and ability to justify a trial in accordance with the rules of the
agreement between the employees and the carrier, effective February
15, 1920; whereas the carrier contends that he did not possess the
requisite fitness and ability to qualify on the position.
Decision. The position of voucher clerk referred to in this dis-
pute was abolished within a few months after it was assigned to the
successful applicant; therefore there is nothing for the board to
decide in this dispute.
The case is removed from the docket and the file closed.
98
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 703.-DOCKET 1045.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper classification and rate
of pay of O. J. Bellemare, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Statement. The employee in question received, prior to the ap-
plication of Decision No. 217, $130.40 per month. The rate of pay
of drivers at Pittsburgh, Pa., during the same period was $142.64 per
month. Mr. Bellemare was a platform employee, but during a por-
tion of his time he used a horse and wagon in the performance of
his duties.
The employees contend that by reason of Mr. Bellemare being re-
quired to use a horse and wagon in connection with his work he
should be classified as a driver and paid the rate of that position
namely, $142.64 per month. This claim is made on a basis of sec-
tion (b), Article I, of Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27,
which provides for the equalization of rates of pay of employees
performing the same work at the same agency or upon the same
messenger run.
The carrier states that the employee herein named was primarily
a platform employee under the supervision of a foreman at the
point employed, and that during the period of his employment,
which terminated on February 15, 1921, he was furnished with a
horse and wagon to use in connection with transferring freight at
the depot in lieu of a four-wheeled manually-propelled truck. The
carrier further states that the regular drivers, who received the rate.
of pay which the employees are asking be applied to the position in
dispute, are required to pick up and deliver freight from shippers
and consignees and perform such wagon transfer as is necessary
between the various express depots in the city of Pittsburgh. The
carrier contends that the position held by Mr. Bellemare was not
analogous to the position of driver and that he was not performing
the same work at the same agency within the meaning and intent of
section (b), Article I, of Supplement No. 19 to General Order No.
27, which reads as follows:
(b) Where two or more employees are assigned to the same agency, or mes-
senger run, and performing the same general duties at different rates of pay,
the pay of the position as of January 1, 1918, mentioned in section (a) shall
be assumed to be the highest standard wage paid by any of the express com-
panies succeeded by the American Railway Express Co. for that position, it
being the intent to equalize the rates of pay for the same work at the same
agency, or upon the same messenger run,
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 704.-DOCKET 1052.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay for Mrs.
A. C. Ferris, Jackson, Miss.
DECISIONS.
-99
Statement.—Mrs. Ferris was employed by the carrier at Jackson,
Miss., on a position designated as assistant in-freight clerk for a
period exceeding seven months and ending October, 1920. During
the period of her employment she was paid at a rate which was less
than the rate paid certain other employees in the same office whom
the employees contend were doing the same work.
The employees contend that under the provisions of section (b),
Article I, of Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27, Mrs. Ferris
was entitled to the same rate paid two other employees in the same
office who were designated as in-freight clerks, and who, it is claimed,
performed the same identical work as Mrs. Ferris.
The carrier contends that Mrs. Ferris was not performing the same
work as the other employees referred to in the office in question, and
that, on the contrary, the differential in the rate of pay to which ex-
ception is taken by the employees has always existed and is fully
justified by the conditions of employment and hours of service. The
carrier further contends that although the employee named has oc-
cupied the position since September, 1919, no grievance was pre-
sented until after leaving the employ of the carrier in October, 1920.
The position has since that date been abolished.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 705.-DOCKET 1103.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to bulletined position not
awarded to employee holding seniority.
Statement. On August 21, 1920, the position of historical record
clerk in the car service department was bulletined in accordance with
the rules of the clerks' national agreement. There were six appli-
cants for the position, including Miss Margaret A. Barrett and Miss
Flora I. Simms. Miss Barrett was the senior applicant but the
position was awarded to Miss Simms.
The employees contend that Miss Barrett had sufficient fitness and
ability to justify a trial on the position in accordance with the rules.
of the agreement; whereas the carrier contends that their record of
Miss Barrett's performance on the position which she held in the
department indicated that she did not have the requisite fitness and
ability to justify her assignment to the position in dispute.
Rule 6 of the agreement between the Director General of Railroads
and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, reads as follows:
Promotion basis. Rule 6.—Employees covered by these rules shall be in line
for promotion. Promotion shall be based on seniority, fitness, and ability;
fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail, except, however, that
this provision shall not apply to the excepted positions covered in exception (b),
rule 1, Article I, of this agreement.
NOTE. The word "sufficient " is intended to more clearly establish the right
of the senior employee to bid in a new position" or vacancy," where two or
more employees have adequate "fitness and ability."
100
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that on the basis of the
evidence presented in this dispute the position of the carrier is
sustained.
DECISION NO. 706.-DOCKET 434.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Texas & Pacific Railway.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the payment.
of back time to J. D. Beasley, extra gang foreman, who was dis-
missed from the service and later reemployed by the carrier.
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from the
complainant organization that the dispute in question has been
amicably settled, and they therefore request that the case be with-
drawn. The file on this case is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 707.--DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 13, 1922.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood Railroad
Signalmen of America.
Subject of the dispute.-This decision is upon a controversy or
dispute between the carriers named below and the classes of em-
ployees named herein represented by the above-named organization.
The subject matter of the dispute is what shall constitute just and
reasonable rules and working conditions.
Parties to the dispute.-The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railroad Co.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co.
Belt Railway Co. of Chicago.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
DECISIONS.
101
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.
Erie Railroad Co.
Chicago & Erie Railroad Co.
New Jersey & New York Railroad Co.
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co.
Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railroad Co.
Dunleith & Dubuque Bridge Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
Jacksonville Terminal Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
New York Central Railroad Company (Buffalo and east).
New York Central Railroad Company (west of Buffalo).
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Pennsylvania System.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Southern Pacific Company (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston, East & West Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermillion Railroad Co.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and affiliated lines.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
-102
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Čo.
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each of
the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America.
Nature of the proceeding.-Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, a
large number of carriers have held conferences on rules and working
conditions with the representatives of their respective employees.
Each of these carriers individually negotiated with its own em-
ployees and they jointly certified to the Railroad Labor Board the
rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they disagreed,
with the respective proposals of the parties as to the latter; therefore,
each of the carriers parties to this decision has a dispute with its
employees on one or more of the rules.
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the Board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at the
original hearing, including a vast amount of evidence, data and
arguments, oral, written and documentary, and information gathered
by its own forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along with
the certification of the disputed rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out,
corresponding to the rules of the national agreement, are just and
reasonable. Reference is made to the numbers of these rules in the
national agreement because they are not numbered uniformly in the
submission from the various carriers.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
February 16, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are
as follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
SCOPE.
These rules shall apply to employees classified in Article I, per-
forming the work generally recognized as signal work, except signal
maintainers who for 50 per cent or more of their time perform work
as defined in rules 140 and 141 of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto issued by the United States Railroad Labor Board.
ARTICLE I.—CLASSIFICATION.
SECTION 1. Signalman, signal maintainer.—A man qualified and
assigned to perform work generally recognized as signal work shall
be classified as a signalman or signal maintainer.
SEC. 2. Leading maintainer.-A signal maintainer, assisted by one
or more signal maintainers with their assistants and/or helpers, in
charge of a section or plant, shall be classified as a leading main-
tainer.
DECISIONS.
103
SEC. 3. Assistant signalman, assistant signal maintainer.-A man
in training for the position of signalman or signal maintainer and
under the direction of the signalman or signal maintainer, perform-
ing the work generally recognized as signal work, shall be classified.
as assistant signalman or assistant signal maintainer.
The number of assistant signalmen and assistant signal main-
tainers on a seniority district shall be consistent with the require-
ments of the service and the signal apparatus to be installed or main-
tained.
The men assigned to these positions should be promoted from
helpers. Ability being sufficient, seniority will govern. They will
be continued in such positions for a period of four years.
(a) A man failing to show sufficient aptitude, within a period of
three months, to learn the work will be returned to the position of
helper, retaining his seniority rights as such.
(b) A man may be promoted to the position of signalman or sig-
nal maintainer if a position to which he is entitled is open and he
has qualified in less than four years to perform the work, provided
a qualified and satisfactory signalman or signal maintainer is not
available. If a man so promoted fails to meet the requirements of
the position, he will be restored to the position of assistant signalman
or assistant signal maintainer to which he is entitled.
At the expiration of four years' service as assistant signalman
or assistant signal maintainer he will be offered promotion if a
position to which he is entitled is open. He may, if no position is
open, continue as assistant signalman or assistant signal maintainer
until it is possible to promote him to a position to which he is
entitled..
SEC. 4. Gang foreman, leading signalman.-A signalman work-
ing with and supervising the work of signalmen and other em-
ployees specified herein shall be classified as a gang foreman. A
signalman temporarily so assigned will be classified as a leading
signalman.
SEC. 5. Helper.-A man assigned to assist other employees specified
herein shall be classified as a signal helper. A signal helper when
working alone, or two or more signal helpers working together, may
perform such work as filling and cleaning lamps, cleaning and oiling
interlocking plants, bonding track, renewing primary batteries, ex-
cavating, and handling material, but shall not be permitted to do
work recognized as distinctively maintainers' or signalmen's work.
ARTICLE II. -HOURS OF SERVICE, OVERTIME AND CALLS.
SECTION 1. Eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the meal period,
except as otherwise provided in these rules, shall constitute a day's
work.
SEC. 2. There may be one, two, or three shifts employed. The
starting time of any shift shall be arranged by mutual understand-
ing between the local officers and the employees' committee based
on actual service requirements.
The time and length of the lunch period shall be subject to mutual
agreement.
SEC. 3. Provided for in section 2.
SEC. 4. Provided for in section 2.
104
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
SEC. 5. Provided for in section 2.
SEC. 6. An employee's time will begin and end at a designated
point, but more than one such point may be named within a speci-
fied territory, such as terminal territory.
SEC. 7. Even hours will be paid for at the end of each pay period;
fractions thereof will be carried forward.
SEC. 8. Employees will not be required to suspend work during
regular hours to absorb overtime.
SEC. 9. Regularly established daily working hours will not be re-
duced below eight to avoid making force reductions, unless agreeable
to the employees affected.
SEC. 10. Except as provided in these rules, no compensation will
be allowed for work not performed.
SEC. 11. Sunday and specified holiday work-Full-day period.-
Work performed on Sundays and the following legal holidays,
namely, New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day,
Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas
(provided when any of the above holidays fall on Sunday, the day
observed by the State, Nation, or by proclamation shall be consid-
ered the holiday), shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half,
except that employees who are regularly assigned to work on Sun-
days and holidays, or employees who work in place of those so reg-
ularly assigned, will be compensated on the same basis as on week
days when the entire number of hours constituting the regular week-
day assignment are worked, or when released at their own request
before the completion of such hours. If released by the carrier
before the expiration of the regular week-day assignment, time and
one-half will be allowed for the actual time worked.
Sunday and holiday work will be required only when absolutely
essential to the continuous operation of the railroad.
SEC. 12. Overtime will be paid on the actual minute basis at
pro rata rate for the ninth and tenth hours of continuous service,
exclusive of meal period, and thereafter at rate of time and one-
half. Employees will not be required to work more than 10 hours
without being permitted to take a second meal period. Time taken
for meals will not terminate the continuous service period.
SEC. 13. Employees released from duty and notified or called to
perform work outside of and not continuous with regular working
hours, will be paid a minimum allowance of two hours at time-and-
one-half rate; if held longer than two hours, they will be paid at the
time-and-one-half rate computed on actual minute basis.
Time of employees so notified will begin at the time required to
report and end when released. Time of employees so called will
begin at the time called and end at the time they return to designated
point at home station.
An employee so called less than two hours before his regular
starting time will be paid at time and one-half time until his regular
starting time, and thereafter at straight time for the regular hours.
SEC. 14. Employees who are subject to call because of the require-
ments of the service will notify the person designated by the man-
agement where they may be called and will respond promptly when
called. When such employees desire to leave their home station or
section they will procure authority from the person designated by
DECISIONS.
105
the management who will grant permission if the requirements of
the service will permit.
SEC. 15. Camp cars will be the home station, as referred to in
these rules, for employees assigned to such cars.
SEC. 16. Sunday and specified holiday work-Less than full-day
period. When regularly assigned for service of four hours or less
on Sundays and/or holidays, employees will be paid for actual time
worked with a minimum allowance of three hours at the pro rata
rate. Regular assignments of more than four hours and less than
eight hours on these days may be established if agreeable to the em-
ployees concerned, the hours to be paid for at the pro rata rate.
SEC. 17. Hourly-rated employees performing service requiring
them to leave and return to home station daily will be paid con-
tinuous time, exclusive of meal period, from time reporting for
duty until released at home station. Straight time for all straight-
time work. Overtime for all overtime work. Straight time for all
time traveling or waiting.
SEC. 18. Hourly-rated employees sent from home station to per-
form work and who do not return to home station on the same day
will be allowed time for traveling or waiting in accordance with
section 20 of this article. All hours worked will be paid for-
straight time for straight-time hours, and overtime rate for over-
time hours. Actual expenses will be allowed at the point to which
sent if meals and lodging are not provided by the carrier or if
camp cars to which employees are assigned are not available.
SEC. 19. Employees permanently transferred by direction of
the management will be allowed time for traveling or waiting in
accordance with section 20 of this article. They will be allowed
free transportation for themselves, the dependent members of their
families, and their household effects.
SEC. 20. Employees (except those covered by section 4 of Arti-
cle V) who do not return to home station on the same day, when
not in camp cars and traveling by direction of the management,
will be allowed actual time for traveling or waiting during the
regular working hours. Actual time, not to exceed eight hours,
at the straight-time rate, from the time required to report to the
time of arrival at the point to which sent, will be paid as full com-
pensation for traveling or waiting between the end of the regular
hours of one day and the beginning of the regular hours of the
following day when sleeping accommodations are not available.
Actual expenses but no time will be allowed for traveling or wait-
ing between the end of the regular hours of one day and the be-
ginning of the regular hours of the following day when sleeping
accommodations are available.
SEC. 21. Employees required by the management to travel on or
off their assigned territory in camp cars will be allowed straight
time traveling during regular working hours and for Sundays and
holidays during hours established for work periods on other days.
When traveling in camp cars after working-period hours no time
will be allowed.
SEC. 22. An employee when sent from home station to fill a tem-
porary vacancy for one day will be paid in accordance with section
17 of this article; if for more than one day, he will be paid in ac-
106
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
cordance with section 18 of this article. While filling such vacancy
he will be paid for the hours worked at the established rate for the
position, but at not less than his regular rate.
SEC. 23. When an employee is required to fill the place of another
employee receiving a higher rate of pay he shall receive the higher
rate; but if required to fill temporarily the place of another employee.
receiving a lower rate, his rate will not be changed.
SEC. 24. Employees will be allowed, when in the judgment of the
management conditions permit, to make week-end trips to their
homes. Free transportation will be furnished consistent with the
regulations. Any time lost on this account will not be paid for.
Time not worked on this account may be worked, at the option of the
employees, outside of regular hours on other days at straight time for
hours so worked.
SEC. 25. Employees required to work during, or any part of, the
lunch period shall receive pay for the length of lunch period reg-
ularly taken at point employed at straight time, and will be allowed
necessary time to procure lunch (not to exceed 30 minutes) without
loss of time.
This does not apply where employees are allowed the 20 minutes
for lunch without deduction therefor.
SEC. 26. Employees changed from one shift to another will be paid
overtime rates for the first shift of each change. Employees work-
ing two shifts or more on a new shift shall be considered transferred.
This will not apply when shifts are temporarily exchanged at the re-
quest of the employees involved.
SEC. 27. When work not covered by this agreement is done out-
side of regular work period and extra compensation agreed upon,
overtime will not apply.
SEC. 28. Eliminated.
SEC. 30. Employees will receive allowance for expenses not later
than the time when they are paid for the service rendered.
ARTICLE IV.-PROMOTIONS.
SEC. 1. Promotions to positions coming within the scope of this
agreement shall be based on ability, merit, and seniority. Ability
and merit being sufficient, seniority shall prevail; the management to
be the judge.
SEC. 2. In transferring employees to fill vacancies or new posi-
tions, the provisions of section 1 of this article will apply.
SEC. 3. Employees are entitled to promotion only on the district
over which their seniority rights prevail.
SEC. 4. Employees declining promotion shall not lose their
seniority, except to the employee promoted and only in the next
higher rank of service.
SEC. 5. Employees accepting promotion and failing to qualify
within 30 days may return to their former positions.
SEC. 6. New positions and vacancies will be bulletined within
30 days previous to or 10 days following the dates such vacancies
occur, except that temporary. vacancies need not be bulletined until
the expiration of 30 days from the date such vacancies occur.
DECISIONS.
107
SEC. 7. Promotions to new positions or to fill vacancies will be
made after bulletin notice has been posted for a period of 10 days at
the headquarters of the gangs and sent to other employees entitled
to consideration in filling the positions, during which time employees
may file their applications with the official whose name appears on
the bulletin. The appointment will be made before the expiration
of 20 days from the date the bulletin is posted, and the name of the
employee selected will then be announced. New positions or vacan-
cies may be filled temporarily, pending permanent appointment.
SEC. 8. Employees in service will be considered for promotion
to position of foreman. Employees promoted to the position of
foreman shall retain their seniority rights but shall exercise such
seniority rights only when new positions are created or vacancies
occur. When force is reduced, a foreman, if no new position or
vacancy is open in the class in which he held seniority rights when
promoted, will have the right to displace the employee with the
least seniority rights in that class and will retain his former senior-
ity rights.
NOTE.-The word foreman as used in this section is intended to ap-
ply only to an employee whose duties are supervisory and who is not
regularly required to work with his men or to do regularly the work of
other employees covered by this agreement.
ARTICLES V.-RATES OF PAY.
SEC. 1. The minimum rates of pay are the rates established by
the Labor Board's Decision No. 147 and addenda thereto or where
wage adjustments have been made in accordance with the pro-
visions of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the
Labor Board; these rates shall be incorporated in and become a part
of this agreement or schedule, and shall remain in effect until or
unless changed in the manner provided by the transportation act,
1920.
SEC. 2. Employees promoted to the position of assistant signal-
man or assistant maintainer, in accordance with section 3, Article
I, shall be paid the rate established by section 1, Article V, for
the first six months, with an increase of 2 cents per hour for every
six months thereafter until they have completed four years' service
in accordance with paragraph 6, section 3, of Article I.
SEC. 3. The hourly rate of a leading signal maintainer, gang
foreman, or leading signalman will be 5 cents per hour above the
established hourly rate of the signal maintainers or signalmen of
the class supervised.
SEC. 4. An employee assigned to the maintenance of a section
who does not return to home station daily and employees regularly
assigned to perform road work may be paid on a monthly basis.
Such employees shall be paid not less than the minimum hourly
rate established for the corresponding class of employees coming
under the provisions of this schedule on the basis of 365 eight-hour
days per calendar year. The monthly salary is arrived at by divid-
ing the total earnings of 2,920 hours by 12; no overtime is allowed
for time worked in excess of 8 hours per day; on the other hand, no
time is to be deducted unless the employee lays off of his own accord.
20936°-23-8
108
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The regularly assigned roadmen under the provision of this
rule may be used, when at home point, to perform shop work in
connection with the work of their regular assignments.
Where meals and lodging are not furnished by the carrier or
when the service requirements make the purchase of meals and
lodging necessary while away from home point, employees will be
paid necessary expenses.
If it is found that this rule does not produce adequate compensa-
tion for certain of these positions by reason of the occupants thereof
being required to work excessive hours, the salary for these positions
may be taken up for adjustment.
ARTICLE VI.-DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCES.
SEC. 1. An employee who has been in service more than 30 days
shall not be disciplined or dismissed without investigation, at which
investigation he may be represented by an employee of his choice.
He may, however, be held out of service pending such investigation.
The investigation shall be held within 10 days of the date when
charged with the offense or held from service. A decision will be
rendered within 10 days after completion of the investigation.
An employee dissatisfied with the decision shall have a fair and
impartial hearing before the next higher officer, provided written
request is made to such officer and a copy furnished to the officer
whose decision is appealed, within 10 days of the date of the advice
of the decision. Hearing shall be granted within 10 days thereafter
and а decision rendered within 10 days of the completion of hearing.
SEC. 2. If an appeal is taken from this hearing it must be filed
with the next higher officer and a copy furnished the officer whose
decision is appealed within 10 days after the date of the decision.
The hearing on this appeal shall be held within 10 days and a de-
cision rendered within five days after completion of hearing.
SEC. 3. If a further appeal is taken, it must be filed as provided in
section 2 of this article within 20 days of the date of the decision ap-
pealed from. On such appeals hearings shall be given and decision
rendered as promptly as possible.
SEC. 4. An employee who considers himself otherwise unjustly
treated shall have the same right of hearing and appeal as provided
above if written request is made to his immediate superior within 10
days of the cause for complaint.
SEC. 5. At the hearing, or on the appeal, the employee may be
assisted by a committee of employees, or by one or more duly ac-
credited representatives.
SEC. 6. The right of appeal by employees or representatives, in
regular order of succession and in the manner prescribed up to and
inclusive of the highest official designated by the carrier to whom
appeals may be made, is hereby established.
SEC. 7. An employee on request will be given a letter stating the
cause of discipline. A transcript of the evidence taken at the investi-
gation or on the appeal will be furnished on request to the employee
or representative.
SEC. 8. If the charge against the employee is not sustained, it shall
be stricken from the record. If by reason of such unsustained charge
the employee has been removed from position held, reinstatement
DECISIONS.
109
will be made and payment allowed for the assigned working hours
actually lost while out of the service of the carrier at not less than
the rate of pay of position formerly held, or for the difference in rate
of pay earned in or out of the service.
SEC. 9. Prior to the assertion of grievances as herein provided, and
while questions of grievances are pending, there will neither be a
shutdown by the employer nor a suspension of work by the em-
ployees.
SEC. 10. Employees serving on committees, on sufficient notice,
shall be granted leave of absence and free transportation for the
adjustment of differences between the carrier and its employees.
ARTICLE VII.-MISCELLANEOUS.
SEC. 1. (a) Employees covered by this agreement and those de-
pendent upon them for support will be given the same consideration
in granting free transportation as is granted other employees in the
service.
(b) General committees representing employees covered by this
agreement will be granted the same consideration as is granted gen-
eral committees representing employees in other branches of the
service.
SEC. 2. The carriers will furnish the employees such general tools
as are necessary to perform their work, except such tools as are
customarily furnished by skilled workmen.
SEC. 3. It will be the policy to maintain camp cars in good and
sanitary condition and to furnish bathing facilities when practicable
and desired by the employees and to provide sufficient means of
ventilation and air space. All dining and sleeping cars will be
screened when necessary. Permanent camp cars used for road service
will be equipped with springs consistent with safety and character
of car and comfort of employees. It will be the duty of the foreman
to see that cars are kept clean. When necessary, in the judgment of
the management, kitchen and dining cars will be furnished and
equipped with stoves, utensils, and dishes in proper proportion to
the number of men to be accommodated.
SEC. 4. The carrier will see to it that an adequate supply of water
suitable for domestic uses is made available to employees living in
its buildings, camps, or outfit cars. Where it must be transported
and stored in receptacles, they shall be well adapted to the purpose.
SEC. 5. An employee covered by this agreement, subject to call
and required to have a telephone, shall be given the same considera-
tion relative to the cost of installation and rental of such telephone
as is granted other employees on the same railroad working under
similar conditions.
SEC. 6. Date effective and changes. This agreement shall be
effective as of February 16, 1922, and shall continue in effect until
it is changed as provided herein or under the provisions of the trans-
portation act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be held im-
mediately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is
mutually agreed upon.
110
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SEC. 1. Application of adopted rules.-The rules approved by the
Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers parties to the dispute
(Docket 475) covered by this decision except in such instances as any
particular carrier may have agreed with its employees upon any one
or more of such rules, in which case the rule or rules agreed upon by
the carrier and its employees shall apply on said road.
SEC. 2. Disposition of eliminated rules.-The rules eliminated by
the Labor Board shall cease and terminate, except in such instances
as any particular carrier may have agreed or may hereafter agree
with its employees upon any one or more of such rules, in which case
the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall
apply on said road.
SEC. 3. Disposition of omitted rules.-Because a very large ma-
jority of the carriers and their employees have agreed upon the
major part of Article III, comprising the seniority rules, this article
is omitted in its entirety. In further negotiations attention is again
directed to principle 11, Exhibit B, of Decision No. 119, which pro-
vides that-
The principle of seniority long applied to the railroad service is sound and
should be adhered to. It should be so applied as not to cause undue impairment
of the service.
The Labor Board believes that certain other subject matters now
regulated by the rules of the national agreement may not be covered
in all localities by rules of general application, and require further
consideration by the parties directly concerned.
The omission of the rules governing the above matters is indicated
herein by not including the number of the article or the section
thereof, as the case may be, as used in the national agreement, and
all such rules which involve a dispute between a particular carrier
and its employees are hereby remanded to said carrier and its em-
ployees for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions of
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 4. Interpretation of this decision. The rules herein adopted,
where similar to the rules in the national agreement, are not to be
understood or construed as carrying with them the interpretations
placed on same by the United States Railroad Administration, by
the adjustment boards, or by other agencies acting under said ad-
ministration, but are to be considered and construed as new rules
adopted by the Labor Board in accordance with the transportation
act, 1920, and the principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employees
of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision
which can not be decided in conference between the parties directly
interested, such dispute shall be handled in the manner provided
by the transportation act, 1920.
DECISIONS.
111
DECISION NO. 708.-DOCKET 972.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Joint Car Association of El Paso & Juarez Railways.
Question.-Question in dispute is in regard to dismissal of J. B.
Osborne, car inspector.
Decision. At the request of the employees the file in connection
with this case is closed.
DECISION NO. 709.-DOCKET 1001.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-The question in dispute is in regard to the right of the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. to make changes in its signal organi-
zation resulting in the demotion of certain assistant signalmen to
helpers.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in this case shows
that on January 1, 1921, the signal supervisor of the Philadelphia
division notified the signal employees on that territory that effective
January 2, 1921, certain men then classified and paid as assistant
signal maintainers would be reclassified and paid as helpers. The
reason advanced by the carrier as to the necessity for this change was
that in line with the policy to curtail expenses, and rather than throw
any of the men out of employment, it was decided to retain the same
force in the signal department and change the classification, duties,
and rating of assistant signal maintainers to that of helpers.
Upon receipt of advice that the change would be made the em-
ployees raised a protest, taking the position that an arbitrary change
in classification and rating of employees was in violation of the trans-
portation act, 1920. Being unable to effect a settlement, the case was
referred to the Labor Board for decision.
At oral hearing the carrier took the position that the change was
in effect a reduction in the force of assistant signal maintainers and
the establishment of the positions of helpers, and that the assistant
signal maintainers were given preference to the positions that were
established. It is the claim of the management-and there was noth-
ing introduced at the oral hearing or in writing to the contrary-that
the men now classed as helpers are only required to perform the work
coming within the scope of that classification.
Opinion. In this case the Labor Board is of the opinion that the
carrier was acting within its rights and that the classification and
seniority provisions of the agreement between the Director General
of Railroads and the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America
not only permit but specifically provide for classifications and rates
of pay based upon the character of work performed, and so long as
the rate of pay is in conformity with the classification and the em-
ployees are not required to perform work that comes under a classi-
fication carrying a higher rate, and the seniority provisions of the
agreement are observed, there is no just cause for complaint based
112
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
upon the provisions of the agreement above referred to. On the
other hand, the board is of the opinion that disputes of this char-
acter would be reduced to a minimum and that better results would
be obtained if the carrier conferred with the duly authorized rep-
resentatives of the employees prior to placing in effect a reorganiza-
tion of the forces such as occurred in this case.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the carrier has not vio-
lated the provisions of the agreement herein referred to, provided
that the employees in question are not assigned to or required to
perform the work of maintainers or assistant maintainers; further,
that demoted employees shall be credited with the full time served
as assistant signal maintainers and rated on that basis when again
assigned as assistant maintainers.
DECISION NO. 710.-DOCKET 1145.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question-Claim of C. C. Meyer, employed in the bridge and
building department, for classification as foreman under the pro-
visions of Article III, Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27,
issued by the United States Railroad Administration.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence filed in conncetion with
this case indicates that Mr. Meyer was classified and rated as an
assistant foreman at the time the employees' submission was filed,
it being the employees' claim that he should have been classified and
paid as a foreman, and back pay allowed accordingly from March 1,
1920.
At oral hearing the representative of the carrier stated that the
carrier had conceded to the employee in question the classification
and rating as bridge and building foreman, and that arrangements
were being made to allow him back pay on that basis from March 1,
1920.
The carrier denies that the employee in question has since March
1, 1920, supervised employees performing the work prescribed in
Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the employees' repre-
sentative that a satisfactory settlement has been made in connection
with this case and that they, therefore, requested withdrawal of
The file of the board is accordingly closed.
same.
DECISION NO. 711.-DOCKET 964.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
Question.-Shall the chauffeur in the maintenance of way depart-
ment be classified and rated as a mechanic?
DECISIONS.
113
Statement. There is employed by the Terminal Railroad Associa-
tion of St. Louis an employee classified as a chauffeur, who is engaged
in the operation of a truck used for the purpose of transporting
maintenance of way material from one location to another. This em-
ployee makes minor adjustments and repairs when away from the
garage, but all heavy repairs and overhauling are done by a mechanic
employed in the garage. The chauffeur was allowed an increase of
10 cents per hour under the provisions of section 8, Article III, of
Decision No. 2. This position was decreased 10 cents per hour under
section 8, Article III, of Decision No. 147.
It is the employees' claim that the chauffeur in question should be
classed as a mechanic and increased under section 4, Article III of
Decision No. 2; further, that said position should be decreased in
accordance with section 9 (d), Article XII, of Decision No. 147.
The carrier takes the position that they have properly applied the
increase and decrease in accordance with Decisions Nos. 2 and 147,
respectively.
Decision. The claim for classification and rating as a mechanic is
denied.
DECISION NO. 712.-DOCKET 966.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Union Pacific System.
Question. Shall certain employees on the Union Pacific Railroad
known as division linemen be classified and paid as linemen, or shall
they be classified and paid as electricians?
Statement.—The dispute in this case was originally filed in the
form of a joint submission setting forth the positions of the re-
spective parties, which was supplemented by oral presentation.
The evidence so submitted indicates that there are approximately
20 men on the Union Pacific Railroad who are classified as division
linemen and paid a monthly rate in accordance with rule 15 of the
national agreement, which rate is predicated upon the hourly rate
of 73 cents per hour, applicable to linemen.
Below are extracts from the positions of the respective parties as
shown in the joint statement filed with the Labor Board:
Employees' position.-Telegraph linemen on these lines perform the usual
duties of linemen in the construction, maintenance, and repair of telegraph-
and telephone circuits, including the inside wiring for telegraph and telephone
system at stations and general offices, but do not do any inside wiring in
shops, or any wiring for electric lighting service, or of other than telegraph
and telephone service. Their work consists of building, repairing, and main-
taining telegraph-pole lines and supports for service wires and cables, inspect-
ing and tracing wire trouble. Their inside duties consist of repairing, inspect-
ing, and maintaining wiring of telegraph switchboards, telegraph and telephone
instruments, installing, inspecting, and maintaining the telegraph and telephone
instruments, and testing and maintaining the gravity batteries and motor
generator sets, used in connection therewith. In connection with their work
they use motor cars for the purpose of getting to and from their work and
occasionally make minor adjustments on these cars, but do not keep up the
shop repairs and overhauling.
ሆነ
114
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Railroad's position. The Union Pacific Railroad Co. is paying the recog-
nized standard rate (77 cents) to electricians who are assigned to install,
maintain, and repair telegraph and telephone apparatus, including inside wir-
ing, installation of switchboards, motor generator sets, et cetera, considered as
work classed under rule 140 of the national shop agreement, the work having
been segregated as between linemen and electricians.
Linemen referred to in this submission are classified under rule 141 and
compensated on the basis of rule 45 with the authorized subsequent adjust-
ments. These men are not electricians, their duties being to build, repair, and
maintain pole lines and supports, including service wires, cables, and all out-
side wiring in connection with the maintenance of telegraph and telephone
lines, and in the performance of these duties they occasionally connect a wire
with the switchboard or locate wire trouble within the switchboard, and occa-
sionally fasten a switchboard on the wall, which is and always has been a
part of the related work of linemen. They also occasionally change dry bat-
teries or cords, clean the carbon in lightning arresters, which in itself can not
be considered electrical work, and does not require the qualifications of an
electrician.
Linemen are not required to do inside wiring for telegraph or telephone
systems, but occasionally connect up a telephone or telegraph instrument
which does not require the qualifications of an electrician; they do no repair-
ing, rebuilding, installing, inspecting or maintaining the electrical wiring of
generators or motors, neither do they repair, rebuild, or maintain telegraph or
telephone instruments or switchboards.
Decision. Based on the evidence in this case, the Labor Board
decides that the employees classified as and performing the work
of linemen as per rule 141 shall be compensated on the basis of
rule 45 with the authorized subsequent adjustments; employees classi-
fied as linemen and required to perform work as per rules 140 and
141 are composite workmen and shall be paid the rate applicable to
employees performing the work specified in rule 140.
If difference of opinion exists as to the actual work being per-
formed by these employees, the Labor Board decides that proper
joint investigation shall be made by the duly authorized representa-
tives of the carrier and the employees, and rate of pay established in
accordance with the preceding paragraph of this decision.
DECISION NO. 713.-DOCKET 1142.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. Is it permissible to assign coal-chute foreman to work
a less number of hours or days than laborers supervised?
Statement.—The evidence shows that J. E. Trussell was employed
as coal-chute foreman and was, prior to March 6, 1920, assigned to
work 365 days per year; that on March 6, 1920, instructions were
issued to the effect that he would not be required to work on Sundays
or holidays, while the laborers in his crew were required to work on
these days; further, that the laborers were assigned to work 10
hours per day for a certain period, while the foreman was assigned
to work only 9 hours during the same period. The employees con-
tend that section (a), Article XI, of Supplement No. 8 to General
Order No. 27, which reads as follows, has not been complied with:
DECISIONS.
115
(a) It is not the intention of this order to change the number of days per
month for monthly-paid employees. The increases per month provided for
herein shall apply to the same number of days per month which were worked
as of January 1, 1918.
The following is quoted from the submission of the employees and
the carrier:
Employees' position.-We contend that J. E. Trussell should have been per-
mitted to work 10 hours per day during the period that his crew was working
10 hours per day, and that he also should have been permitted to work on
Sundays and (or) holidays the same as his crew, owing to the fact that it had
been a previous practice prior to Government control for Mr. Trussell to work
the same amount of hours per day and the same amount of days per month
that his crew was required to work.
Carrier's position.--The provisions of section (a), Article XI, of Supplement
No. 8 to General Order 27, are not applicable for the reason that Supplement
No. 8 to General Order No. 27 was canceled and superseded by the national
agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers, effective December 16, 1919.
There is no rule in the national agreement of the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers which provides
that an employee must be assigned Sundays and holidays or to hours in excess
of eight on week days when his services are not required.
The requirements of foreman's position, Baraboo, Wis., do not necessitate
assignment in excess of eight hours daily except Sundays and holidays, and
there is no basis, either of rule or equity, by which the carrier should be re-
quired to assign an employee in excess of the time his services are required,
merely for the purpose of creating additional compensation.
Decision.-The Labor Board can not find that the carrier has
violated any rule or agreement in handling the matter as above out-
lined and accordingly sustains its position in this controversy.
DECISION NO. 714.-DOCKET 1143.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question.-The question in dispute is in regard to the proper rate
of pay for E. H. Barker, engine watchman at Granville, Ill.
Statement. The evidence in this case shows that E. H. Barker,
engine watchman, was on January 1, 1918, paid the rate of $67.50
per month. On September 1, 1918, the effective date of Supplement
No. 7 to General Order No. 27, an hourly rate of 35 cents was estab-
lished, and it remained in effect up to March 1, 1920. On March 1,
1920, the hourly rate of 352 cents was changed to a monthly rate of
$145 per month, the change from an hourly to a monthly rate being
in accordance with section (a-12), Article V, of agreement between
the Director General of Railroads and the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers. This
rate was increased to $165.40 per month May 1, 1920, the effective date
of Decision No. 2 issued by the Labor Board, and was reduced July
1, 1921, to $145 in accordance with Decision No. 147 of the Labor
Board.
Employees' position.-The employees' position has been sum-
marized as follows:
It is the contention of the employees that the watchman in ques-
tion should have received under the provisions of Decision No. 2 of
116
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the Labor Board a monthly rate of $189.64, or $24.64 in excess of the
rate allowed. This contention of the employees is predicated upon
the claim that the engine watchman worked 12 hours each night, 365
nights per year; also, that he worked 12 hours each Sunday, 52
Sundays per year-equaling 624 hours per year, or a total of 5,004
hours; further, that Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27 pro-
vided that this class of employees be paid time and one-half time
after 10 hours' work each day. On the basis of straight-time pay-
ment for 10 hours, 365 days per year, and two hours' overtime for
365 days, plus 12 hours' overtime for 52 Sundays, a total of 5,681
hours is produced, which is the number of hours that the employees
claim should be used in determining the monthly rate under the pro-
visions of section (a-12), Article V, of the maintenance of way
agreement. The rate produced in accordance with the employees'
method of figuring would be $189.64 under provisions of Decision
No. 2 of the Labor Board.
Carrier's position.-The position of the carrier has been sum-
marized by the Labor Board as follows:
The carrier does not agree that the employee involved in this dis-
pute worked the hours as claimed by the committee, particularly
from Saturday night until Monday morning, claiming that the fire
was knocked on the engine on its arrival Saturday night and not
rebuilt until Monday morning, and that Mr. Barker was only on the
premises during short intervals in the 36-hour layover.
It is the further claim of the carrier that the time put in by this
employee and the amount allowed on the hourly basis from August
31, 1918, was slightly less than $145 per month, and that when the
national agreement of the maintenance of way employees, effective
December 16, 1919, was received the employee was placed on a
monthly rate in accordance with section (a-12), Article V, thereof
the monthly rate thus established-namely, $145 per month being
predicated upon the average earnings on the hourly basis; that
effective with Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board the position was
increased to $165.40 per month, and was again reduced to $145 per
month under the provisions of Decision No. 147 of the Labor Board.
Decision. The Labor Board decides it was the intention of sec-
tion (a-12), Article V, of the agreement between the Director Gen-
eral of Railroads and the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers that the monthly rate
provided therein for hourly-rated employees be predicated upon the
hours constituting the employee's assignment for which payment was
allowed when rated on the hourly basis.
DECISION NO. 715.-DOCKET 961.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Texas & Pacific Railway.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to reinstatement
of Charles Ross, formerly employed as engine watchman at Donald-
sonville, La.
DECISIONS.
117
Decision. The representative of the employees requested at the
oral hearing that this case be withdrawn. The file of the Labor
Board on this subject is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 716.-DOCKET 1216.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
International Union of Steam & Operating Engineers v. Chicago & North
Western Railway Co.
Question. Should stationary engineers employed at Winona,
Minn., and classified under provisions of section (a), Article II, of
Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, receive increase on the
basis of 365 eight-hour days per year under the provisions of De-
cision No. 2 issued by the Labor Board?
Decision. Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 2 covers the ques-
tions in dispute.
DECISION NO. 717.-DOCKET 1395.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Question. Proper method of compensating certain stationary
engineers who were formerly paid on a daily basis and are now being
paid on a monthly basis covering a 365-day assignment.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Employees herein referred to, prior to the issuance of
Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, were paid a daily rate covering a
12-hour period for 365 days per year, which constituted their regular assign-
ment, there being two shifts employed. After the issuance of Supplement No.
7 and Interpretation No. 1 thereto, these stationary engineers were given the
same daily rate for an 8-hour day which they had previously been paid for a
12-hour day, and on this basis were placed on a monthly rate by multiplying
the daily rate by 365, dividing by 12 to determine the said monthly rate, and
which monthly rate is still in effect with the addition of increase granted under
Decision No. 2, less decrease authorized under Addendum No. 1 to Decision
No. 147.
Employees' position.-We contend that the method arrived at, establishing
the monthly rate, is correct, but believe that the carriers should have put this
monthly rate on the 306-day basis, instead of 365, when the national agreement
of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers went into effect, in accordance with section (e), Article V, of
said agreement.
Carrier's position.-The carrier contends that these men are now being prop-
erly recompensed for services performed, having been given the same rate of
pay for an 8-hour period as was formerly granted for a 12-hour period; further,
that 365 days have always been considered the recognized number of working
days constituting their calendar year, Sundays and holidays always having been
considered a part of their assignment. Therefore using the 365-day basis for de-
termining their monthly rate, we have felt to be just and equitable. To now
establish a monthly rate for these men on a 306-day basis instead of a 365-day
basis would result, as we view it, in double payments for Sundays and the seven
specified holidays, and which we feel under existing circumstances is unwar-
ranted.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
118
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 718.-DOCKET 297.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, v. Great
Northern Railway Co.
Question.—Claim of H. E. Waggoner and E. J. Lanigan, passen-
ger brakemen, for pay on a continuous-time basis for time delayed
account of washout.
Statement. The passenger train crew in question is assigned be-
tween Spokane, Wash., and Whitefish, Mont., distance 274 miles.
On March 13, 1920, the crew in question reported for train
No. 28 due to leave Spokane at 12.35 p. m. for Whitefish, Mont.
Upon arrival at Rexford, Mont., an intermediate point 214 miles
from Spokane, at 9.37 p. m., March 13, they were tied up for a period
of 46 hours on account of a washout. They were then ordered to
deadhead back to Spokane, their initial terminal, and left Rexford
at 7.37 p. m., March 15, 1920, on train 43, arriving at Spokane 2.50
a. m., March 16, 1920. The service was paid for under rule 20 of
the agreement between the employees and the carrier, reading as
follows:
When trainmen are delayed between terminals on account of wreck, wash-
out, or snow blockade, they shall be paid for the first 8 hours so held at
pro-rata rate in addition to time or miles made that day and for each succeeding
day will be allowed not less than 100 miles at the rate for class of service in
which engaged.
-
Trainmen when tied up between terminals prior to the expiration of 14
hours' service will go automatically on duty after 8 hours' rest, and shall be
paid not less than a minimum day for each leg of the trip, and as much more
as they would earn under the schedule rules.
The employees contend that the service should have been paid
for on a continuous-time basis in accordance with rule 3 of the
agreement, which provides that a passenger day begins at the time
of reporting for duty for the initial trip and ends when relieved
from duty. In support of this contention, it is stated that it has been
the practice to compute payment of passenger trainmen whose serv-
ices were interrupted or who were tied up between their regular
terminals upon the basis of continuous time from terminal to termi-
nal and not to deduct the time tied up. The employees further con-
tend that on January 23, 1913, a crew in charge of a passenger train
leaving Spokane on that date encountered snow slides and did not
finally reach their destination, which was Seattle, Wash., until Jan-
uary 30. They were at first paid in accordance with rule 20 but
later, after a protest had been made, they were allowed continuous
time from the time they left Spokane on January 23 to the time they
arrived at Seattle on January 30, 1913.
The carrier contends that passenger-train crews are entitled to
continuous time until tied up under the hours-of-service law and for
each succeeding day held are entitled to a minimum of one day, or
150 miles' pay.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
119
DECISION NO. 719.-DOCKET 319.
Chicago, Ill., February 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Order of Railway
Conductors v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Claim of crews in passenger service for one hour's ad-
ditional compensation for turning trains at Oklahoma City, Okla.
Statement. For many years prior to the latter part of October,
1920, all passenger trains were run direct to the passenger station at
Oklahoma City, which was the end of the carrier's tracks at that
point. About the latter part of October this practice was changed
and in place of heading direct into the passenger station crews on
incoming passenger trains were directed to head around one leg of a
Y and back around another leg of Y into the passenger station,
thereby making a complete turn of their train and engine.
The employees contend that inasmuch as switch engines are main-
tained at Oklahoma City, the practice of passenger crews being re-
quired to turn their train and engine on the Y, except in case of
emergency, is not in conformity with the rules of the agreement and
should be discontinued. They agree, however, to perform the service,
provided they are paid one hour additional compensation therefor
in accordance with paragraph (a) of Article IV of the schedule be-
tween the carrier and the engineers and firemen, and paragraph (b)
of Article V of the schedule between the carrier and the conductors
and trainmen.
The carrier states that similar service is performed at certain other
points on the line and that it has never been the practice at such
points to allow extra compensation therefor. The carrier contends
that while the movement of trains around the Y at Oklahoma City
has the effect of turning them, it is, so far as the train and engine
crew is concerned, merely a change of route for the purpose of back-
ing the train into the station for the safe and more convenient un-
loading of passengers, baggage, and express, and can not be con-
strued as turning the train as referred to in the agreements between
the carrier and the employees in train and engine service.
Article IV of the agreement between the carrier and the engineers
and firemen reads as follows:
(a) When crews in passenger service are required to switch their trains,
or turn their engines or trains at terminal before their day's work begins or
after it is completed, engineers (or firemen) will be allowed a minimum of one
hour for such service. This time will be allowed independent of all other time
earned.
(b) Engineers (or firemen) in passenger service will not be required to
switch, pick up, or set out cars, turn their trains or engines, or perform wrecking
service at points where a switch engine is maintained. If for any reason such
service is required of them at such points, they will be paid for same on basis
of actual minutes at pro-rata rates in addition to all other time or mileage made
on the trip.
Paragraph (b) of Article V, and paragraph (f) of Article I,
agreement between the carrier and the conductors and trainmen, read
as follows:
(b) Passenger trainmen required to switch their trains or turn their engines
at the terminal before their day's work begins, or after it is completed, will be
allowed a minimum of one hour overtime each day for such service.
120
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(f) Trainmen in passenger service will not be required to switch, pick up,
or set out cars, turn their trains or engines, or perform wrecking service at
points where a switch engine is maintained. If for any reason such service is
required of them, they will be paid for same on basis of actual minutes at pro-
rata rates in addition to all other time or mileage made on the trip.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the turning of trains by
the crews in passenger train service on the Y at Oklahoma City
before their day's work is completed is not in violation of the rules.
of the agreement between the carrier and the employees affected as
herein quoted; but also decides that under paragraph (b) of Article
IV of the engineers and firemen's agreement, and paragraph (f) of
Article I of the conductors and trainmen's agreement, the employees
in question are entitled to pay on the basis of actual minutes at pro
rata rates in addition to all other time or mileage made on the trip
from the time train passes onto the first leg of the Y until it passes
onto the main track from the second leg of the Y.
DECISION NO. 720.-DOCKET 353-56D.
Chicago, Ill., February 16, 1922.
Hocking Valley Railway Co. v. American Train Dispatchers' Association.
Question.—Dispute with reference to application of the reduction
in rates of pay of train dispatchers of the Hocking Valley Rail-
way Co.
Statement.-For some time prior to the year 1917 a differential
existed between the rates of pay of train dispatchers on certain tricks
in the dispatching office of the carrier named. In that year a re-
adjustment was made which resulted in the equalization of the rates
of train dispatchers on all but one division upon which the differen-
tials were continued.
General Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administra-
tion being predicated upon the rates of pay in effect in the year 1915
had the effect of restoring the preexisting differentials. The in-
creases specified in Decision No. 2 by the Labor Board were added
to the rates established by the United States Railroad Administra-
tion and maintained the differentials which were restored by the
application of General Order No. 27.
After the issuance of Decision No. 147 by the Labor Board con-
ferences were held between the representatives of the carrier and the
employees for the purpose of agreeing upon the application of the
decreases specified for dispatchers in that decision. The employees
sought to have the decreases applied in a manner which would
eliminate the differentials between the train dispatchers on the
various tricks. The carrier declined to agree to the application of
the decreases for train dispatchers in Decision No. 147 in this man-
ner, and the employees thereupon agreed to accept the full amount of
the decrease pending consideration and decision by the Labor Board
of their contentions.
Decision.—The Labor Board decides that immediately upon receipt
of this decision the employees and the carrier shall confer and ar-
range for the distribution of the amount of the decrease for train dis-
patchers specified in Article XI of Decision No. 147 in a manner
DECISIONS.
121
which will comply with the request of the employees for the elimina-
tion of the differentials as between dispatchers operating the same
division, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to result in
increased cost to the operation of the carrier.
It is further ordered that the application of the decreases as herein
provided shall be made concurrently with the application of Ad-
dendum No. 4 to Decision No. 147.
DECISION NO. 721.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. American Train Dispatchers'
Association.
Subject of the dispute. This decision is upon a controversy or dis-
pute between the carriers named below and the classes of employees
named herein represented by the above-named organization. The
subject matter of the dispute is what shall constitute just and reason-
able rules and working conditions.
Parties to the dispute.-The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Co.
Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Co.
Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Detroit, Bay City & Western Railroad Co.
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
122
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
El Paso & Southwestern System.
Erie Railroad Company.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in U. S.)
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway of Texas.
Litchfield & Madison Railway Co.
Long Island Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
New York Central Railroad Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
Pennsylvania System.
Peoria Railway Terminal Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern Railroad Co.
Rutland Railway Co.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas.
San Diego & Arizona Railway.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System)
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana,
DECISIONS.
123
Southern Railway Co.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
Harriman & Northeastern Railway Co.
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Susquehanna & New York Railroad Co.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each
of the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
American Train Dispatchers' Association.
Nature of the proceeding.-Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920,
the carriers or employees named herein have held or attempted to
hold conferences on rules and working conditions.
Each of these carriers or the representatives of its employees
either negotiated or attempted to negotiate rules, and they made
either joint or ex-parte certifications to the Railroad Labor Board
containing the rules upon which they agreed and those upon which
they disagreed, with the respective proposals of the parties as to
the latter; therefore, each of the carriers party to this decision has
a dispute with its employees on one or more of the rules.
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at
the original hearing, including a vast amount of evidence, data and
arguments, oral, written and documentary, and information gathered
by its own forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along
with the certification of the disputed rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out
are just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
March 1, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are as
follows:
20936°-23—9
124
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
ARTICLE I.-SCOPE.
29
The term "train dispatcher as herein used shall be understood
to include chief, assistant chief, trick, relief, and extra dispatchers,
except chief dispatchers vested substantially with the authority of
superintendent or assistant superintendent.
ARTICLE II.—HOURS OF SERVICE, OVERTIME, AND EXPENSES.
(a) Eight consecutive hours shall constitute a day's work for train
dispatchers.
(b) All time worked in excess of eight hours shall be paid for on
the actual minute basis at pro-rata rate for the ninth hour and at
the rate of time and one-half thereafter. Time consumed in making
transfer shall not be counted as overtime.
(c) Each train dispatcher will be assigned to established head-
quarters in accordance with seniority provisions and when required
to leave such headquarters shall be paid necessary actual expenses in
addition to regular salary while away. This section does not apply
to relief or extra dispatchers.
ARTICLE III.-REST DAYS AND RELIEF SERVICE.
(a) Each regularly assigned train dispatcher (and extra dispatch-
ers who perform six days' dispatching service in one week,) will be
allowed and required to take one day off per week as a relief day.
except when unavoidable emergency prevents furnishing relief. If
required to work such relief day, extra compensation will be allowed
at pro-rata rate.
(b) The carrier shall designate an established rest day for each
position in accordance with the foregoing section. Reasonable no-
tice shall be given of change in assignment of rest day.
(c) Where relief requirements regularly necessitate four or more
days of relief service per week, relief dispatchers shall be employed
and paid the daily rate of each dispatcher relieved, and when not
engaged in dispatching service will be assigned to other service and
paid therefor a daily rate commensurate with the service rendered.
(d) Relief requirements of less than four days per week will be
performed by extra dispatchers, who will be paid the daily rate of
each train dispatcher relieved.
ARTICLE IV.-RATES AND APPLICATION OF PAY.
(a) Train dispatchers shall be monthly employees, but the monthly
compensation shall be computed on a daily basis.
(b) When necessary to fix a daily rate of pay it shall be deter-
mined by multiplying the regular monthly rate by 12 and dividing
the result by 313.
(c) Loss of time on account of the hours-of-service law or in
changing positions by the direction of proper authority shall be
paid for at the rate of the position for which service was performed
immediately prior to such change. This does not apply in case of
transfers account employees exercising seniority.
DECISIONS.
125
(d) Rates of pay for new positions shall be the same as for exist-
ing positions of equal scope and responsibility.
ARTICLE V.-MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Dispatching offices will be maintained as private as possible.
(b) When assignment by the carrier requires train dispatchers
to change their place of residence they will be furnished free trans-
portation for their families and household goods to their new place.
of residence at time of transfer.
(c) Train dispatchers and their dependents will be granted as
liberal transportation privileges as are accorded other subordinate
officials and employees.
(d) Reasonable notice will be given of reduction in force or
change in hours of assigned positions.
ARTICLE VI.-DATE EFFECTIVE AND CHANGES.
(a) This agreement shall be effective as of March 1, 1922, and shall
continue in effect until it is changed as provided herein or under the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
(b) Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise
or modify these rules, 30 days' written notice, containing the pro-
posed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be held immedi-
ately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is mutually
agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1. Scope of rules.-The transportation act, 1920, provides
in subsection (5) of section 300 that-
The term "subordinate official" includes officials of carriers of such class
or rank as the commission shall designate by regulations formulated and
issued after such notice and hearing as the commission may prescribe, to the
carriers, and employees and subordinate officials of carriers, and organiza-
tions thereof, directly to be affected by such regulations.
In compliance with this provision of the act, the Interstate Com-
merce Commission accordingly issued a regulation-Ex parte 72,
November 24, 1920-in which it ordered that employees of carriers
performing the duties of chief dispatcher, day or night, shall be
classed as officials when vested substantially with the authority of
a superintendent or assistant superintendent.
In its consideration of Article I defining the scope of the rules
for train dispatchers, the Labor Board has recognized the above
regulation, which has been in effect incorporated in this article.
Under the rule as decided by the board, each carrier and its em-
ployees in disagreement on this article will consider each position
involving the work of chief dispatcher in the light of the Interstate
Commerce Commission's regulation and of the board's decision on
Article I, and where a chief dispatcher is vested substantially with
the authority of a superintendent or assistant superintendent, he
will be considered in the official class and will not, therefore, come
under the jurisdiction of these rules; where not so vested, he will
be considered as coming under the rules.
126
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
SEC. 2. Application of adopted rules. The rules approved by the
Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers parties to the dis-
pute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such instances
as any particular carrier may have agreed with its employees upon
any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule or rules agreed
upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on said road.
SEC. 3. Disposition of eliminated rules.-The board has elimi-
nated proposed rules relative to payroll classification, specification of
duties, and preference in employment of experienced train dispatch-
ers. These rules shall cease and terminate, except in such instances
as any particular carrier may have agreed or may hereafter agree
with its employees upon any one or more of such rules, in which case
the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall
apply on said road.
SEC. 4. Proposed rules not herein decided.-Because a very large
majority of the carriers and their employees have agreed upon
seniority and discipline rules, these subjects are remanded in their
entirety. The Labor Board believes that certain other subject mat-
ters may not be covered in all localities by rules of general applica-
tion, and require further consideration by the parties directly con-
cerned. All such rules which involve a dispute between a particular
carrier and its employees are hereby remanded to said carrier and its
employees for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions of sec-
tion 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
In further negotiations attention is again directed to the principles
announced in Exhibit B of Decision No. 119.
SEC. 5. Vacations and sick leave with pay.-In the opinion of the
Labor Board the question of vacations and sick leave with pay is one
which should be left at this time to the carriers and their respective
employees for the adoption of such rules as may be severally and
mutually agreed upon.
SEC. 6. Interpretation of this decision. The rules herein pro-
mulgated are to be considered and construed as new rules adopted by
the Labor Board in accordance with the transportation act, 1920, and
the principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the em-
ployees of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this
decision, or the rules contained herein, which can not be decided in
conference between the parties directly interested, such dispute shall
be handled in the manner provided by the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 722.-DOCKETS 1211, 1212, and 1213.
Chicago, Ill., February 16, 1922.
American Railway Express Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America;
Order of Railway Expressmen; Railway Express Drivers, Chauffeurs, Con-
ductors, and Helpers, Local No. 720 of Chicago Teamsters' Union.
Question.-Dispute as to what shall constitute just and reasonable
rules and working conditions for employees of the American Rail-
way Express Co.
DECISIONS.
127
Statement. This decision is upon a proposed revision of certain
rules governing hours of service and working conditions of em-
ployees in the service of the American Railway Express Co. adopted
agreement with three of the above-named organizations, executed
February 25, 1920, and effective as of February 15, 1920. The rules,
as then agreed to, were applicable to the members of the three organ-
izations in question, but were voluntarily extended to embrace all
of the carrier's employees, with certain exceptions set forth in the
rules. The agreement was made during the period of Federal opera-
tion which terminated February 29, 1920, and was continued in effect
after that date subject to 30 days' notice by either party of desire to
terminate it.
On April 29 and 30, 1921, the carrier served upon the employees,
in accordance with the terms of the agreement, notice of desire to
terminate the rules governing the hours of service and working
conditions as of July 1, 1921. Conferences were held with repre-
sentatives of the organizations parties to this dispute, and repre-
sentatives of various groups of unorganized employees during the
months of May and June, 1921, at which time certain proposals
were made as to modification of the rules. Following the conclu-
sion of these negotiations the carrier and organizations parties to
this dispute jointly certified to the Labor Board the rules upon
which they agreed and those upon which they disagreed with the
respective proposals of the parties as to the latter.
Decision-The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out,
corresponding to the rules of the agreement between the employees
and the carrier, effective February 15, 1920, are just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
March 1, 1922, are as follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
ARTICLE I.-SCOPE.
RULE 1. Employees affected.-These rules shall govern the hours
of service and working conditions of employees in the service of the
American Railway Express Co., subject to the exceptions noted
below:
Exceptions. These rules shall not apply to—
(a) Machinists, blacksmiths, harness makers, woodworkers, print-
ers, painters, trimmers, carpenters, stationary engineers and station-
ary firemen, horseshoers, and other similar crafts.
(b) Individuals performing special service requiring only a part
of their time from outside employment or business; or employees
paid on a commission basis. It being the intent of this agreement
that employees affected hereby shall be bona fide salaried employees
of the American Railway Express Co.
(c) Agents and others whose duties are of a similar and equally
supervisory nature and who do not perform routine office work.
Chief clerks of agents at agencies where there are regularly em-
ployed 40 or more employees exclusive of officials.
128
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Special agents and employees under the direction of special-agency
bureaus, special officers, and patrolmen.
General foreman and other officials in supervisory positions who
exercise such supervision through subordinate supervisory employees.
Route agents, commercial agents, traveling loss-and-damage super-
visors, official chief messengers, superintendents of transportation,
superintendents of bureaus of organization, superintendents of
claims, and traveling auditors.
Personal office force of such officials as superintendents or their
equals or superiors in official rank.
Employees excepted in this paragraph (c) shall retain their
seniority rights as provided by rule 26, Article II.
The appointing officer shall be the judge, subject to appeal, as pro-
vided in Article III, in the event of questions arising as to the justi-
fication for the classification.
ARTICLE III.-DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCES.
RULE 39. Committees.-Committees of the employees will be
granted necessary leave of absence for investigation, consideration,
and adjustment of grievances.
ARTICLE V.-HOURS OF SERVICE AND MEAL PERIOD.
RULE 45. Day's work.-Except as otherwise provided in these
rules, eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the meal period, shall
constitute a day's work.
RULE 46. Intermittent service. Where service is intermittent, 8
hours' actual time on duty within a spread of 12 hours shall consti-
tute a day's work. Employees filling such positions shall be paid
overtime for all time actually on duty or held for duty in excess
of 8 hours from the time required to report for duty to the time
of release within 12 consecutive hours, and also for all time in excess
of 12 consecutive hours computed continuously from the time first
required to report until final release. Time shall be counted as
continuous service in all cases where the interval of release from
duty does not exceed 1 hour.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for indi-
vidual positions when agreed to between the management and duly
accredited representatives of the employees. For such excepted
positions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply.
This rule shall not be construed as authorizing the working of
split tricks where continuous service is required.
Intermittent service is understood to mean service of a character
where during the hours of assignment there is no work to be per-
formed for periods of more than one hour's duration and service of
the employees can not otherwise be utilized.
Employees covered by this rule will be paid for not less than 8
hours within a spread of 12 consecutive hours.
RULE 47. Reporting and not used.-Hourly-rated employees whose
seniority entitles them to regular employment required to report at
regular starting time and place for a day's work when conditions
prevent work being performed will be allowed a minimum of three
hours' pay at pro-rata rates. If held on duty over three hours,
DECISIONS.
129
actual time so held will be paid for. If required to work any part
of the time so held and through no fault of their own are released
before a full day's work is performed they will be paid not less than
eight hours' pay unless they lay off of their own accord.
This guarantee will not be construed to apply to those who are
employed to take care of the fluctuating work that can not be handled
by regular forces.
RULE 48. Length of meal period.-Unless agreed to by a majority
of employees in a department or subdivision thereof, the meal period
shall not be less than 20 minutes, nor more than 1 hour.
RULE 52. Changing starting time.-Regular assignments (except
in train service) shall have a fixed starting time, and the regular
starting time shall not be changed without at least 36 hours' notice
to the employee affected.
ARTICLE VI.-OVERTIME AND CALLS.
RULE 54. Overtime.-Except as otherwise provided in these rules,
time in excess of eight hours, exclusive of meal period, on any day,
will be considered overtime and paid on the actual minute basis, at
the pro-rata rates for the ninth hour and at time and one-half there-
after.
RULE 55. Notified or called.-Except as provided in rule 56, em-
ployees notified or called to perform work not continuous with-be-
fore or after-the regular work period shall be allowed a minimum
of three hours for two hours' work or less, and if held on duty in
excess of two hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the minute
basis.
ARTICLE VII.-SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY WORK.
RULE 61. Full-day period.-Except as otherwise provided in these
rules, time worked on Sundays (or day given in lieu thereof), and
the following holidays-namely, New Year's Day, Washington's
Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiv-
ing Day, and Christmas (provided that when any of the above holi-
days fall on Sunday, the day observed by the State, Nation, or by
proclamation shall be considered the holiday) shall be paid for at the
pro-rata hourly rate when the entire number of hours constituting
the regular week-day assignment are worked.
NOTE.-Where the exigencies of service require employees to work on
Christmas and they are so worked, they shall be given a day off either in the
month of December or January in lieu thereof. If worked on such day off, they
shall be paid in accordance with rules 61 and 62.
RULE 62. Less than full-day period.-Except as otherwise provided
in these rules, when assigned, notified, or called to work on Sundays
and/or the above-specified holidays a less number of hours than con-
stitute a day's work within the limits of the regular week-day as-
signment, employees shall be paid at the pro-rata hourly rate for
actual time worked with a minimum of three hours. Time worked
before or after the limits of the regular week-day assignment shall be
paid for as per rule 54.
130
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ARTICLE VIII.—TRAIN SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
RULE 65. Month's assignment.-For all employees in train service,
except those in combination service as defined in rule 69, 240 hours,
or less, on runs in regular assignment shall constitute a basic month's
work. Deadhead hours, properly authorized, will be counted as serv-
ice hours. Time for trip of employees on a car scheduled to leave
prior to 12 o'clock midnight on the last day of a month will be
credited to the month in which the train handling the car is scheduled
to arrive.
RULE 66. Overtime rate.—Train service employees included in rule
65 shall be paid overtime on the actual minute basis for all time on
duty each month in excess of 240 hours at pro-rata rates, which
shall be determined by dividing the monthly wage by 240. Time in
excess of 270 hours shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half
times the hourly rate. Time shall be counted as continuous for each
trip from the time required to report for duty until released from
duty. Overtime shall be paid for at the end of each month.
RULE 72. Overtime for fractional parts of month.-For regular
employees in train service working less than a full month in regular
assignment, overtime will accrue after a ratable proportion of the
240-hour period has been worked. Such ratable proportion shall be
determined in the ratio that the scheduled hours worked during
the month bear to the scheduled hours constituting that month's
work. By this method overtime for such employees will consist of
the time actually on duty in excess of the ratable proportion of the
240-hour period as above determined.
NOTE." Scheduled hours" as mentioned above consist of the scheduled
train-time plus the scheduled terminal time at initial and final terminals for
each run.
RULE 73. Relief, substitute and extra train employees.—(a) Where
relief, substitute, and extra train employees are employed at a fixed
monthly salary to work as directed they shall be paid their regular
monthly pay and overtime for all time worked in excess of 240 hours.
per month, at pro-rata rates; time beyond 270 hours at rate of time
and one-half. The pro-rata hourly rate shall be determined by divid-
ing the monthly wage of such men by 240, provided that the principle
established in rule 80 is maintained.
(b) Where such employees are paid no fixed salary per month
but are paid according to time worked at the pay of the run, they
should be paid upon the basis provided for regularly employed train
employees in rule 72. In the case of such employees the 240 hours
per month applicable to employees in regular assignment do not
apply since, under the method provided in rule 72, they will receive
overtime for time run in excess of a ratable proportion of 240 hours
as is the case of regularly employed messengers.
(c) With regard to employees paid no stated salary, but who
perform extra work not in place of any regular messenger, they shall
be paid as follows:
If substituting or running extra on a run where there is a regular
assignment, they shall be paid as per pargraph (b) of this rule, i. e.,
the regular pay of the run, including the ratable proportion of
overtime.
DECISIONS.
131
If employed in train service where there is no regular assignment,
they shall be paid 60 cents per hour (50 cents per hour for helpers)
with a minimum guarantee of eight hours.
The 240-hour provision applicable to employees in regular assign-
ment does not apply to employees covered by this paragraph (c).
RULE 74. Regular train employees working during lay-over
period.-(a) When necessary to double or run out of time, such
employees shall receive credit for time so spent, which time will
apply against the monthly hours of 240, overtime to be paid for time
run in excess thereof, provided that where the assigned working
hours of the run are less than 240 per month, such service shall con-
stitute a call and be paid for as per paragraph (b) of this rule.
(b) Men called to protect route other than own will be paid as
follows: Time shall be computed from the time reporting for duty
until the time released from duty for each trip, time to be counted as
continuous when the period of relief does not exceed one hour.
Deadhead hours duly authorized to be counted as service hours.
Compensation for time so occupied shall be paid for on the minute
basis at pro-rata rates with a minimum allowance of three hours' pay
for two hours' work or less.
(c) In the determination of the hourly rate, the monthly rate
(own rate, if higher; otherwise, rate of run occupied) should be
divided by the scheduled hours constituting a month's work. Time
specially compensated for under this provision would not be included
in the monthly time of such men applying on the regular assignment.
In case such special duty causes absence on regular assignment the
pay of regular assignment will be apportioned as per rules 71 and 72.
RULE 76. Short turn-around service.-Train employees on short
turn-around runs shall be paid overtime for all time actually on duty
each month in excess of 240 hours, as provided in rule 66. Time to
be counted as service time in all cases where the interval of release
from duty at any point does not exceed 1 hour. Provided that the
minimum service time allowance shall be computed at not less than
8 hours within any one day.
RULE 90. Free transportation.-Eliminated.
RULE 95. Agreements and practices.-Eliminated.
RULE 96. Date effective and changes.-This agreement shall be
effective as of March 1, 1922, and shall continue in effect until it is
changed as provided herein or under the provisions of the transporta-
tion act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes shall be given and conferences shall be held imme-
diately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is mu-
tually agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SEC. 1. Disposition of eliminated rules.-The rules eliminated by
the Labor Board shall cease and terminate except in such instances
as the carrier may have agreed or may hereafter agree with its em-
ployees upon any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule
or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply.
SEC. 2. Disposition of omitted rules.-Because the carrier and its
employees have agreed upon the major part of Article II, compris-
132
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ing the seniority rules, Article III, governing discipline and griev-
ances, and Article IV, covering leave of absence, practically all of
the rules contained in these three articles are omitted.
The Labor Board believes that certain other subject matters now
regulated by the rules of the agreement between the employees and
the carrier, effective February 15, 1920, may not be covered in all
localities by rules of general application, and require further con-
sideration by the parties directly concerned.
The omission of the rules governing the above matters is indi-
cated herein by not including the number of the article or the sec-
tion thereof, as the case may be, as used in the agreement herein-
before referred to, and all such rules which involve a dispute be-
tween the carrier and its employees are hereby remanded to said
carrier and its employees for the purpose of adjustment under the
provisions of section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 3. Interpretation of this decision.-The rules herein adopted,
where similar to the rules in the agreement between the employees
and the carrier, effective February 15, 1920, are not to be under-
stood or construed as carrying with them the interpretations placed
ọn same by the United States Railroad Administration or by other
agencies acting under said administration, but are to be considered
and construed as new rules adopted by the Labor Board in accord-
ance with the transportation act, 1920.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the em-
ployees as to the meaning or intent of this decision which can not
be decided in conference between the parties directly interested,
such dispute shall be handled in the manner provided by the trans-
portation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 723.-DOCKET 1210.
Chicago, Ill., February 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southeastern Express Co.
Question.-Dispute as to what shall constitute just and reason-
able rules and working conditions for employees of the Southeastern
Express Co.
Statement. The Southeastern Express Co. commenced operation
on May 1, 1921. At its inception and until July 1, 1921, there was no
working agreement between the said carrier and its employees cov-
ering rules and working conditions. Conferences were held between
the representatives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees and the
representatives of the carrier, and a tentative working agreement
was entered into between the said organization and said carrier
effective July 1, 1921. The representatives of the employees and
the carrier being unable to agree on all of the rules proposed for
the government of the hours of service and other conditions of
employment, there was jointly certified to the Labor Board the
rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they disagreed,
with the respective proposals of the parties as to the rules in dis-
agreement.
DECISIONS.
133
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out
corresponding to the rules of the joint submission, signed for the
carrier by the president and general manager, and for the employees
by the general chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, are
just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
March 1, 1922, are as follows:
ARTICLE VI.-OVERTIME AND CALLS.
RULE 52. Overtime.-Except as otherwise provided in these rules,
time in excess of eight hours, exclusive of meal period, on any day,
will be considered overtime and paid on the actual minute basis, at
the pro-rata rate for the ninth hour and at time and one-half there-
after.
RULE 53. Notified or called.—Except as otherwise provided in these
rules, employees notified or called to perform work not continuous
with (before or after) the regular work period shall be allowed a
minimum of three hours for two hours' work or less and if held on
duty in excess of two hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the
minute basis.
ARTICLE VIII.-TRAIN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
RULE 62. Month's assignment.-For all employees in train service,
except those in combination service, as defined in rule 66, 240 hours
or less on runs in regular assignment shall constitute a basic month's
work. Deadhead hours, properly authorized, will be counted as serv-
ice hours. Time for trip of employees on a car scheduled to leave
prior to 12 o'clock midnight on the last day of a month will be
credited to the month in which the train handling the car is sched-
uled to arrive.
RULE 63. Overtime rate.-Train service employees included in rule
62 shall be paid overtime on the actual minute basis for all time on
duty each month in excess of 240 hours at pro rata rates, which shall
be determined by dividing the monthly wage by 240. Time in excess
of 270 hours shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half times
the hourly rate. Time shall be counted as continuous for each trip
from the time required to report for duty until released from duty.
Overtime shall be paid for at the end of each month.
RULE 92. Eliminated.
RULE 94. Date effective and changes.-This agreement shall be
effective as of March 1, 1922, and shall continue in effect until it is
changed as provided herein or under the provisions of the transporta-
tion act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be held imme-
diately on the expiration of said notice, unless another date is mutu-
ally agreed upon.
134
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1. Interpretation of this decision.-Should a dispute arise
between the carrier and the employees as to the meaning or intent of
this decision which can not be decided in conference between the
parties directly interested, such dispute shall be handled in the man-
ner provided by the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 724.-DOCKET 1300-4A.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-
neers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen; Order of Railway Conductors; American Train Dis-
patchers' Association; Railway Employees' Department, American Federa-
tion of Labor; International Association of Machinists; International
Alliance of Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers; Brotherhood Railway
Carmen of America; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers;
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers
of America; International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and
Helpers; United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers; Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Question.-This decision is upon a petition from the receiver of
the Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad for authority to reduce
rates of pay for its employees in train and engine service, station and
telegraph service, and in the maintenance of equipment and main-
tenance of way departments.
Statement. The carrier above named was a party to decision No. 2
and paid, pursuant to that decision, the increases specified for the
classes of employees referred to therein. On December 29, 1920, the
carrier notified the employees that operation could not be continued.
under the existing revenues and expenses unless the wages of the
employees were restored to the basis in effect April 30, 1920, prior
to the effective date of Decision No. 2. Conferences were held be-
tween the representatives of the employees and the carrier, at which
announcement was made of the carrier's intention to make the pro-
posed reduction in wages effective February 1, 1921. The repre-
sentatives of the employees declined to accept any reduction in wages
and applied to the Labor Board to order the carrier to rescind its
wage-reduction announcement and continue the existing scale pend-
ing consideration and determination by the board of the questions
at issue. The wage-reduction order was not rescinded, and on Feb-
ruary 6, 1921, the Labor Board adopted a resolution deciding that
no change of any kind in the compensation established by Decision
No. 2 should be made except by agreement between the interested
parties, until the dispute had been heard and opportunity given for
the board to decide. On February 9, 1921, the receiver notified the
Labor Board that the order reducing wages, effective February 1,
1921, would not be rescinded, on account of the inability of the car-
rier to pay the wages established by Decision No. 2.
After hearing and due consideration of the arguments of the in-
terested parties, the Labor Board promulgated, on February 21,
1921, Decision No. 90 in which it was held that the conferences
DECISIONS.
135
conducted in January, 1921, were not with reference to the justness
or reasonableness of the existing wages, and therefore did not con-
stitute a compliance with section 301 of the transportation act. It
was ordered that arrangements for such conferences be made, and
that pending the outcome thereof and action of this board, all em-
ployees, including those who had been laid off, on their being returned
to the service, accept, under protest, the wages offered.
When this decision was transmitted to the carrier it notified the
Labor Board of its readiness to confer with the representatives of
the employees to consider the question of whether the wages estab-
lished were just and reasonable, in accordance with the decision of
the board. The shop crafts left the carrier's service on January 31,
1921, following the announcement of the carrier of its purpose to
place the reduced wage scale into effect February 1, 1921. When
Decision No. 90 of the Labor Board was issued their representative
notified the carrier of their willingness to return to service and accept,
under protest, the wages placed in effect by the carrier pending con-
ference and appeal as provided for in said decision. The carrier
took the position that these employees had left its service on January
31, 1921, and declined to grant their application for conference.
The employees in train, engine, and yard service, and in the tele-
graph and maintenance of way departments did not seek conference
with the carrier in accordance with Decision No. 90, but under date
of February 25, 1921, notified the carrier of their intention to with-
draw from the service the following day if the rates established by
Decision No. 2 were not restored. These employees withdrew from
the service on February 26, 1921, and the carrier subsequently notified
the Labor Board that new forces had been recruited who were willing
to continue in service at the rates established by the receiver, and
continued in effect by approval of the court effective February 1, 1921.
On July 31, 1921, owing to inability to meet operating expenses,
the carrier ceased operation.
Under date of October 10, 1921, the representative of the receiver
addressed to the representatives of the organizations whose members
were previously employed by the Missouri & North Arkansas Rail-
road a notice of desire to resume operation of the said railroad under
certain conditions specifically set forth therein. The employees were
requested to confer with the representatives of the carrier with a
view to considering the resumption of operations under a reduced
scale of wages. Conferences were subsequently held between the
receiver's representative and officers of various organizations repre-
senting the employees in the service at the time the operation of the
railroad ceased. This conference failed of agreement on the ques-
tion of just and reasonable wages, and under date of December 20,
1921, the carrrier filed with the Labor Board an application for
decision in which it was stated that conferences with the employees
with reference to the establishment of just and reasonable wages
had been held in compliance with the transportation act, 1920, and
requested the board to grant a hearing for the consideration of the
wages which it proposed to put into effect.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board, representatives of the
carrier and the various organizations party to this dispute were pres-
ent. The carrier's request contemplates a reduction in the wages of
136
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the employees from the rates established by Decision No. 2 of this
board an amount equivalent to the decreases authorized by Decision
No. 147 for the classes of employees referred to therein in the service
of the carriers parties to said decision and an additional 25 per cent
reduction.
There has been submitted to the board in support of this request
considerable data and information in reference to the cost of living,
rates paid in outside industries, and other relevant conditions referred
to in the transportation act, 1920.
The representatives of the employees who were present at the hear-
ing held by the Labor Board contended that in view of the conditions
hereinbefore set forth the Labor Board had no jurisdiction of this
dispute, and, furthermore, contended that there had not been held in
compliance with section 301 of the transportation act, the conferences
contemplated by said section for the consideration of the justness and
reasonableness of the proposed scale of wages.
The Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad has been in the hands
of a receiver since the year 1912 and has not since that year
paid any return on the investment. It serves a territory of approxi-
mately 500,000 population, 145,000 of which is served exclusively by
this carrier. It was placed under Federal operation in September,
1918, and the orders of the Administration with respect to wages
and working conditions were applied. After the issuance of De-
cision No. 2 of the Labor Board the carrier applied to the Interstate
Commerce Commission to provide adequate funds to pay the wages
established by that decision, and for other purposes, as set forth in
Interstate Commerce Commission proceedings, Ex parte No. 74. In
its presentation to this board the carrier has set forth that it has
appealed to the Interstate Commerce Commission for assistance to
resume operation and has appealed to the executives of carriers in
the territory which it serves for a sufficient division of rates to pro-
vide adequate income to pay operating expenses, taxes, and interest
on a proposed loan from the Government, if granted. The carrier
has shown that in order to resume operation of the property a reduc-
tion in wages equivalent to an annual saving of $310,000 must be
made and this would require the application of the decreases author-
ized by the board in Decision No. 147 for the classes of employees
referred to therein and a further reduction of 25 per cent in the
wages established by the application of Decision No. 147.
If this request is not granted, the carrier contends that it is in-
evitable that the road must be scrapped, with the result that thou-
sands of people along the line will be out of employment with great
loss and inconvenience to all those who have made investments in
farms, homes, manufacturing establishments, financial institutions,
schools, and churches along the line of the railroad on the theory
that it was to be an operating railroad. The carrier's proposition
further contemplates that the owners of the property shall not re-
ceive any return upon their investment until the Government loan
which is contemplated is paid off and wages of the employees are
restored to the standard scale.
The employees request that the board give consideration at this
time only to the question of jurisdiction, and if it is decided that the
board has jurisdiction to set a further hearing for the discussion of
the merit of the carrier's proposals as to reduction in wages.
DECISIONS.
137
Opinion. The Labor Board has given consideration to the ques-
tion of jurisdiction referred to by the employees and is of the opinion
that it has jurisdiction in this dispute. It further appears that the
contention of the employees that this dispute is not properly before
the board in view of the failure of the carrier to hold conferences
as contemplated by section 301 of the transportation act is not well
sustained. The evidence shows that the representative of the re-
ceiver circulated among the employees a notice of its desire to resume
operation and establish certain wages which would permit of saving
an amount required to operate the property. This notice was not
only distributed among the employees' representatives on the property
to which the carrier had direct access, but the carrier's representative
appeared at a conference in Chicago conducted by the organizations
whose membership was involved in the controversy and made known
to those present at said conferences the details of its proposals and
sought their acceptance of the reduced scale of wages. The com-
mittee representing the Federated Shop Crafts claim that they were
not a party to the conferences conducted by the carrier in either St.
Louis or Chicago, but the evidence shows that at the conference in
Chicago the president of the Federated Shop Crafts was in attend-
ance and participated therein.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the proposition contained
in the submission made by the representatives of the carrier, dated
October 10, 1921, shall be accepted by the employees, based upon a
continuation of the agreements as to working conditions that were
in effect as of January 1, 1921, or, in lieu thereof, the decisions the
Labor Board has rendered in connection with rules which superseded
the several agreements in effect as of January 1, 1921.
While this matter is not in issue at this time before the Labor
Board, it is recommended by the board that all the former employees
parties to this dispute be reinstated with the continuity of their sen-
iority unimpaired.
Conferences to be held between the representatives of the employees
parties to this dispute and the representative of the carrier at the
earliest possible date, not later than March 1, 1922, to properly and
fairly apply this decision.
DECISION NO. 725.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 22, 1922.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. International Brotherhood
of Firemen and Oilers.
Subject of the dispute. This decision is upon a controversy or dis-
pute between the carriers named below and the classes of employees
named herein represented by the above-named organization. The
subject matter of the dispute is what shall constitute just and reason-
able rules and working conditions.
Parties to the dispute.-The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
138
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Pennsylvania System.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each of
the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers.
Nature of the proceeding.--Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, the
carriers or employees named herein have held or attempted to hold
conferences on rules and working conditions.
Each of these carriers or the representatives of its employees
either negotiated or attempted to negotiate rules, and they made
either joint or ex-parte certifications to the Railroad Labor Board
containing the rules upon which they agreed and those upon which
they disagreed, with the respective proposals of the parties as to the
latter; therefore each of the carriers parties to this decision has a
dispute with its employees on one or more of the rules.
DECISIONS.
139
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at the
original hearing, including a vast amount of evidence, data and argu-
ments, oral, written, and documentary, and information gathered by
its own forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along with
the certification of the disputed rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out,
corresponding to the rules of the national agreement, are just and
reasonable. Reference is made to the number of these rules in the
national agreement because they are not numbered uniformly in the
submissions from the various carriers.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
March 1, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are as
follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND Working CondiTIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
RULE 1. Scope.-These rules govern the hours of service and work-
ing conditions of stationary and hoisting engineers, stationary fire-
men, boiler-room water tenders, engine-room oilers or grease-cup
fillers, flue blowers and borers, fire knockers and cinder-pit men,
fire builders and coal passers.
It is understood that existing agreements with other organizations
are not hereby annulled unless and until a majority of the em-
ployees concerned express a desire for a change.
RULE 2. (a) Except as provided in rule 2 (b), eight consecutive
hours, exclusive of meal period, shall constitute a day's work.
Employees who are required to work during the meal period will
be allowed 20 minutes for lunch without loss of pay.
(b) Where service is intermittent 8 hours' actual time on duty
within a spread of 12 hours shall constitute a day's work. Em-
ployees filling such positions shall be paid overtime for all time
actually on duty or held for duty in excess of 8 hours from the time
required to report for duty to the time of release within 12 consecu-
tive hours, and also for all time in excess of 12 consecutive hours
computed continuously from the time first required to report until
final release. Time shall be counted as continuous service in all cases
where the interval of release from duty does not exceed one hour.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraphs shall be made for indi-
vidual positions when agreed to between the management and duly
accredited representatives of the employees. For such excepted posi-
tions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply.
This rule shall not be construed as authorizing the working of
split tricks where continuous service is required.
Intermittent service is understood to mean service of a character
where during the hours of assignment there is no work to be per-
formed for periods of more than one hour's duration and service
of the employees can not otherwise be utilized.
Employees covered by this rule will be paid not less than 8 hours
within a spread of 12 consecutive hours.
20936°-23-10
140
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
RULE 3. Time worked in excess of eight hours will be considered
overtime and paid for on the minute basis at pro-rata rate for the
ninth and tenth hours and at time and one-half thereafter, except
that time and one-half will not be allowed to employees changing
shifts at their own request.
RULE 4. Employees notified or called to perform work not con-
tinuous with the regular work period will be allowed a minimum.
of three hours for two hours' work or less, and if held on duty in
excess of two hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the minute
basis.
RULE 5. Sunday and holiday work-Full-day period.-Time
worked on Sundays and the following holidays-namely, New Year's
Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas-shall be paid for at
the pro-rata hourly rate when the entire number of hours consti-
tuting the regular week-day assignment are worked.
RULE 6. Sunday and holiday work-Less than full period.-When
assigned, notified, or called to work on Sundays and/or the above-
specified holidays a less number of hours than constitutes a day's
work within the limits of the regular week-day assignment, em-
ployees shall be paid a minimum allowance of three hours for two
hours' work or less, and at the pro-rata hourly rate after the second
hour of each tour of duty.
RULE 7. To compute the hourly rate of monthly-rated employees,
take the number of working days constituting a calendar year, mul-
tiply by eight and divide the annual salary by such total hours,
which is exclusive of overtime and disregarding time absent on vaca-
tion, sick leave, holidays, or for any other cause. In determining
the hourly rate, fractions less than one-half cent will not be counted;
one-half cent and over will be counted as 1 cent.
RULE 18. This agreement shall be effective as of March 1, 1922,
and shall continue in effect until it is changed as provided herein or
under the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be held
immediately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is
mutually agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1. Application of adopted rules. The rules approved by
the Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers parties to the
dispute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such in-
stances as any particular carrier may have agreed with its em-
ployees upon any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule
or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on
said road.
SEC. 2. Disposition of omitted rules.-Because a very large ma-
jority of the carriers and their employees have agreed upon the
major part of rules 8 to 16, inclusive, governing discipline and
grievances, and rule 17, relating to assignment to higher- or lower-
rated positions, these rules are remanded in their entirety. In fur-
ther negotiations attention is again directed to principle 8, Exhibit B
of Decision No. 119, which provides that—
DECISIONS.
141
No employee should be disciplined without a fair hearing by a designated
officer of the carrier. Suspension in proper cases pending a hearing, which
shall be prompt, shall not be deemed a violation of this principle. At a reason-
able time prior to the hearing he is entitled to be apprised of the precise charge
against him. He shall have reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of
necessary witnesses and shall have the right to be there represented by a
counsel of his choosing. If the judgment shall be in his favor, he shall be
compensated for the wage loss, if any, suffered by him.
The omission of the rules governing the above matters is indicated
herein by not including the number of the article or the section
thereof, as the case may be, as used in the national agreement, and all
such rules which involve a dispute between a particular carrier and
its employees are hereby remanded to said carrier and its employees
for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions of section 301 of
the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 3. Interpretation of this decision. The rules herein promul-
gated are to be considered and construed as new rules adopted by the
Labor Board in accordance with the transportation act, 1920, and
the principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employees
of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision, or
the rules contained herein, which can not be decided in conference
between the parties directly interested, such dispute shall be handled
in the manner provided by the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 726.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 27, 1922.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co. et al. v. International
Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics.
Subject of the dispute. This decision is upon a controversy or
dispute between the carriers named below and the classes of em-
ployees named herein represented by the above-named organization.
The subject matter of the dispute is what shall constitute just and
reasonable rules and working conditions.
Parties to the dispute.—The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co.
Boston & Maine Railroad.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
El Paso & Southwestern System.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each of
the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics.
142
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Nature of the proceeding.-Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, the
carriers or employees named herein have held or attempted to hold
conferences on rules and working conditions.
Each of these carriers or the representatives of its employees either
negotiated or attempted to negotiate rules, and they made either
joint or ex-parte certification to the Railroad Labor Board contain-
ing the rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they
disagreed, with the respective proposals of the parties as to the
latter; therefore each of the carriers party to this decision has a dis-
pute with its employees on one or more of the rules.
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the Board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at the
original hearing, including a vast amount of evidence, data and ar-
guments, oral, written and documentary, and information gathered
by its own forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along with
the certification of the disputed rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under .
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out are
just and reasonable.
It is understood that existing agreements with other organizations
are not hereby annulled, unless and until a majority of the employees
concerned express a desire for a change or until changed under the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
March 1, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are as
follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
RULE 1. The term "supervisor of mechanics," as hereinafter used,
shall be understood to include all foremen below the rank of general
foreman supervising mechanics in the maintenance of equipment
department.
RULE 2. All supervisors of mechanics, herein specified, shall be
compensated on a monthly salary basis.
RULE 3. To determine the daily basis for all employees herein
specified, multiply by 12 the regular monthly rate (exclusive of com-
pensation for extra service), and divide the result by the number of
days in a year that service has been customarily performed.
RULE 4. Monthly salaried supervisors of mechanics shall be re-
quired to remain on duty only a sufficient length of time after the
shift of mechanics they supervise have completed their tour of duty
to properly turn over the work to their successors, if on a relief posi-
tion; or if not on a relief position, to see that there are no fire
hazards and that everything is in proper place and order.
RULE 5. Supervisors of mechanics will not be required to report
to work on Sundays, unless they have supervisory duties to perform
or when attending a conference in the interest of the service.
RULE 6. Supervisors of mechanics whose tour of duty consists of
seven days per week, will be granted two days off each month. If
DECISIONS.
143
for any reason the supervisor is not permitted to have two days off
each, month, he will be compensated for those days on the pro-rata
basis, in addition to the regular monthly compensation.
RULE 7. There will be no deduction in the compensation of super-
visors of mechanics on account of shops working reduced hours.
RULE 8. The entering of employees in the positions occupied in the
service, or changing their classification or work, shall not operate to
establish a less favorable rate of pay or condition of employment
than is herein established.
RULE 9. When a new position is created the rate of pay will be
established to conform to positions of similar character and re-
sponsibility.
RULE 10. Foremen temporarily assigned to higher-rated positions
will receive the higher rate.
RULE 11. When supervisors of mechanics are required to leave
their established headquarters (which will be designated by superior
officers), in compliance with the directions of superior officers, they
will be paid necessary actual expenses while away.
RULE 12. Employees covered by this schedule and those dependent
upon them for support will be given same consideration in grant-
ing free transportation as is granted other employees in service.
RULE 13. In filling vacancies or new positions, supervisors of
mechanics senior in the service employed on a division or terminal
making written application for such position, shall be granted pref-
erence where ability is conceded; the superintendent or master
mechanic to be the judge.
RULE 14. When a position held by a supervisor of mechanics is
abolished, advance notice thereof will be given, and so far as the
management is concerned, he may resume his seniority in the craft
from which he was promoted.
RULE 15. Efforts will be made to provide suitable employment for
supervisors of mechanics who have given long and faithful service
and have become unable, on account of age or infirmity, to handle
their present positions.
RULE 16. In case a supervisor of mechanics accepts an official posi-
tion with the carrier, or a salaried position as a representative of the
employees, he will retain all seniority rights as provided for in rules
13 and 14.
RULE 17. This agreement shall be effective as of March 1, 1922,
and shall continue in effect until it is changed as provided herein or
under the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
RULE 18. Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to
revise or modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, con-
taining the proposed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be
held immediately on the expiration of said notice unless another
date is mutually agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1. Application of adopted rules. The rules approved by
the Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers parties to the
dispute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such in-
stances as any particular carrier may have agreed with its em-
ployees upon any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule or
144
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on
said road.
SEC. 2. Disposition of eliminated rules.-The board has eliminated
proposed rules relative to classification of shops, classification of
supervisors of mechanics, and duties required in case of industrial
disputes. These rules shall cease and terminate, except in such in-
stances as any particular carrier may have agreed or may hereafter
agree with its employees upon any one or more of such rules, in which
case the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees
shall apply on said road.
SEC. 3. Proposed rules not herein decided.-Because a substantial
number of the carriers and their employees have agreed upon the
major part of the rules governing discipline and grievances, this sub-
ject is remanded in its entirety. In further negotiations attention
is again directed to principle 8, Exhibit B of Decision No. 119, which
provides that-
No employee should be disciplined without a fair hearing by a designated
officer of the carrier. Suspension in proper cases pending a hearing, which shall
be prompt, shall not be deemed a violation of this principle. At a reasonable
time prior to the hearing he is entitled to be apprised of the precise charge
against him. He shall have reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of
necessary witnesses and shall have the right to be there represented by a
counsel of his choosing. If the judgment shall be in his favor, he shall be
compensated for the wage loss, if any, suffered by him.
The Labor Board believes that certain other subject matters may
not be covered in all localities by rules of general application, and
require further consideration by the parties directly concerned.
All such rules which involve a dispute between a particular carrier
and its employees are hereby remanded to said carrier and its em-
ployees for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions of section
301 of the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 4. Vacations and sick leave with pay.-In the opinion of the
Labor Board the question of vacations and sick leave with pay is
one which should be left at this time to the carriers and their respec-
tive employees for the adoption of such rules as may be severally
and mutually agreed upon.
SEC. 5. Interpretation of this decision. The rules herein promul-
gated are to be considered and construed as new rules adopted by the
Labor Board in accordance with the transportation act, 1920, and the
principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employees
of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent, of this decision, or
the rules contained herein, which can not be decided in conference
between the parties directly interested, such dispute shall be handled
in the manner provided by the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 727.-DOCKET 1012.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to employees holding seniority
being laid off in connection with reduction in force and other em-
ployees with less seniority being retained in the service.
DECISIONS.
145
Statement.-C. L. Wigley, Durant, Miss., was laid off on January
1, 1921, on account of reduction in force, and four men who were
junior in seniority standing were retained in the service.
The employees contend that under the rules of the agreement be-
tween the employees and the carrier effective February 15, 1920,
seniority rights should govern in a reduction in force.
The carrier states that in the reduction in force at Durant, Miss.,
Mr. Wigley was relieved from the service for the reason that he was
a minor and that there was no position at that point in which, under
the carrier's rules, a minor could be employed. The carrier, there-
fore, contends that Mr. Wigley did not have the requisite fitness to
perform the duties of any of the remaining positions in the office,
and it was necessary to relieve him from the service.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 728.-DOCKET 1047.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper compensation for em-
ployees engaged as attendants on trains on which there were no regu-
lar express messengers.
Statement. The employees involved in this dispute made various
trips in road service as attendants or guards, and were paid therefor
at the rate of 56 cents per hour.
The employees contend that while they were performing this serv-
ice they were in full charge of the shipments in their care and were
not under the authority of an express messenger. It is claimed that
these employees were therefore in fact express messengers and should
have been paid at the rate of 66 cents per hour.
The carrier states that these men were simply acting as attendants,
accompanying carload shipments of horses; that they did not ride
in the cars with the horses but in other cars on the same train; and
that they did not perform any work analogous to that of messengers
except to carry waybills and remain with the car to protect it in
the event of its being cut out of the train. The carrier contends that
they were performing guard duty and were properly paid in accord-
ance with rule 73, section (c) of the agreement between the em-
ployees and the carrier, effective February 15, 1920, which provides
à rate of 56 cents per hour for employees performing this class of
service.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 729.-DOCKET 1064.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad.
Question. Request for reinstatement with pay for all time lost by
R. M. Van Atta, ice-house foreman, Denver, Colo.
146
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. This dispute is hereby remanded to the employees and
the carrier for further conference and effort to reach a settlement in
accordance with the understanding had at the hearing conducted by
the Labor Board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 730.-DOCKET 752.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922,
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Question.-Did the position of chief clerk to the agent of the Pere
Marquette Railway Co. at Suspension Bridge, N. Y., come within
the scope of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees as defined in Article I thereof?
Statement. Due to a rearrangement of forces at this point, the
position involved in this dispute was abolished on January 21, 1921,
and the claim as presented to the Labor Board is that the employee
holding the position prior to that date should have been paid on a
daily basis, as provided in rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement,
and compensated for overtime and Sunday service in accordance
with the rules of agreement covering such service.
Paragraph (b), under title "Exceptions," rule 1, Article I, of
the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees,
reads, in part, as follows:
This agreement shall not apply to chief clerks of supervisory agents at the
larger stations (see note),
NOTE. As it is impracticable to designate "larger stations" for all railroads,
the proper officer of the railroad and the representative of the employees should
agree upon the proper classification with right of appeal from the decision of
the officer, if no agreement is reached.
The carrier contends that Suspension Bridge is-and always has
been a supervisory agency; that it is one of the larger stations on
the railroad; and that therefore the position is not included within
the scope of the agreement.
In their submission to the Labor Board, the employees contended
that this was not a supervisory agency, but at the hearing in this case
admitted that it was. They contended, however, that it was not one
of the larger stations on the railroad in the sense the term is used in
the agreement, and requested that the monthly rate be converted to a
daily rate as provided in rule 66, effective March 1, 1920, and that
the employee holding the position be paid in accordance with the
rules of the agreement up to the date the position was abolished,
namely, January 21, 1921.
The question to be decided in this case is whether or not Suspension
Bridge, N. Y., is one of the larger stations on the Pere Marquette
Railroad.
Decision.-Basing its decision on the evidence submitted, the Labor
Board decides that Suspension Bridge, N. Y., is one of the
DECISIONS.
147
larger stations as referred to in paragraph (b), under title "Excep-
tions," rule 1, Article I, of the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees.
Claim of the employees is, therefore, denied.
DECISION NO. 731.-DOCKET 783.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to changing the hours of service
in certain general offices of the New York Central Railroad Co.
Statement. It was the general practice in various offices of the
carrier for clerical employees to work 7 hours and 15 minutes daily
except Saturday, on which day the offices closed between 12 noon and
1 p. m. In December, 1920, the working hours in the office of the
superintendent of freight transportation and the superintendent of
car service were increased to eight hours per day five days per week,
and in April, 1921, similar action was taken in the accounting de-
partment. The practice of allowing employees a half holiday on
Saturday was not changed.
The employees contend that rule 57 of the national agreement of
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han-
dlers, Express and Station Employees provides that where in a given
office it has been the practice to let employees off for a part of the day
on certain days of the week, such practice shall not be rescinded.
The employees concede that they are not entitled to additional com-
pensation for the time they were required to work in excess of their
previous regular assignment.
The carrier states that under rule 57 of the clerks' national agrée-
ment any necessary service up to and including eight hours may be
required without the payment of additional compensation, and con-
tends that the last paragraph of the rule in question refers only to
Saturday half holiday, which has not been changed.
* *
It is further claimed that principle 12 of Decision No. 119 of the
Labor Board provides that "for eight hours' pay eight hours' work
should be performed
*" and that the carrier has complied.
with the rules of all agreements, orders, and decisions affecting the
hours of service of the class of employees involved in this dispute.
Rule 57 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees reads, in part, as follows:
It is understood that where in a given office it has been the practice to let
employees off for a part of the eight-hour day on certain days of the week,
such practice shall not be rescinded and shall not be departed from except in
cases of emergency.
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
148
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 732.-DOCKET 1218.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to reduction in the number of
days in the regular weekly assignment of clerical employees in the
general offices.
Statement. On February 3, 1921, the carrier circulated among
the clerical employees in the general offices at Philadelphia a petition
contemplating their approval of a change in the weekly assignment.
During the period February 26 to March 29, 1921, the employees
were required to lay off one day each week without compensation.
The employees contend that this change in the weekly assignment
below six days per week constituted a violation of rule 66, and request
that the employees involved be reimbursed for the day of each week
that they were laid off during the period mentioned.
The carrier states that it was necessary to affect certain economies,
and that in order to avoid a reduction in force a petition was cir-
culated among the employees for the purpose of securing their ap-
proval of a reduction in the number of days per week to five. The
carrier contends that this petition was signed unanimously, and
without coercion or intimidation, as is claimed by the employees,
and that the five-day per week assignment was placed in effect by
mutual agreement between the employees and the carrier.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 733.-DOCKET 933.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of G. H. Boone for the right to exercise his
seniority to a position in the office of the superintendent at Hazle-
ton, Pa.
Statement.—Mr. Boone entered the service of the carrier as a
laborer on January 8, 1917, and was promoted to the position of
freight checker on June 1, 1918. He was subsequently assigned to
various clerical positions under the freight agent, and at the time
this controversy arose was employed as chief clerk to the agent.
On January 6, 1921, the position of general foreman in the freight
house at Hazleton was abolished and the incumbent thereof in the
exercise of his seniority rights displaced Mr. Boone from the posi-
tion of chief clerk to agent in accordance with the provisions of rule
27 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees. Mr. Boone thereupon made application to displace R. J.
Woodring, clerk in the superintendent's office at Hazleton. The car-
rier declined to permit Mr. Boone to exercise his seniority rights
to displace Mr. Woodring on the ground that he did not have the
DECISIONS.
149
requisite fitness and ability to qualify on the position held by Mr.
Woodring.
The employees contend that Mr. Boone did have sufficient fitness
and ability to justify the exercise of his seniority rights to position
of clerk in the superintendent's office held by Mr. Woodring and
request that he be assigned to said position and reimbursed for
monetary loss sustained by failure to permit him to exercise his
displacement rights in accordance with rule 27 of the clerks' national
agreement.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 734.—DOCKET 934.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question. Dispute with reference to change in the hours of
service of clerical employees in the general office.
Statement. Clerical employees in the general offices of the car-
rier at Philadelphia, Pa., worked 7 hours and 15 minutes Mondays
to Fridays, inclusive, and 3 hours on Saturdays. During the period
February 7 to 28, 1921, inclusive, the hours of service were length-
ened to 8 hours on each day from Monday to Friday, inclusive, and
to 4 hours on Saturday.
The employees contend that this action on the part of the carrier
was in violation of rule 57 of the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees, and request that the employees who were
required to work beyond 7 hours and 15 minutes on the week days
referred to and beyond 3 hours on Saturdays shall be paid additional
compensation for the time worked beyond such hours.
The carrier states that the change in hours above described was
made after a petition was circulated among the employees and they
had unanimously subscribed to the arrangement. After the change in
assignment was made rumors of dissatisfaction reached the officers
in charge and the arrangement was later discontinued. The carrier
contends that the change in the hours of service was necessary for
reasons of economy and was not in conflict with any rule of the
clerks' national agreement.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 735.-DOCKET 938.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of Andrew Yarolim for the right to exercise his
seniority to position of call boy, Coxton, Pa.
15.0
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement.-Mr. Yarolim entered the carrier's service as messenger
August 31, 1918, and, with the exception of about six months, during
which time he was employed as janitor, served in that capacity until
March 6, 1920. On the latter date he was assigned to position as
checker and continued thereon until December 31, 1920, when his
position was abolished, due to a reduction in force. He thereupon.
sought to exercise his seniority rights to displace an employee hold-
ing the position of caller at Coxton. This request was declined by
the carrier on the ground that Mr. Yarolim did not possess sufficient
fitness and ability to qualify on the position of call boy.
The employees contend that Mr. Yarolim filled with satisfaction
the position of yard checker, and that he has the requisite fitness and
ability to qualify on the position of call boy, for which he made
application when his position as yard checker was abolished. The
employees claim that Mr. Yarolim should be assigned to the position
and reimbursed for any monetary loss sustained through not having
been permitted to exercise his seniority at the time his position was
abolished.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides, on the basis of the evidence.
before it, that Mr. Yarolim did possess sufficient fitness and ability
to justify his assignment to the position of call boy at Coxton, and
that he shall, therefore, be assigned to said position and reimbursed
for all monetary loss sustained since the date he made application
therefor less any amount earned in other employment since that date.
DECISION NO. 736.-DOCKET 1133.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of George L. Kearns, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio.
Decision. Basing this decision on the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that the request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 737.-DOCKET 1086.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of C. S. Booth, clerk, for pay for time absent
account of sickness from November 22 to December 26, 1920.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
151
DECISION NO. 738.-DOCKET 1087.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of C. M. Waite, clerk, for pay for time absent
account sickness.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 739.-DOCKET 1091.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Request for reinstatement of H. J. Brown, timekeeper,
Portland division.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 740.-DOCKET 1101.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall certain positions in the office of the auditor of
merchandise receipts-the duties of which have been materially
changed-be bulletined, and employees holding same be permitted to
exercise their seniority rights under the rules of the national agree-
ment of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees?
Statement. The employees involved in this dispute are employed
in the office of the auditor of merchandise receipts, Baltimore, Md.
Prior to February 11, 1921, a greater portion of their time was
devoted to the revision of rates, and the balance was consumed in
handling correspondence and in the preparation of incidental state-
After that date, by reason of the decrease in business and
the resultant rearrangement of work, the revision of rates consumed
a comparatively small part of the time of these employees, and the
handling of correspondence and preparation of statements a major-
ity of their time. No change was made in the rate of pay or hours
of service, and the clerks who were on the positions prior to February
11 continued thereon after that date.
The employees contend that the employees involved in this dispute
held positions of rate revision clerks and that the change in the
character of the work of their positions, as above described, consti-
tuted the abolishment of their positions of rate clerks and the estab-
lishment of new positions of correspondence clerks. It is further
152
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
claimed that these employees were in fact taken off their regular
assigned positions of rate clerks and assigned to positions of han-
dling correspondence with the auditors of connecting lines pertain-
ing to the settlement or adjustment of differences between accounts.
It is, therefore, claimed that these employees should have been per-
mitted to exercise their seniority rights over junior rate clerks in the
office, and that the positions which they held after February 11
should have been bulletined as positions of correspondence clerks.
in accordance with the rules of the clerks' national agreement.
The carrier states that on February 11, 1921, due to decrease in
business there was a falling off in the number of waybills handled,
and consequently the work of revision of rates in the auditor's office
decreased considerably. There was also increased activity on the
part of the foreign lines in the settlement of differences and on the
part of the auditing department to clear the agents' accounts of out-
standing items. This resulted in an increase in the amount of corre-
spondence and statements of differences handled. It was therefore
necessary to reapportion the work among the clerks in the office in
question in order to avoid an unequal distribution of the work
among the clerks.
The carrier contends that the clerks involved in this dispute con-
tinued on their positions without loss of any time at the regular rate
of pay, that no new positions were created, that the reapportionment
of the work was the subject of conference between the officer in
charge and the clerks concerned, and that the clerks expressed their
satisfaction with the reapportionment of the work contemplated.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the positions held by the
employees involved in this dispute were not abolished, and that the
action taken by the carrier was not in violation of any rule of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 741.-DOCKET 1170.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question. Dispute regarding proper classification and rate of
pay for B. L. Oldfield and W. J. Stoops, engine dispatchers at round-
house, Hannibal, Mo.
Decision. The carrier and employees having agreed to the with-
drawal of this case in order that further effort might be made to
reach a settlement, it is hereby removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 742.-DOCKET 1172.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay for L. H.
Greenleaf, employed in the office of shop accountant, Parsons, Kans.
DECISIONS.
153
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 743.-DOCKET 1227.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Frank Udally, clerk, information bureau,
Chicago passenger terminal, for pay for time off duty on account of
illness during the month of April, 1921.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It is
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 744.-DOCKET 1411.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Lawrence Flannigan, night foreman, Chicago
passenger terminal, for pay for time off duty during the month of
December, 1920.
Decision.-At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It is
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 745.-DOCKET 1522.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of G. H. Skarin, clerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time off duty account of illness during the month
of December, 1920.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the era-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case.
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 746.-DOCKET 1523.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
It is
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of A. W. Purnell, clerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time off duty on account of sickness during the
months of February, March, and May, 1920.
154
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It is
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 747.-DOCKET 1524.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Miss Ora Farmer, clerk, auditing depart-
ment, for pay for time off duty on account of illness during the
month of February, 1921.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
employees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case.
It is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 748.-DOCKET 1525.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of W. E. Murray, clerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time off duty on account of illness during the
month of February, 1921.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
employees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It
is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 749.-DOCKET 1527.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of R. H. Mosser, clerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time off duty on account of illness during the month
of November, 1920.
Decision.—At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It is
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 750.-DOCKET 1528.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Alberta Stellman, clerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time off duty on account of illness during the
months of August, September, and October, 1920.
DECISIONS.
155
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
employees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It
is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 751.-DOCKET 1530.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Helen Daly, clerk, freight claim agent's office,
for pay for time off duty account of illness during the months of
August and October, 1920.
Decision. At hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It is
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 752.-DOCKET 1531.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.—Claim of R. H. Berquist, clerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time lost on account of illness during the month
of November, 1920.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
employees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case. It
is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 753.-DOCKET 1534.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Gerald Whitney, cerk, freight claim agent's
office, for pay for time lost account of illness during the month of
January, 1921.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case.
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
It is
DECISION NO. 754.-DOCKET 1536.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood. of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of R. J. Fahey, clerk, freight claim agent's
office. for pay for time off duty on account of illness during the
month of October, 1920.
20936°-23-11
156
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision-At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case.
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
It is
DECISION NO. 755.-DOCKET 1537.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Goldie Anderson, clerk, auditing department,
for pay for time off duty on account of illness during the month of
March, 1921.
Decision.-At hearing conducted by the Labor Board the em-
ployees and the carrier agreed upon a settlement of this case.
therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
It is
DECISION NO. 756.-DOCKET 878.
Chicago, Ill., February 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Request for reinstatement of William Coxon, clerk,
Bowie, Ariz.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed upon a settlement of this
case and withdrew same from consideration of the Labor Board.
The case is, therefore, removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 757.—DOCKETS 1, 2, 3, AND 1606.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Alabama & Vicksburg Rilway Company et al. v. Order of Railroad
Telegraphers.
Subject of the dispute. This decision is upon a controversy or dis-
pute between the carriers named below and, so far as pay for Sunday
and holiday work is concerned, the carriers named in Decision No. 2
and addenda thereto and the classes of employees named herein repre-
sented by the above-named organization. The subject matter of the
dispute is what shall constitute just and reasonable rules and work-
conditions.
Parties to the dispute. The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Eastern and Western
Lines).
Coast Lines.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
DECISIONS.
157
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Boston & Maine Railroad.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of South Carolina.
Central New England Railway Co.
Central Union Depot & Railway Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway.
Florida East Coast Railway Co.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Grand Trunk System (Lines in U. S.).
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railroad.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Long Island Railroad Co.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
158
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
Eastern Texas Railroad Co.
Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Railway.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Virginian Railway Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Čo.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each of
the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Nature of the proceeding.-In conformity with the provisions of
the transportation act, 1920, the carriers or employees named herein
have held or have attempted to hold conferences on rules and work-
ing conditions.
Each of these carriers or the representatives of its employees either
negotiated or attempted to negotiate rules, and they have made either
joint or ex-parte certifications to the Railroad Labor Board contain-
ing the rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they
disagreed, with the respective proposals of the parties as to the latter;
therefore, each of the carriers party to this decision has a dispute
with its employees on one or more of the rules.
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at the
DECISIONS.
159
original hearing, including a vast amount of evidence, data, and
arguments, oral, written, and documentary, and information gath-
ered by its own forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along
with the certification of the disputed rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out
are just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
March 16, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are as
follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
RULE 1. Scope.-This schedule will govern the employment and
compensation of telegraphers, telephone operators (except switch-
board operators), agent-telegraphers, agent-telephoners, towermen,
levermen, tower and train directors, block operators, staffmen, and
such agents as may be included by the operation of the second
paragraph of this rule, and will supersede all previous schedules,
agreements, and rulings thereon.
The disputes as to what exclusive agents shall be covered by the
rules are remanded to the representatives of the parties on the
individual carriers for further negotiation.
RULE 2. Basic Day.-Except as specified in rule 3, eight consecu-
tive hours, exclusive of the meal hour, shall constitute a day's work,
except that where two or more shifts are worked eight consecutive
hours with no allowance for meals shall constitute a day's work.
RULE 3. Intermittent service.-At one-shift offices, where service is
intermittent 8 hours actual time on duty within a spread of 12 hours
shall constitute a day's work. Employees filling such positions shall
be paid overtime for all time actually on duty or held for duty in
excess of 8 hours from the time required to report for duty to the
time of release within 12 consecutive hours computed contínuously
from the time first required to report until final release. Time shall
be counted as continuous service in all cases where the interval of
release from duty does not exceed one hour.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for indi-
vidual positions when agreed to between the management and duly
accredited representatives of the employees. For such excepted
positions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply.
This rule shall not be construed as authorizing the working of split
tricks where continuous service is required.
Intermittent service is understood to mean service of a character
where during the hours of assignment there is no work to be per-
formed for periods of more than one hour's duration and service of
the employees can not otherwise be utilized.
Employees covered by this rule will be paid not less than 8 hours
within a spread of 12 consecutive hours.
RULE 4. Overtime.-Except as otherwise provided in these rules,
time in excess of eight hours, exclusive of meal period, on any day,
will be considered overtime and paid on the actual minute basis, at
160
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the pro-rata rates for the ninth hour, and at time and one-half
thereafter.
RULE 5. Call rule.-Employees notified or called to perform work
not continuous with the regular work period will be allowed a mini-
mum of 3 hours for 2 hours' work or less, and if held on duty in
excess of 2 hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the minute
basis.
RULE 6. Meal period.-Where but one shift is worked, employees
will be allowed 60 consecutive minutes between 11.30 and 1.30 o'clock,
day or night, for meal.
If the meal period is not afforded within the allowed or agreed
time limit and is worked, the meal period shall be paid for at the
pro-rata rate and 20 minutes, with pay, in which to eat shall be
afforded at the first opportunity.
RULE 7. Starting time.-Regular assignments shall have a fixed
starting time and the regular starting time shall not be changed
without at least 36 hours' notice to the employees affected.
Where three consecutive shifts are worked covering the 24-hour
period, no shift will have a starting time after 12 o'clock midnight
and before 6 a. m.
RULE 8. Sunday and holiday work.-Employees will be excused
from Sunday and holiday duties as much as the condition of business
will permit.
Time worked on Sundays and the following holidays—namely,
New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of
July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas (provided when
any of the above holidays fall on Sunday, the day observed by the
State, Nation, or by proclamation shall be considered the holiday) -
shall be paid for at the regular hourly rate when the entire number
of hours constituting the regular week-day assignment are worked.
When notified or called to work on Sundays and the above-
specified holidays a less number of hours than constitute a day's
work within the limits of the regular week-day assignment, em-
ployees shall be paid a minimum allowance of two hours at over-
time rate for two hours' work or less, and at the regular hourly rate
after the second hour of each tour of duty. Time worked before or
after the limits of the regular week-day assignment shall be paid
for in accordance with overtime and call rules.
RULE 9. Basis of pay.-All employees herein specified will be paid
on hourly basis.
RULE 10. Guaranty.-Regular assigned telegraphers will receive
one day's pay within each 24 hours, according to location occupied or
to which entitled, if ready for service and not used, or if required on
duty less than the required minimum number of hours as per loca-
tion, except on Sundays and holidays.
This rule shall not apply in cases of reduction of forces nor where
traffic is interrupted or suspended by conditions not within the con-
trol of the carrier.
RULE 11. Discipline-Pay for time lost.-If the final decision
decrees that charges against the employee are not sustained the rec-
ord shall be cleared of the charge; if suspended or dismissed, the em-
ployee will be returned to former position and paid for all wages lost
less amount earned in any other service.
DECISIONS.
161
RULE 12. Suspension of work during regular hours.-Employees
will not be required to suspend work during regular hours or to ab-
sorb overtime.
RULE 13. Free transportation.-Employees covered by this agree-
ment and those dependent upon them for support will be given the
same consideration in granting free transportation as is granted
other employees in service.
General committees representing employees covered by this agree-
ment will be granted the same consideration as is granted general
committees representing employees in other branches of the service.
RULE 14. Classification of employees, new positions, etc.-Where
existing pay-roll classification does not conform to rule 1, employees
performing service in the classes specified therein shall be classified
in accordance therewith.
When new positions are created compensation will be fixed in con-
formity with that of existing positions of similar work and respon-
sibility in the same seniority district.
RULE 15. Attending court-Witnesses.-Employees taken away
from their regular assigned duties, at the request of the manage-
ment, to attend court or to appear as witnesses for the carrier will be
furnished transportation and will be allowed compensation equal
to what would have been earned had such interruption not taken
place and, in addition, necessary actual expenses while away from
headquarters. Any fee or mileage accruing will be assigned to the
carrier.
RULE 16. Handling train orders.-No employee other than covered
by this schedule and train dispatchers will be permitted to handle
train orders at telegraph or telephone offices where an operator is
employed and is available or can be promptly located, except in an
emergency, in which case the telegrapher will be paid for the call.
RULE 17. Handling United States mail.-When the carrying of
the United States mail and parcels post by the employees herein
specified becomes unduly burdensome, or interferes with the proper
operation of trains, they will be relieved from such work.
RULE 18. Handling switches, attending switch lights, etc.-At
stations where section men reside or porters or helpers are employed,
employees as per rule 1 will not be required to attend interlocking or
switch lights, but will see that they are kept burning.
At stations where employees as per rule 1 are required to care for
interlocking or switch lights they will be allowed 75 cents per light
per month, with a minimum of $3 for four lights or less.
RULE 19. Regular assigned men doing extra work.-Regularly
assigned telegraphers will not be required to perform relief work
except in cases of emergency and when required to perform relief
work, and in consequence thereof, suffer a reduction in the regular
compensation, shall be paid an amount sufficient to reimburse them
for such loss, and in all cases they will be allowed actual necessary
expenses while away from their regular assigned stations.
RULE 20. Express and telegraph commissions.-When express or
Western Union commissions are discontinued or created at any
office, thereby reducing or increasing the average monthly compensa-
tion paid to any position, prompt adjustment of the salary affected
will be made conforming to rates paid for similar positions.
162
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
RULE 21. Date effective and changes. This agreement shall be in
effect as of March 16, 1922, and shall continue in effect until it is
changed as provided herein or under the provisions of the trans-
portation act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes, shall be given and conferences shall be held im-
mediately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is
mutually agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SEC. 1. Application of adopted rules. The rules approved by the
Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers parties to the dis-
pute (Docket 1606) covered by this decision, except in such in-
stances as any particular carrier may have agreed with its employees
upon any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule or rules
agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on said
road.
Rule No. 8 of this decision pertaining to pay for Sundays and
holidays shall be understood to dispose of the submissions pre-
sented to this board on this subject in Dockets 1, 2, and 3 and shall
apply to the carriers named in Decision No. 2.
SEC. 2. Proposed rules not herein decided.—Because a substantial
number of the carriers and their employees have agreed upon the
major part of the rules governing seniority, promotion, discipline,
and grievances, these subjects are remanded practically in their en-
tirety. The Labor Board also remands certain other subject matters
in dispute which it believes may not be covered in all localities by
rules of general application, and which require further consideration
by the parties directly concerned.
All such rules which involve a dispute between a particular car-
rier and its employees are hereby remanded for the purpose of
adjustment under the provisions of section 301 of the transporta-
tion act, 1920. In further negotiations attention is directed to the
principles announced in Exhibit B of Decision No. 119.
SEC. 3. Vacations and sick leave with pay.-In the opinion of the
Labor Board the question of vacations and sick leave with pay is
one which should be left at this time to the carriers and their re-
spective employees for the adoption of such rules as may be severally
and mutually agreed upon.
SEC. 4. Interpretation of this decision. The rules herein pro-
mulgated are to be considered and construed as new rules adopted
by the Labor Board in accordance with the transportation act, 1920,
and the principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the em-
ployees of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this de-
cision, or the rules contained herein, which can not be decided in
conference between the parties directly interested, such dispute shall
be handled in the manner provided by the transportation act, 1920.
DECISIONS.
163
DECISION NO. 758.-DOCKET 1074.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad.
Question.-Claim of Kenneth Bryan for reinstatement to posi-
tion of delivery boy in stores department, Oaklawn, Ill.
Decision. At the hearing before the Labor Board the carrier and
the employees agreed upon a settlement of this case. It is therefore
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 759.-DOCKET 1080.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Helen O'Connor, clerk in office of store-
keeper, Roanoke, Va., for right to exercise her seniority to position
of extra clerk in the storekeeping department.
Statement. The employee in question was engaged as clerk in
the office of storekeeper at Roanoke and was laid off on February 21,
1921, for a period of five days incident to a temporary reduction
of force. She made application for the right to displace an extra
clerk employed on a so-called floating force engaged in inventory
work, which application was denied. The extra gang, or floating
force, engaged on inventory work, was not carried on seniority roster
of storekeeper at Roanoke.
The carrier states that this extra or floating force was organized
to compile inventory of storehouse material and supplies for the
entire system as of the date the railroads were released from Federal
control, and was not employed on work coming under the jurisdic-
tion of the storekeeper at Roanoke but was under the jurisdiction
of the general storekeeper. They did not report to or receive
instructions from the storekeeper at Roanoke, nor were they carried
on the seniority roster of the Roanoke storehouse or any other
seniority roster. At the time the question arose separate seniority
rosters were maintained by agreement with the clerks' organization
for clerical employees in the general storekeeper's office located at
Roanoke and clerical employees in the office of the storekeeper at
that point.
The carrier contends that inasmuch as the employees on the extra
force were engaged on work which did not come within the jurisdic-
tion of the storekeeper at Roanoke and they were not carried on the
seniority roster of the Roanoke storehouse, Miss O'Connor, whose
seniority rights were confined exclusively to Roanoke storehouse,
had no right to displace any of the employees in this extra force.
The employees contend that the floating or extra force referred to
was carried on the pay roll of the Roanoke storehouse, and that
inasmuch as no seniority roster was maintained for the employees
thereof, Miss O'Connor, who was employed in the storehouse and
164
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
senior to the employees comprising the extra or floating gang, was
entitled to displace any junior employee of the floating force.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that the extra or
floating force referred to herein was carried on the pay roll of the
general storekeeper and that they were not within the seniority
district in which the employees in the Roanoke storehouse could
exercise seniority.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 760.-DOCKET 1104.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of P. H. McLeod and three other clerical em-
ployees in the freight agent's office, North Vernon, Ind., for 10 days'
pay in lieu of vacation not granted in the year 1920.
Statement.—The national agreement between the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees and the Director General of Railroads which governs
the working conditions of the employees in the class of service in
which the employees involved in this dispute are engaged does not
contain any specific rule on the question of vacations. However,
under date of January 30, 1920, the director, division of operation,
United States Railroad Administration, issued the following tele-
graphic instructions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point, but
it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick leave
would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal managers.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the past practice
the employees involved in this dispute are not entitled to compensa-
tion in lieu of vacations not granted in the year 1920.
DECISION NO. 761.-DOCKET 1122.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of M. D.
Bright, clerk in the office of the auditor of passenger receipts, Wil-
mington, N. C.
Decision. The matter referred to in this dispute having occurred
before the passage of the transportation act, 1920, under which this
board was created, and the board being of the opinion that said act
was not intended to have a retroactive or retrospective effect, the
Labor Board decides that it has no jurisdiction in this dispute and it
is, therefore, removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
165
DECISION NO. 762.-DOCKET 1125.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question. Claim of J. C. Stubbs and W. C. DeCoursey, time-
keepers, Moncrief and Stanford, Fla., for back pay from March 1,
1920, to January 1, 1921, account of reclassification of positions from
a monthly to a daily basis.
Statement.-The positions involved in this dispute were originally
classed as "personal office force" and excepted from the provisions.
of the clerks' national agreement. In January, 1921, the carrier,
after conference with the clerks' committee, agreed to change the
classification and include the positions within the scope of the clerks'
national agreement.
The employees contend that the positions in question were not
of a personal or confidential nature and should come within the
scope of the clerks' national agreement; that the classification was
changed in January, 1921, at the request of the committee represent-
ing the employees; and that the carrier should have changed the
classification and basis of pay retroactive to the effective date of the
clerks' national agreement.
The carrier contends that in the conferences with the clerks' com-
mittee in regard to these positions there was no request for making
the change in classification and basis of pay retroactive, and that
there was no discussion of the matter with the committee at the
time. The carrier further contends that there is no justification for
the employees' claim, since the change in classification was made at
their request in January, 1921, and prior to that date the carrier had
no opportunity to fix or control the hours of service of employees
filling the positions and maintained no record of their hours of
service until January, 1921.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 763.-DOCKET 1128.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Request for reinstatement with pay for all time lost
by R. W. Owens, seal clerk, Emporia, Kans.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, includ-
ing proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 764.-DOCKET 1140.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of clerical employees at various freight stations
for pay for Armistice Day, November 11, 1920, on which day they
were notified not to work.
166
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement.-Armistice day, November 11, 1920, was declared a
holiday by the mayors of the cities of Kalamazoo, Battle Creek,
Jackson, Lansing, and Bay City, Mich., and a half holiday by the
mayor of the city of Saginaw, Mich. The employees coming within
the scope of the national agreement for clerical and station forces
were not allowed compensation for this day on account of not having
been required to report for duty. Claims were thereupon filed with
the carrier by certain clerical employees for one day's pay which was
deducted from their wages account of not working on that day.
Rule 66 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees reads, in part, as follows:
Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the reduction of days for em-
ployees covered by this rule (66) below six per week, excepting that this num-
ber may be reduced in a week in which holidays occur by the number of such
holidays.
Rule 64 of the clerks' national agreement designated the following
holidays, which, in addition to Sundays, are to be treated as holidays
and paid for as such: New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Deco-
ration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and
Christmas.
The carrier contends that the action taken was not in conflict with
the provisions of rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement and that
the employees at the stations hereinbefore referred to were laid off
on Armistice Day, 1920, in the interest of economical operation, and,
furthermore, the employees are not entitled to compensation for
service which they did not perform.
Decision. The language of rule 66, above quoted, is understood by
the Labor Board to refer to the holidays designated in rule 64, unless
other holidays are mutually agreed upon. The Labor Board believes
that the carrier would have been well within its rights in seeking the
employees' concurrence to treat armistice day as a holiday. However,
in lieu of any such agreement the Labor Board decides that under the
rules above quoted the daily-rated employees involved in this dispute
are entitled to pay for Armistice Day, November 11, 1920.
DECISION NO. 765.-DOCKET 1188.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question.-Dispute with reference to the proper classification of
employees classified as "switchman and baggagemaster," Newbury-
port, Mass.
Statement.-Prior to August 30, 1920, there were employed at New-
buryport, two employees classified on the pay roll as baggagemasters.
For a number of years these employees were regularly assigned to
handle several main-line switches per day for the movement of cer-
tain regular passenger trains. On August 30, 1920, at the request of
the committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, following
memorandum 16-27 of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1 of the
United States Railroad Administration, quoted below, the pay-roll
classification of these positions was changed to "switchman and bag-
DECISIONS.
167
gagemaster" and the rate of pay was increased in accordance with
rate applicable to switch tenders under Decision No. 2:
BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD CONDUCTORS AND TRAINMEN, ARTICLE XII, SUPPLE-
MENT NO. 16.
Question.-Does Article XII of Supplement No. 16 apply to employees who,
during the course of their day's work, throw switches, but whose primary duties
are not those of a switch tender?
Decision. The term switch tender" (ground switchman) is understood to
apply to employees assigned to handle one or more main line or lead switches
in connection with terminals wherever yard engines are maintained.
The rate paid one of these baggagemasters on January 1, 1920,
was $3.63 per day, and the other $3.42 per day; under Decision No. 2,
$5.37 and $5.12 per day respectively; and under Decision No. 147
$4.52 and $4.32, respectively. During the same period switch ten-
ders were paid $4 per day up to May 1, 1920; $5.04 per day under
Decision No. 2; and $4.40 per day under Decision No. 147.
The employees claim that the term "switch tender" as used in
memorandum 16-27 of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1 means
an employee who is assigned to handle a main line or lead switch,
and that the employees involved in this dispute are not so assigned in
connection with a terminal where yard engines are maintained. The
employees further contend that the employees involved in this dis-
pute devote four or more hours of their time to the work assigned to
baggagemasters, and that, therefore, their classification should be
baggagemasters and not switch tenders.
The carrier contends that while the employees in question do not
handle switches for yard engines or freight trains, they do handle one
or more main line switches in connection with a terminal where a
yard engine is maintained, and therefore come within the scope of
the decision of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1 of the United
States Railroad Administration herein quoted.
Decision.-Position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 766.-DOCKET 1408.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question. Request for reinstatement of S. E. Merkadeau, claim
investigator, St. Louis, Mo.
Decision. The employees and the carrier have reached a mutually
satisfactory understanding on this case and request that it be with-
drawn from further consideration by the Labor Board. The dis-
pute is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 767.-DOCKET 734.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of E. C. Olson, assistant
division accountant, Miles City, Mont., dismissed from the service
168
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
February 24, 1921, for alleged insubordination in refusing to work
overtime to catch up the work which had accumulated on his desk
during his vacation period.
Statement. Mr. Olson was employed by the carrier January 4,
1917. He was granted a vacation with pay from November 19 to
December 3, 1920, under a rule which provided that employees would
receive vacations with pay with the understanding that the other em-
ployees would keep up the work or that the employees who received
vacations would be required to catch up the work on their desks
without extra compensation. When Mr. Olson returned from his
vacation he was informed that the work had accumulated to a suffi-
cient extent to require his working overtime and he thereupon in-
sisted upon extra payment for any overtime which he might work.
He was not specifically directed to work overtime, and did not volun-
teer to do so.
The carrier contends that Mr. Olson was entirely familiar with
the rules governing the conditions under which vacations were
granted, and that upon his return to the service and finding that the
work had accumulated on his desk, he displayed a disinterested atti-
tude in the work and the welfare of the service with the result that
certain reports were delayed. He was granted an investigation and
hearing as required by the rules of the clerks' national agreement on
January 29, 1921, and was dismissed from the carrier's service on
February 24, 1921.
The employees contend that Mr. Olson at no time refused to work
overtime when ordered to do so; that the reports which he is charged
with having delayed were not delayed any more than had been fre-
quently the case in that office; that if overtime was required from
Mr. Olson in order to catch up the work on his desk, it should have
been ordered by proper authority; and that any controversy which
may have resulted from the payment of overtime should have been
submitted to the proper officer for settlement in accordance with the
provisions of the clerks' national agreement.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence before it, the Labor Board
decides that the discipline in this case is not well sustained and
orders that Mr. Olson be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired.
However, it has been shown that Mr. Olson failed to carry out his
obligation under the rules governing the granting of vacations with
pay, and the Labor Board therefore denies claim for pay for time
lost.
DECISION NO. 768.-DOCKET 1141.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Was the New York Central Railroad Co. justified in
reducing its force in laying off William DuBois, sheet-metal worker,
Kingston, N. Y., who held seniority over certain men younger in the
service at that point?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case indicates that the seniority of William DeBois dates
DECISIONS.
169
from October, 1900, at which time he was classified as a tinner in
the maintenance of way department, Kingston; that from October,
1900, to January, 1919, he was classified as steamfitter and tinner;
and that on January 1, 1919, he was classified as a sheet-metal worker
and paid the rate applying to shop mechanics, which method of classi-
fication and rating remained in effect up to the time the reduction
in force took place, namely, January 15, 1921, on which date Mr.
De Bois was laid off and men younger in the service retained.
The force was again increased on July 21, 1921, and Mr. DeBois
was returned to the service.
It is the contention of the employees that there was only one.
seniority roster for sheet-metal workers at Kingston, N. Y., which
roster showed that Mr. DeBois held seniority over certain men who
were retained when the force was reduced; that Mr. DeBois's experi-
ence in various classes of sheet-metal work qualified him for the po-
sitions filled by the younger men retained, and that he should have
at least been given a fair trial to determine whether or not he was
qualified.
The carrier takes the position that the work performed by Mr.
De Bois has been that of tinsmith and that his experience in pipe-
fitting did not warrant the displacement of employees experienced
in steamfitting, plumbing, or work on boiler stations or general
water service work; that while Mr. DeBois has performed miscella-
neous jobs outside of tinsmith's work, it was done in cases of emer-
gency where other men were not availabe or where the repairs were
of a minor character; further, that they had in their employ prior
to the last reduction in force two tinsmiths, one steamfitter, one pipe-
fitter, and one waterworks repairman, all thoroughly competent in
this line of work, and that if Mr. DeBois had been retained they
would have been lacking either a plumber, a waterworks repair man,
or a steamfitter.
Decision.—It is agreed that the employee in question is classified
and rated in accordance with agreement governing the Federated
Shop Crafts. It is further agreed that but one seniority roster was
kept of sheet-metal workers at Kingston, N. Y., and that Mr. DeBois
held seniority over certain men who were retained.
The Labor Board therefore decides that in view of the fact that
no distinction was made in the shop craft's agreement between the
different classes of sheet-metal workers' work, Mr. DeBois was en-
titled to a trial in one of the positions in which men younger in the
service were retained, and shall be paid for the period out of service-
namely, from January 1, 1921, to July 21, 1921-deducting the
amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 769.-DOCKET 1221.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question.-Should Frank Kratcher, pumper at Yucca, Ariz., paid
a monthly rate under section (a-12) of the maintenance of way
170
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
agreement based on a 10-hour assignment per day, be paid overtime
at the rate of time and one-half for intermittent service performed
in excess of his regular assignment?
The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Mr. Frank Kratcher is a pumper employed at Yucca,
and effective May 1, 1920, was placed on a 10-hour assignment and compensated
at a monthly rate arrived at by adding to the monthly rate applying to eight
hours' service the amount accruing in overtime for the ninth and tenth hour
of the regular assignment.
On certain days Mr. Kratcher was required to work in excess of the regular
assignment in order to avoid delaying trains on account of one of the two
plants in operation being out of order. He sent in overtime slips with his time
book covering this extra service, which overtime was denied.
Employees position.—It is the contention of the representatives of the em-
ployees that the position of pumper, such as is filled by Frank Kratcher at
Yucca, shall be paid a monthly rate based on eight hours per day. Should his
assignment be increased, compensation would be adjusted pro rata for the
ninth and tenth hour, in addition to his monthly rate, and when required to
perform service after 10 hours, time and one-half should be paid for all such
service rendered. We base our contention on section (a–12), Article V of the
national agreement between the Director General of Railroads and respective
railroads under Federal operation and employees thereon represented by the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers, effective December 16, 1919. We further contend that Mr. Kratcher,.
the pumper in question, should be paid at the rate of time and one-half time
for all services rendered after 10 hours of work between May 1, 1920, and July
1, 1921.
»
A decision of the Labor Board is earnestly requested.
Carrier's position.-That monthly rate arrived at under section (a-12) of
Article V of the maintenance of way agreement adding to the monthly rate
applying to eight hours' service amount accruing in overtime as a regular part
of the assignment, compensates for all service rendered.
Decision.-Written and oral evidence presented in this case does
not indicate that the duties of the position in question are such as to
place same on an hourly basis in accordance with the exception con-
tained in the last paragraph of section (a-12), Article V of the
maintenance of way agreement.
The contention of the carrier is therefore sustained.
DECISION NO. 770.-DOCKET 1264.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Order of Knights of Labor v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the assignment
of men classified as machinists' helpers to the positions of sheet-metal
workers' helpers instead of assigning laborers older in the service.
The submission contained the following statement of facts:
Statement of facts.-John W. Murphy entered the service as laborer at East
Cambridge engine house December 9, 1912, and continued in the labor class,
except while in military service from October, 1917, to February, 1919.
George Buffington entered the service April, 1917, as laborer at East Cam-
bridge engine house and continued in that class.
On July 27, 1920, six machinists' helpers' jobs were advertised and one of
them was assigned to Mr. Buffington, no helpers having bid. Mr. Buffington
and the man whose place he bid for and was assigned to actually helped a
sheet-metal worker, as did two others classified as machinists' helpers.
DECISIONS.
171
On August 9, 1920, three sheet-metal workers' helpers' jobs were advertised
and the three men who were doing this work, but who were classified as ma-
chinists' helpers, bid for them; two were assigned without question, but Mr.
Murphy bid for the job that Mr. Buffington was holding, and Mr. Murphy,
being older than Mr. Buffington as a laborer (no helpers having bid), was
given the job in preference to Mr. Buffington. The latter protested on the
ground that he was a helper and the protest was sustained. Mr. Murphy pro-
tested. The Order of Knights of Labor committee handled the case with the
assistant general manager, and Mr. Murphy was given the place March 16,
1921, and continued to act as sheet-metal workers' helper until August 22,
1921, when it was decided by the vice president and general manager that
Mr. Buffington was entitled to the position and it was given to him.
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Murphy is entitled
to the position of sheet-metal workers' helper and is entitled to pay
applicable to that position for the time he has been denied the same.
The carrier contends that under the agreement entered into with
the Order of Knights of Labor there is no obligation to give labor-
ers positions as helpers, but that it has been the practice to do so
when no helpers have applied for new positions or vacancies; fur-
ther, that an understanding had been reached with the Federated
Shop Crafts that instead of going outside and hiring sheet-metal
workers' helpers where there were machinist helpers doing sheet-
metal workers' helpers' work, they would reclassify them and make
them sheet-metal workers' helpers in order to preserve their posi-
tions as helpers. The carrier further contends that Mr. Buffington,
having established himself as a machinists' helper, was treated in
accordance with this understanding and there was therefore no neces-
sity for advertising the sheet-metal workers' helpers' positions on
August 9.
Decision.-The Labor Board can not find where the carrier vio-
lated the provisions of any rules or agreement in handling the mat-
ter as above outlined.
The claim of the employees is, therefore, denied.
DECISION NO. 771.-DOCKET 1315.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Question.-Has the carrier the right to lay off the entire force of
laborers and their gang leaders in the stores and supply departments
on Saturday of each week to curtail expenses?
The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-There are about 50 laborers employed in the material
yards and around car store and main store at Lafayette. Ind. These men are
under the jurisdiction of the general storekeeper and all receive the same rate
of pay.
On Saturday, July 23, and Saturday, July 30, all laborers and their
gang leaders of car and main store were laid off to curtail expenses. On the
following Saturdays, August 6 and August 13, the entire force of laborers
and gang leaders of the material yards, car store, and main store were laid off
for the same purpose.
On these dates the entire mechanical forces were off-
the shops having been closed.
Section 1, Article V, of the agreement covering the United Broth-
erhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop La-
20936°—23—12
172
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
borers promulgated by the United States Railroad Administration,
reads:
Reductions.—(1) Gangs will not be laid off for short periods when proper
reduction of expenses can be accomplished by first laying off the junior men.
Employees' position.-We contend that the carrrier has no right to lay off
the entire force one day each week when the proper reduction in expense can
be accomplished by first laying off the junior men in the gangs. Refer to
paragraph (1). Article V, of our national agreement quoted above. We further
contend that the proper reduction of expenses could have been accomplished
by first laying off the junior men in the gangs. For this reason they laid off
the entire force on Saturday then the following Monday they took on two or
three new men. This was in the same month. We claim that these men are
entitled to pay for each and every Saturday lost on account of such reduction.
Carrier's position.-The shops were closed on these dates to effect economies
and the laborers involved in the dispute were therefore not needed. The force
in storehouse could not have been reduced and efficiently serve the mechanical
forces when shops are working, storehouse forces being regulated by work in
mechanical department.
We contend that employees are not entitled to pay for the Saturdays laid
off, per section (r) of Article V.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the case in question that
the carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of section (1),
Article V, of the maintenance of way agreement, and therefore
denies the claim for payment account of reduction in the days per
week as outlined.
DECISION NO. 772.-DOCKET 320.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question. Claim that work of handling baggage on certain trains
between St. Louis, Mo., and San Antonio, Tex., should be assigned
to employees on the trainmen's seniority roster.
Paragraph (a), Article I, of the conductors and trainmen's agree-
ment, reads as follows:
(a) Rates for trainmen on trains propelled by steam or other motive power:

Conductors.
Baggagemen
Flagmen and brakemen
Class.
Per mile
(cents).
Per
month.
4. 67
3.44
$217.00
154.00
3.33
150.00
At the time this controversy arose, and for some time after trains
Nos. 1 and 2 were put on between St. Louis and San Antonio, a
brakeman was used from the trainmen's seniority roster to handle
baggage in connection with his duties as brakeman. The trainmen's
committee made claim for additional compensation for the brake-
man on account of the additional service he was required to per-
form as baggageman. The request was denied and the duties of
baggageman were transferred to the train porter.
DECISIONS.
173
The employees contend that the work of handling baggage on
these runs should be handled by trainmen shown on the seniority
roster and paid at the rate shown for baggagemen in paragraph (a),
Article I of the agreement, above quoted.
The carrier states that the trains in question are through pas-
senger trains between San Antonio and St. Louis. They stop only
at the more important stations and handle a limited amount of bag-
gage and no express. The baggage-carrying space on these trains
is confined to the head end of a combination baggage and coach.
The carrier contends that the baggage handled is not sufficient to
justify the employment of baggagemen and that the work was for
a short time performed by trainmen but upon their objecting to the
service it was transferred to the train porter, who it is claimed can
handle it without any interference with his other duties. The car-
rier contends that while Article I specifies the rate to be paid bag-
gagemen there is nothing in the agreement with the conductors and
trainmen which gives those classes of employees claim on this service,
and as baggagemen are not employed there is no reason for the ap-
plication of the baggagemen's rate.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the work of handling
baggage on the trains in question should be paid at the rate shown
for baggagemen in paragraph (a), Article I, of the agreement be-
tween the carriers and the conductors and trainmen. The former
practice of having work performed by a trainman, so classified, is
approved.
DECISION NO. 773.-DOCKET 322.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question. Claim of H. G. Olmstead, fireman, for minimum day's
pay account of not being used for service as fireman in lieu of brake-
man.
Statement.-On August 13, 1920, L. C. Roth, fireman, regularly as-
signed to what is termed "The Yale Bum Run," was called at Cush-
ing, Okla., to go to Fallis, Okla., to get a train for Osage, Okla. He
left Fallis with the train for which he was called and worked on the
return trip as far as Cushing, at which point he became ill and was
relieved at 4 a. m. Mr. Olmstead was regularly assigned to a switch
engine at Cushing, from 7.30 a. m. to 3.30 p. m., and at the time an
extra fireman was required to relieve Mr. Roth, Mr. Olmstead had
been off duty about 12 hours. Instead of calling Mr. Olmstead to
relieve Mr. Roth, a brakeman was called to relieve the latter em-
ployee and complete the trip to Osage.
The employees state that the carrier reserves the right to use reg-
ularly assigned firemen in emergencies of this character for service
on other than their regular assignment, and that it would be mani-
festly unfair to the firemen to deviate from that practice to suit the
convenience of a local officer. When Mr. Roth requested relief he
was aware of the fact that Mr. Olmstead was the only fireman avail-
174
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
able to relieve him and he accordingly notified the local officer in
charge that he would be able to fire the switch engine to which Mr.
Olmstead was assigned but could not continue on the trip to Osage.
The employees contend that the work of firing locomotives properly
belongs, under the terms of the firemen's agreement, to employees
who are listed as locomotive firemen, and that Mr. Olmstead being
available to relieve Mr. Roth he should have been used instead of a
brakeman and is entitled to at least a minimum day's pay for not
having been used.
The carrier states that Mr. Olmstead was assigned to a switch
engine at Cushing, on a six-day assignment under which he was
guaranteed that number of days' work each week; that to have used
Mr. Roth, who had been relieved on account of sickness, would have
involved the risk of tying up the switch engine and demoralization
of the service. The carrier contends that while Mr. Olmstead was
assigned to the switch engine at Cushing, he was not affected by
turn-around or extra road service nor entitled to work outside of
his regular assignment. The carrier further contends that they had
no assurance that Mr. Roth's physical condition would improve and,
furthermore, that if he was sufficiently ill to justify relief he was
not capable of exercising the vigilance required to avoid accidents.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is not supported by any rule
in the agreement between the employees and the carrier and is there-
fore denied.
DECISION NO. 774.-DOCKET 323.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Claim of engineer and fireman for runaround at Deni-
son, Tex.
Statement.-Engineers Diggs and Pannell were both assigned to
the extra list at Denison, and were working "first in, first out"
off this extra list. On July 18, 1920, Engineer Diggs being first out
on the extra list was called for 4.45 a. m. for a turnaround trip be-
tween Denison and Greenville, Tex., over the Dallas division. En-
gineer Pannell was called for 5.25 a. m. to take a light engine from
Denison to Waco, Tex., also over the Dallas division. Engineer
Pannell left Denison-Ray Terminal at 5.25 a. m., while Engineer
Diggs did not leave Denison-Ray Terminal until 7 a. m.
The employees contend that Engineer Diggs and Fireman Farris
were runaround in the terminal after having been called and should
be compensated for 100 miles, as provided for in Article X of the
agreement between the carrier and the engineers and firemen, reading
as follows:
If an engineer (or fireman) is runaround in terminals after being called, he
will be paid 100 miles and be permitted to continue his trip.
The carrier states that Engineer Diggs was called in his proper
turn to move a train from Ray Yard. Engineer Pannell was called
40 minutes after Engineer Diggs to handle a light engine from the
DECISIONS.
175
Denison roundhouse and started from a point approximately 3 miles
east of Ray. While both of these engineers were going in the same
general direction, Engineer Pannell did not at any time runaround
Engineer Diggs, although it is true that he left Denison for Waco
before Engineer Diggs left Ray for Greenville. The employees in
question while headed in the same direction, were going to entirely
different terminals, and their subsequent service was in no way
affected by the order of their movement out of the yard. The car-
rier contends that under these circumstances, the application of the
rule herein quoted in the manner requested by the employees is un-
warranted and the payment of additional compensation improper.
Decision. The evidence in this dispute shows that Engineer Diggs
and Fireman Farris were runaround in the Denison-Ray Terminal
after being called, and under the rule of the agreement governing
their service, herein quoted, they should have been paid 100 miles.
DECISION NO. 775.-DOCKET 927.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.-Is the American Train Dispatchers' Association en-
titled to negotiate an agreement with the carrier named covering
rules and working conditions for the government of train dis-
patchers?
Statement.-Pursuant to the provisions of Decision No. 119, repre-
sentatives of the American Train Dispatchers' Association sought
conference with the carrier for the purpose of negotiating an agree-
ment covering rules for the government of working conditions of
train dispatchers. Their request for conference was denied by the
carrier on the ground that said organization did not represent a
majority of the train dispatchers in its service.
The employees contend that a vote was taken by their organiza-
tion which indicated that a majority of the train dispatchers had ex-
pressed a desire to be represented by the American Train Dispatchers'
Association. The carrier contends that they also made a canvass of
the train dispatchers in its service, the result of which indicated that
a majority of the dispatchers did not desire to be represented by the
American Train Dispatchers' Association.
At the hearing before the Labor Board in this case, it developed
that the representatives of the employees and the carrier were not
in agreement as to the result of the vote taken by each of the respec-
tive parties. The representatives of both the carrier and the em-
ployees expressed a willingness to have another vote taken to deter-
mine whether or not a majority of the train dispatchers desire to be
represented by the American Train Dispatchers' Association.
Decision. In view of the fact that the vote heretofore taken is not
conclusive and in view of the expressed willingness of the parties to
this dispute to have another vote taken, the Labor Board orders that
a poll shall be taken of all train dispatchers in the service at the
time of receipt of this decision to determine the choice of a majority
176
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
thereof as to their representatives in the negotiation of rules and
working conditions.
A conference shall be held on or before March 15, 1922, at such
place as the carrier may designate, and of which due notice shall
be given to all interested parties, between the duly authorized rep-
resentatives of the carrier and of the American Train Dispatchers'
Association, the duly authorized representatives of any other or-
ganization whose by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that the
organization was established for the purpose of performing the
functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of the
transportation act, 1920, and the duly authorized representatives of
100 or more unorganized employees.
Representatives of unorganized employees authorized to attend this
conference must have the individual and personal signature and au-
thorization of not less than 100 train dispatchers. Said conference
will arrange all the details of the proposed ballot and election along
the same lines and under rules and regulations analogous to those
provided in Decision No. 218 of the Labor Board.
When the ballots have been canvassed, the result shall be re-
ported to the Labor Board and the chosen representatives of the
carrier and the employees will proceed with the negotiation of rules.
If either party to this dispute should believe at any time that
the spirit and intent of this decision is not being complied with,
complaint should be filed with the Labor Board in the usual manner.
DECISION NO. 776.-DOCKET 1062.
Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of J. H. Bougeret, clerk, supply agent's office,
St. Louis, Mo., for vacation with pay for the year 1921, in accordance
with past practice.
way
Statement.-The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, which governs the working conditions of employees in
the class of service in which Mr. Bougeret is engaged, does not con-
tain any specific rule on the question of vacations. However, under
date of January 30, 1920, the director, division of operation, United
States Railroad Administration, issued the following telegraphic
instructions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the
Brotherhod of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations
and sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Fed-
eral managers.
Decision-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that under past practice J. H. Bougeret is not
entitled to vacation with pay.
DECISIONS.
177
DECISION NO. 777.-DOCKET 993.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1923.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Question-Is it the intent that foremen and laborers at coal
chutes be covered by the agreement between the Director General of
Railroads and the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers?
Decision. While the agreement between the Director General of
Railroads and the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployes and Railway Shop Laborers did not specifically mention fore-
men and laborers at coal chutes, the information in possession of
the Labor Board is to the effect that practically all carriers recog-
nized and applied that agreement to this class of employees. The
Labor Board, therefore, decides that foremen and laborers at coal
chutes should have been considered as coming under the provisions of
the maintenance of way agreement.
""
NOTE.-The word (6 foremen as used herein is intended to refer
to foremen in charge of laborers and not foremen in charge of me-
chanics or others holding responsible supervisory positions at large
coaling plants.
DECISION NO. 778.-DOCKET 1146.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of George H. Lawrence, roundhouse employee,
Powers, Mich., Peninsula division, for classification and rate of pay
as roundhouse foreman or machinist, as established in Supplement
No. 4 to General Order No. 27 and subsequent wage orders.
Statement. The employees do not claim that Mr. Lawrence super-
vised employees who performed work as described in Supplement
No. 4 to General Order No. 27, issued by the United States Railroad
Administration, and in this respect the carrier and employees do not
disagree. The employees do claim that Mr. Lawrence supervises
and is held responsible for employees under his supervision; and this
the carrier does not deny. A number of letters addressed to Mr.
Lawrence by various officials of the carrier clearly show that he was
recognized as a foreman at Powers, and on July 1, 1921, the division
superintendent addressed a circular of instructions to various super-
visors governing train operations July 4, 1921. In the list appears
the name and title of Mr. Lawrence, reading " G. H. Lawrence, R. H.
foreman, Powers."
Irrespective of his pay roll classification, the evidence shows that
the carrier recognized Mr. Lawrence as foreman at Powers.
The evidence before the Labor Board is conflicting as to Mr. Law-
rence performing mechanics' work; this is a question or dispute that
can be definitely determined by a joint investigation and the parties
will be directed accordingly.
178
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOB BOARD.
Decision. Based on the evidence submitted, the Labor Board
decides that the parties to the dispute shall arrange and jointly con-
duct an investigation at Powers, Mich., and if unable to reach an
agreement, they shall then submit the results of their joint investi-
gation and the Labor Board will render its decision.
DECISION NO. 779.-DOCKET 1149.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.—Is John Clay, regularly employed as a shop laborer at
Lexington (Ky.) shops, entitled to receive a regular boiler-washer
helper's rate of pay while doing relief work as such?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in this case indi-
cates that subsequent to March 1, 1920, John Clay, classified and
rated as a shop laborer at Lexington, has at various times been as-
signed to assist the boiler washer in the washing of locomotive
boilers in the same manner as is done by boiler-washer helpers regu-
larly assigned as such. It is the contention of the employees that
section (p), Article V, of the maintenance of way agreement covers
employees who perform more than one class of service and should
apply in this case.
Section (p), Article V, referred to, reads as follows:
An employee working on more than one class of work on any day will be
allowed the rate applicable to the character of work preponderating for the
day, except that when temporarily assigned by the proper officer to lower-rated
positions, when such assignment is not brought about by a reduction of force
or request or fault of such employee, the rate of pay will not be reduced.
This rule not to permit using regularly assigned employees of a lower rate
of pay, for less than half of a work-day period, to avoid payment of higher
rates.
The Director General of Railroads, in interpreting the provisions
of the agreement covering the shop employees, stated that "boiler
washers in rule 81 means all employees engaged in washing boilers."
This was construed and applied by the railroads as placing regu-
larly assigned boiler-washer helpers in the same category as boiler
washers, namely, under the classification and rating of boiler-maker
helpers. Decision No. 1982 of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2,
covering dispute between the Federated shop Crafts and the Louis-
ville & Nashville Railroad Co. also provided that regularly assigned
boiler-washer helpers should be classified and paid as boiler-maker
helpers.
The carrier recognizes the classification and rating of boiler-maker
helpers as applying to employees regularly assigned to assist boiler
washers, but does not construe the interpretation of the Director
General, decision of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2, or section
(p), Article V, of the agreement as prohibiting the use of shop
laborers to occasionally perform this class of work.
The contention of the carrier in connection with section (p) of
Article V is that the work of boiler-washer helpers is not covered by
DECISIONS.
179
the maintenance of way agreement and that, therefore, section (p)
of article V is not applicable thereto.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that a laborer assigned to
perform the work of a helper coming under the provisions of the
Federated Shop Crafts' agreement shall be paid as provided by that
agreement.
DECISION NO. 780.-DOCKET 1220.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
Question.-Seniority rights of certain coal-chute employees to posi-
tions in and around shops and roundhouses.
Statement.—The evidence submitted in this case shows that on or
about March 25, 1921, the Delaware & Hudson Co., for the purpose
of reducing expenses, dispensed with certain employees connected
with the operation of coal chutes and transferred such work to the
mechanical department. In taking this action employees working at
coal chutes were laid off and the work performed by them was dis-
tributed among the mechanical department employees at certain
points. The positions of the coal-chute employees were not filled,
nor was the force in the mechanical department increased to take
care of this work when it was transferred. This arrangement resulted
in the laying off of several employees at the coal chutes who held
longer service records than the men in the mechanical department
to whom their work was transferred.
It is the position of the representatives of the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers that
the coal-chute employees who held longer service records than cer-
tain of the employees to whom their work was assigned should have
been privileged to exercise their seniority and to have displaced such
younger employees in the mechanical department.
It is the position of the carrier that it was justified in making the
arrangement as above outlined in connection with its efforts to reduce
expenses, and further that it could not be expected that the carrier
would dismiss men connected with the mechanical department doing
more or less semi-skilled work to make place for men whose duties
were those of common laborers.
Decision. While the evidence does not justify the charge that the
seniority rules were violated by the carrier, it is quite clear that the
seniority rules of the agreement were intended to protect senior men
when a change was made that affected their seniority and retention
in the service. The Labor Board, therefore, decides that immediately
upon receipt of this decision, conferences shall be held between the
duly authorized representatives of the carrier and the duly authorized
representatives of the employees directly interested, and where it is
found that an employee, senior in point of service, is reasonably
capable of performing the work, such senior employee shall dis-
place a junior employee.
180
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees' request for pay for time lost is denied, but this
shall not be construed to apply to any dispute as to pay for time lost
that may arise from failure to fairly apply this decision.
DECISION NO. 781.-DOCKET 732.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to right of F. B. Kirk, train
dispatcher, to return to position of train dispatcher on division on
which he was temporarily out of the service.
Statement. On or about March 15, 1920, the superintendent of
the Kansas division of the carrier named advised the general super-
intendent that on account of the older dispatchers in the office at
Herington, Kans., not desiring the work, and the younger dispatcher
in that office not being qualified therefor, it would be necessary to
obtain an experienced dispatcher to handle the work of relieving
the chief and assistant chief dispatchers at that point.
Inquiry developed that F. B. Kirk, train dispatcher, who was at
that time working as extra dispatcher in the dispatching office of the
St. Louis division at Eldon, Mo., was available and was agreeable to
being transferred to Herington. Arrangements were made for Mr.
Kirk to work extra in the Herington office on the positions of chief,
assistant chief, and trick dispatcher. Upon his arrival at Herington
he was used on all of the tricks in the office to familiarize himself
with the handling of the work and was then used as chief and as-
sistant chief dispatcher while the regular incumbents of those posi-
tions were taking their vacations. At the end of the vacation period
Mr. Kirk returned to the St. Louis division dispatching office at
Eldon, Mo., with seniority rights unimpaired.
The employees contend that Mr. Kirk voluntarily left the service.
of the St. Louis division at Eldon and accepted service in the office
of the Kansas division at Herington, and in doing so lost all of his
seniority rights as a dispatcher on the St. Louis division. Therefore
the action of the carrier in permitting Mr. Kirk to return to the St.
Louis division and exercise his seniority on that division to displace
other dispatchers in that office was improper and in violation of the
rules in effect governing seniority of train dispatchers, and which
rules, the employees contend, established the principle of division
seniority.
The carrier states that Mr. Kirk was one of the oldest dispatchers
in the office at Eldon; that when he left that office to go to Hering-
ton several dispatchers were promoted; and that when Mr. Kirk re-
turned to Eldon they were simply placed back upon the positions
which they occupied when he was transferred to Herington. The
carrier contends that at the time this transfer was made train dis-
patchers were considered officials and Mr. Kirk was permitted to ac-
cept a temporary promotion rather than to employ a dispatcher from
the outside who would not be familiar with the system of train dis-
patching in vogue. The carrier further contends that it would have
DECISIONS.
181
been an injustice to have required Mr. Kirk to remain at Herington
when there was not sufficient extra work at that point and he was,
therefore, permitted to return to the Eldon office.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it the
Labor Board decides that claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 782.-DOCKET 873.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper classification and rate
of pay of employees classified as train and engine crew callers at
Palestine, Taylor, San Antonio, Laredo, Spring, Mart, and Fort
Worth, Tex.
Decision. At the hearing held by the Labor Board, it developed
that the parties to this dispute were not in possession of sufficient in-
formation to enable the board to render a decision. The case is there-
fore remanded to the employees and the carrier to conduct joint in-
vestigation to determine the facts and endeavor to reach a settlement
in accordance with the understanding at the hearing.
DECISION NO. 783.—DOCKET 886.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Question.-Is Ogrieda Estes, clerk in car accountant's office,
Springfield, Mo., entitled to an increase of 63 cents an hour under
section 3, Article II, of Decision No. 2, or an increase of 13 cents per
hour under section 2, Article II of said decision?
Statement. The employee in question entered the service of the
carrier July 16, 1920, as a general clerk in the car-accountant's office
at Springfield, and was paid the rate for employees of less than one
year's experience.
The employees contend that Miss Estes had been previously em-
ployed in clerical work of a similar nature to that required on the
position she held in railroad service for more than one year, and was,
therefore, entitled to the rate paid clerks of more than one year's ex-
perience.
The carrier states that the work performed by Miss Estes consisted
of sorting car-movement tickets, adding mileage of privately owned
cars, posting car records, verifying location of cars appearing on car-
repair bills of foreign lines, and looking up information in regard
to movement of cars; and contends that she did not have one or more
years' experience in railroad clerical work or clerical work of a
similar nature in other industries, and is not, therefore, entitled to
the rate for clerks of one or more years' experience.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board in this dispute
shows that Miss Estes did have more than one year's experience in

182
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOB BOARD.
clerical work of a similar nature in an outside industry and was,
therefore, entitled to the rate of a clerk with more than one year's
experience when she entered the service of the carrier. Position of
the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 784.-DOCKET 1033.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of C. C. Washman, Dallas,
Tex.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, including
the proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 785.-DOCKET 1075.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Louisville & Nashville Rail-
road Co.
Question. Shall D. C. Walker, relief train dispatcher, Anniston,
Ala., be paid for time off account of sickness from December 1, 1920,
to January 19, 1921, inclusive?
Statement. The rule in effect governing pay for time lost by
train dispatchers on account of sickness is as follows:
Chief, assistant chief, regular trick and relief dispatchers will be extended
the same treatment as is the practice on each road to accord other division
officers for loss of time on account of sickness.
The employee in question was absent from duty account of illness
from December 1, 1920, to January 19, 1921, both dates inclusive,
and suffered deduction from his salary for that period.
The employees claim that under the rule above quoted he is en-
titled to pay for the period he was off duty.
The carrier states that it was necessary to fill the position left
vacant by Mr. Walker's absence, and contends that it is not the
practice to allow division officers pay for time off duty under similar
circumstances when it is necessary to fill their positions during their
absence; furthermore, that whenever division officers have been al-
lowed pay
for time off duty on account of sickness it was made en-
tirely on a basis of merit and individual service record.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the practice in
effect, Mr. Walker, train dispatcher, is not entitled to pay for the
time he was absent from duty on account of sickness.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISIONS.
183
DECISION NO. 786.-DOCKET 1081.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Roxie Carlton, Floyd Scott, and Sherman
Scott, for pay for time absent from duty account personal business.
Statement. The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees does not contain any specific provision with respect to
vacations and pay for time off duty account of sickness, but under
date of January 30, 1920, the director, division of operation, United
States Railroad Administration, issued the following telegraphic in-
structions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point, but
it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick leave
would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal managers.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the past practice
the employees in question are not entitled to pay for time off duty
account of personal business.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 787.-DOCKET 1119.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship_Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of employees in office of lighterage manager for
additional compensation for time worked in excess of regular weekly
assignment.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 788.-DOCKET 1137.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question. What is the proper increase per hour under Decision
No. 2 for employees classified as elevator men in the freight house,
South Water Street, Chicago, Ill.?
Statement.-Prior to Federal control, these elevator men were
rated with stevedores and certain other classes of employees who
were paid a differential of 1 cent an hour over the truckers. In the
application of Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27 this differ-
184
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ential was absorbed by the provision of that supplement which fixed
a maximum rate of 43 cents per hour for such classes of employees.
The increase of 10 cents per hour provided for elevator operators in
section 5, Article II, of Decision No. 2 was added to the rate of 43
cents per hour, effective May 1, 1920.
The employees contend that while the employees involved in this
dispute are classed as elevator men, they perform other duties inci-
dent to the handling of freight which justifies a differential over
truckers, and, inasmuch as they received the same differential as
stevedores, etc., prior to Federal control, they should receive the
increase provided for such classes in paragraph (b), section 8, Arti-
cle II, of Decision No. 2.
The carrier states that these employees are classified as elevator
men and that their duties consist of operating elevators between the
various floors of the freight house, and contends that they do not
perform any of the duties ordinarily required of stowers, stevedores,
callers, or other classes of employees referred to in paragraph (b),
section 8, Article II, of Decision No. 2, and are not entitled to the
differential specified therein for such classes.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board shows that the
provisions of Decision No. 2 have been properly applied to the em-
ployees in question.
The claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 789.-DOCKET 1161
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding right of carrier to close telegraph
office on certain days of the week on account of fluctuation in business.
Statement.-Owing to the light traffic conditions, the telegraph
office at Cheat Haven, Pa., was closed on Sunday, March 27, and
Monday, March 28, 1921, and the telegraph office at Mount Braddock,
Pa., was closed on Monday, March 28, 1921.
The employees state that paragraph (b) of Article X of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier, effective March 1, 1920,
provides for the payment of overtime for work performed in excess
of the regular hours; that under said paragraph the carrier pays for
all work performed by an employee outside of his assigned hours at
the overtime rate, thus indicating that assigned hours are considered
regular hours; that paragraph (e), Article X, reading "Employees
will not be required to suspend work during regular hours or to
absorb overtime," prohibits the carrier from suspending an employee
during his regular hours and certain specified holidays.
It is further stated that Article XI contains an exception to
Article X which permits the carrier to suspend an employee either
all or part of the day on Sundays and specified holidays and also
requires that employees shall be notified the preceding day when
they are to work on Sundays or holidays, and provides for the
method of payment when a less number of hours than constitutes a
day is worked. No provision is made for notifying employees when
DECISIONS.
185
they are not required to work on week days, which, it is claimed,
indicates that the carrier did not contemplate suspending an em-
ployee from service on any other days than Sundays and holidays.
The employees therefore contend that assigned hours are regular
hours; that the rule above quoted specifies that employees shall not
be required to suspend work during regular hours; and that no pro-
vision is made for suspending work on any other day than Sundays
and the holidays specified in Article XI.
The carrier contends that paragraph (e) of Article X, above
quoted, does not cover a case where offices are closed on certain days
of the week on account of sudden fluctuation of business where there
is no necessity for the service of a telegrapher in such office, but that
the rule was intended to prevent suspending employees for a portion
of the day and paying them for a fractional part thereof; that this
is emphasized by decision to question No. 28, Interpretation No. 4 to
Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, which provides a daily
guarantee. The carrier further contends that to agree to the con-
tentions of the employees would guarantee pay for 306 days each cal-
endar year whether employees worked or not, and would prohibit
reduction in force to meet sudden fluctuations in business due to
industries, strikes, floods, washouts, etc.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 790.-DOCKET 1217.
Chicago, I., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question-What is the proper seniority date of F. L. Schlotter?
Statement. Mr. Schlotter was employed as clerk at Avilla, Ind.,
during the month of August, 1912, and at the time this dispute was
submitted to the Labor Board he was filling the position of chief
clerk to the agent at that point. At various times since September
1, 1916, Mr. Schlotter has been used temporarily as a relief agent on
account of his familiarity with agency work, and from September
26, 1919, to September 30, 1920, he was required to work in place
of an assistant relief agent. Mr. Schlotter's seniority date is shown
on the clerk's seniority roster for the year 1921 as August 1, 1912.
The employees contend that the continuity of his seniority in
clerical service was broken when he engaged as assistant relief agent
in September, 1919, and that after that date he accumulated seniority
on the telegrapher's seniority roster.
The carrier states that prior to October 1, 1919, relief agents were
classed as official positions and that while Mr. Schlotter was acting
as assistant relief agent he did not acquire seniority standing on
the telegraphers' roster, and contends that it would be unfair and
unjust to the employee to deprive him of his seniority as a clerk on
account of having been required to take assistant relief agent's posi-
tion in September, 1919.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that F. L. Schlotter's senior-
ity shall date from August 1, 1912.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
186
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 791.-DOCKET 1338.
Chicago, Ill., March 2, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Union Terminal Co. of Dallas, Tex.
Question-Request for reinstatement of Mrs. C. M. Marshall.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 792.-DOCKET 997.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.-(a) Who should hold seniority as a pattern maker at
Albany shops, Albany, Ala., J. G. McRae or Andrew Smith?
(b) Reinstatement of J. G. McRae with pay for time lost.
Statement.-J. G. McRae was employed at the Albany shops on
May 4, 1902, as carpenter in the cabinet shop, and worked in that
capacity until June 7, 1905, when he was assigned and classified as
pattern maker; he worked in this capacity (except from October 1,
1908, to May 1, 1909, when he was foreman of cabinet shop) until
August 13, 1913, on which date he was discharged because of alterca-
tion with a foreman. Mr. McRae was held out of service two weeks.
He reentered the service August 28, 1913, without change of assign-
ment or classification, and continued in that capacity until March
22, 1921, on which date he was laid off account of reduction in force.
The employees contend that Mr. McRae was reinstated and that
his seniority as a pattern maker dates from June, 1905. The car-
rier contends that the discharge on August 13, 1913, constitutes a
break in the continuity of Mr. McRae's seniority and that his
seniority dated from August 28, 1913.
Mr. Smith was employed at the Albany shops on January 25,
1901, as helper in the foundry, since which time he has been carried
on the pay roll as follows: January 25, 1901, to July 1, 1904, as
helper in foundry; July 1, 1904, to October 1, 1905, as pattern car-
rier; October 1, 1905, to October 4, 1914, as pattern stock clerk;
October 4, 1914, to date as pattern repairer.
The service record of these two employees is taken from the car-
rier's submission. Two seniority rosters submitted by the carrier
for 1918 and 1921, respectively, show Mr. McRae classified as a
pattern maker with seniority dating from June 1, 1905 (some two
years after he first entered the service as a carpenter), which indi-
cates that the carrier did not consider the discharge of August 13,
1913, as constituting a break in the continuity of Mr. McRae's
seniority.
The two seniority rosters above mentioned also show Mr. Smith
classified as a pattern maker with seniority dating from January 25,
1901 (the date he entered the service as a helper). Although the car-
rier states that Mr. Smith was classified as a "foundry helper" to
DECISIONS.
187
July 1, 1904, he was actually confined to helper's duties to January
1, 1903, on which date he was first assigned to perform other work,
although his classification was not changed until July 1, 1904, when
he was classified as a pattern carrier. The carrier further states
that Mr. Smith was first classified as pattern repairer October 4,
1914, and that he was given the mechanics' rate as pattern maker
under the provisions of Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27
issued July 25, 1918, and made effective as to rates of pay January
1, 1918.
Decision.—(a) J. G. McRae.
(b) In accordance with the preceding decision (a), J. G. McRae
shall be reinstated with his seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
time lost, deducting any amount that he may have earned in other
employment since the date he was taken out of service.
DECISION NO. 793.—DOCKET 942.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-Has the carrier the right, under rules 46 and 27 of the
national agreement, to require an employee who was laid off in a
reduction in force to take a physical examination, and to hold him
out of service account of alleged failure to pass such examination?
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of communication from
the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop
Crafts), advising that this dispute has been disposed of and therefore
requests that our files on the subject be closed.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 794.-DOCKET 1144.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Shall traveling labor gang in water-service department
be compensated in accordance with section (i) or section (m),
Article V, of the agreement of the United Brotherhood of Mainte-
nance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence was submitted in connec-
tion with this case, which indicates that there is employed by the
Southern Pacific lines in Texas and Louisiana a traveling road gang
whose duties are to look after the pipe lines and water and fuel in-
stallations, laying new lines, changing, renewing, or relocating old
lines, excavating foundations, mixing concrete, digging trenches, and
other laborers' work. This gang is in charge of a pump repairer
who receives instructions from the water-service foreman regarding
the work to be done by the gang.
The evidence further indicates that the gang moves from place
to place as the work to be done requires and that it has no established
20936*—23—13
188
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
headquarters or boarding outfit, except in some cases where there is
heavy work to be done necessitating a prolonged stay at some outside
point where accommodations are not available, in which event outfit.
cars are furnished.
Section (i), Article V of the maintenance of way agreement, under
which these men are paid, reads:
Employees temporarily or permanently assigned to duties requiring variable
hours, working on or traveling over an assigned territory and away from and
out of reach of their regular boarding and lodging places or outfit cars, will
provide board and lodging at their own expense and will be allowed time at the
rate of 10 hours per day at pro rata rates and in addition pay for actual time
worked in excess of 8 hours on the bases provided in these rules, excluding time
traveling or waiting. When working at points accessible to regular boarding
and lodging places or outfit cars, the provisions of this rule will not apply.
It is the contention of the employees that section (m), Article V.
of the maintenance of way agreement covers the employees in
question.
Section (m) of Article V reads:
Employees not in outfit cars will be allowed straight time for actual time
traveling by train, by direction of the management, during or outside of regular
work period or during overtime hours, either on or off assigned territory, except
as otherwise provided for in these rules. Employees will not be allowed time
while traveling, in the exercise of seniority rights or between their homes and
designated assembling points or for other personal reasons.
Employees' position.-The employees' position is quoted as follows:
It is our opinion that the employees in question should be paid under sections
(m) and (n), Article V of the maintenance of way agreement. These em-
ployees are not in outfit cars but live at home and travel by train by direction
of the management. Their work consists mostly of emergency repairs to water
stations over the line that develop on short notice, and under the present system
of paying the men, they are working almost for their board as they receive
only two hours' extra compensation at pro-rata rates to pay for meals and
lodging, which means approximately 62 cents per day. Three meals and lodging
for one night will amount to a minimum of $2 a day. They are also compelled
to leave their headquarters quite frequently at 5.20 a. m., returning at 9.40
p. m. and often on the midnight train, thereby having to travel in the interest
of the company from 7 to 10 hours a day without pay.
We contend that these employees should be paid under sections (m) and (n),
Article V of our agreement. See decision Docket M-759 of Railway Board of
Adjustment No. 3 on a case at the same place and of exactly the same nature.
We therefore ask that these men be so paid, and adjustments made back to
the time when Federal operation of the roads ceased.
Carrier's position.-The carrier's position is quoted as follows:
These carriers hold that the work of the gang in question is essentially road
service, that it is of the character that was intended to be covered by section
(i), Article V, of the maintenance of way agreement, and that these men are
properly compensated under said section and article. The carriers further hold
that the present classification and basis of payment having been in effect
and no objection having been made thereto under the United States Railroad
Administration, and having been in effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, should
be continued until such time as it may be changed by any new agreement
entered into between the carrier and its employees, or changed by new rules
that may be established by authority of the United States Railroad Labor
Board. In this connection the carriers call attention to the ruling of the United
States Railroad Labor Board in its Interpretation No. 2 to Decision No. 2, in
its Decision No. 92, and in various other decisions which, these carriers main-
tain, establish the correctness of its position.
Decision-The Labor Board decides that the service in question
comes within the meaning and intent of section (i), Article V, of
DECISIONS.
189
the agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
The position of the carrier is therefore sustained.
DECISION NO. 795.-DOCKET 1151.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question.-The question in dispute is in regard to the application
of the minimum rate of composite mechanics to certain signal main-
tainers with less than four years' experience, who were considered
composite mechanics under rulings of the United States Railroad
Administration.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence filed in connection with
this case indicates that prior to the issuance of Supplement No. 4 to
General Order No. 27, the minimum or hiring rate for signal main-
tainers on the Chicago & Alton Railroad was $82.50; and further,
that the minimum or hiring rate for first-class eléctrical workers
was at that time $105.75.
After the issuance of Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27
and interpretations thereto, the signal maintainers employed on the
Chicago & Alton Railroad took the position that they were com-
posite mechanics and should receive the rate of first-class mechanics.
Being unable to reach an agreement on this question with the car-
rier, the matter was handled with the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration and resulted in the issuance of the following decisions:
Decision No. 3 of the division of labor reads:
It will be noted in the original joint submission, the management takes the
position that signal maintainers do no work whatever specified in section 5,
Article I of Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27, while in the subse-
quent joint statement it would indicate that they are responsible for work
which requires them to have a varied knowledge of the trades, and the decision
is that if they perform the work as specified they are entitled to classi-
fication as composite mechanics and should be paid 68 cents per hour; other-
wise, they should be classed as electrical workers, second class, and paid 58
cents per hour.
Decision No. 12 of the division of labor reads:
Employees in question who were performing mechanics' work and who were,
prior to July 25, 1918, receiving the minimum rate of the craft at point em-
ployed, will be paid as per section (1), Article II of Supplement No. 4, from
the effective date of said supplement, regardless of their years of experience.
Those who were not receiving the minimum rate of their craft at point em-
ployed, prior to July 25, 1918, and who have not had four years' experience,
will be paid as per section (2), Article II of Supplement No. 4 to General
Order No. 27.
"Minimum rate," as used in decision, means the entrance or hiring rate
for experienced mechanics at point employed.
The evidence shows that after the receipt of Decision No. 3, above
quoted, a conference was held between the carrier and the employees
and a memorandum of agreement was formulated and signed, which
embodied the following paragraphs:
It is understood and agreed that from January 1, 1918, to August 1, under
Chicago & Alton Decision No. 3, above referred to, these employees will be
allowed for 10 hours each working day 10 cents per hour, or the difference be-
190
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tween the 58-cent rate under which they were formerly classified and the
new rate of 68 cents per hour, except employees coming under the sliding scale
will be allowed for the same number of hours, but at the rate per hour as pro-
vided in section 2, Article II of Supplement No. 4, which is more than section
2-u, same article, under which they were classified.
For Sunday and holiday service, from January 1 to December 14, 1918,
it is agreed that automatic signal maintainers will be allowed three hours
for each Sunday or holiday during this period at the hourly rate determined
by Chicago & Alton Decision No. 3, rendered by the director, division of labor,
and which is 68 cents per hour, subject to section 2 of Article II, for em-
ployees with less than four years' service, it being understood and agreed that
this allowance, as above provided, will cover all back pay and adjustments
to December 14, 1918.
It is the contention of the carrier that the employees involved in
this dispute had less than four years' experience and did not receive
the minimum or hiring rate of first-class electrical workers prior
to July 25, 1918, the date of issuance of Supplement No. 4 to General
Order No. 27, claiming that the minimum or hiring rate for signal
maintainers was $82.50, while the minimum or hiring rate for first-
class electricians was $105.75, and that in view of the fact that the
signal maintainers in question received the rate of $82.50 per month
and, further, that they had less than four years' experience, that they
were properly rated under section 2, Article II of Supplement No.
4, based upon their years of experience.
It is the employees' claim that no distinction was made in Sup-
plement No. 4 to General Order No. 27 between electrical workers
and signal maintainers, and in view of the fact that men involved in
this dispute received the minimum rate of "their craft" prior to
July 25, 1918, that they should have been paid the minimum rate of
composite mechanics with four or more years' experience.
Decision. The evidence indicates that the employees in question
were classified as composite mechanics in accordance with Interpreta-
tion No. 2 to Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27. Employees,
who were receiving prior to July 25, 1918, an amount equal to or in
excess of minimum or hiring rate paid any craft represented in the
crafts of which they were a composite, shall be paid the minimum
or hiring rate of the highest-rated craft represented in such com-
posite service.
Employees, who prior to July 25, 1918, were receiving a lower rate
than that paid any of the crafts of which they were a composite,
shall receive the step rate in accordance with their years of ex-
perience as outlined in section 5-a, Supplement No. 4 to General
Order No. 27 with subsequent adjustments.
If this decision has the effect of increasing the rates of any em-
ployees, such increased rates shall be made effective July 1, 1921.
DECISION NO. 796.-DOCKET 1156.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Does rule 55 of Addendum No. 3 to Decision No. 222
permit others than mechanics who are members of the crew assigned
DECISIONS.
191
to the scrapping of equipment referred to in this rule to use acetylene
cutting torch in connection with the work?
Decision-Representative of the organization has requested that
the Labor Board's file in connection with this case be closed. In com-
pliance with this request the docket is closed with the understanding
that this action does not prejudice the resubmission of this case
should either party desire to do so in the future.
DECISION NO. 797.—DOCKET 1254.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question-Shall Messrs. Frank and Louis Bianchi, who were dis-
missed from the service June 30, 1921, be reinstated with full senior-
ity rights and paid for time lost?
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the carrier was justified in the action taken in this case, and
therefore denies the claim for reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 798.-DOCKET 1313.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question-Should the bridge and building foremen, water-service
foremen, and assistant bridge and building foremen receive the same
monthly rate of pay as do foremen and assistant foremen in the
bridge and building and water-service departments on all other
divisions except the Portland division?
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-During Federal control, the Portland division or lines
north of Ashland, was under a different regional director from the balance of
the Southern Pacific (Pacific System) lines south of Ashland, Oreg.
On August 1, 1919, the director, central western region, authorized a monthly
salary of $170 for bridge and building and water-service foremen and $150 for
assistant bridge and building foremen without overtime on lines south of Ash-
land. Mr. O'Brien, Federal manager for lines north of Ashland, did not request
a monthly salary, but continued the hourly rate of pay with overtime allowance.
After the roads were returned to corporate control, the Southern Pacific Co.
(Pacific System) increased the rate for these employees to the rates paid south
of Ashland.
Under Decision No. 2 of the Railroad Labor Board effective July 1, 1920,
increases were applied to the rates in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and not
to the rates which the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) had established
after the roads were returned to corporate control.
Employees' position.-We contend that the employees herein mentioned are
performing the same class of work as other bridge and building foremen and
assistant foremen. They are now under one management and prior to Federal
control they all received the same rate of pay, and they should in common jus-
tice at this time receive the same rate of pay.
Carrier's position.-During the period of Federal control, our Portland oper-
ating division was transferred to the northwestern region under the jurisdic-
tion of Mr. O'Brien, Federal manager, and was not returned to our jurisdiction
until February 1, 1920.
192
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
On March 18, 1920, after the termination of Federal control, we authorized
increases for bridge and building and water-service foremen and assistant
bridge and building foremen on the Portland division, but when the Labor
Board's Decision No. 2 was rendered granting an increase to these employees,
and stated that this increase was to be added to the rates of pay established
by or under the authority of the United States Railroad Administration, we
deemed it necessary in order to comply with this decision to add the increases
to the rates which were in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
It is the contention of the carrier that the rates now paid on the Portland
division are correct, they being established by officers and orders of the United
States Railroad Administration and subsequent rulings of the United States
Railroad Labor Board.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the provisions of De-
cision No. 2 have been complied with in applying the increase in the
manner as outlined.
Principle (7), paragraph (d), section 307 of Title III of the
transportation act, 1920, states in connection with the establishment
of the "justness and reasonableness of such wages" that "Inequali-
ties of increases in wages or of treatment, the result of previous wage
orders or adjustments," shall be taken into consideration, and this
decision is not to be construed to mean otherwise or that the duly
authorized representatives of the carrier and the duly authorized
representatives of the employees may not negotiate to a conclusion
rates of pay for the positions in question.
DECISION NO. 799.—DOCKET 1314.
Chicago, M., March 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Seniority rights of Anthony George, formerly em-
ployed as carpenter at Buffalo, who was laid off account reduction
in force when younger men in the service were retained.
Statement. Oral and written evidence filed in connection with
this case indicates that Anthony George was employed in the bridge
and building department of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. on June
12, 1917, and was later assigned to bench carpenter work in the
bridge and building shop in which capacity he served until January
19, 1920, at which time he was assigned to a gang making repairs to
fueling trestle at East Buffalo.
It is shown that he worked five days on this kind of work, and
then laid off; that several days after laying off he made report to
his foreman that his absence from work was due to an oldˇinjury
to his foot making it impossible for him to perform the heavy work
being handled by the gang on the coal trestle, but that if he was
restored to his position in the shop he would be able to return to
work at once; further, that he did not return to work until February
28, 1920, at which time he reported at the shop, but was not allowed
to return to work on the ground that he had not procured a leave
of absence or any permission from the foremen to be absent, and had
made no effort to notify his foremen that he could not come to work.
It is, however, shown that he was allowed to return to work on
March 24, 1920, and on April 10 was transferred to another gang to
which Anthony George objected, claiming that he should be re-
DECISIONS.
193
turned to the bench carpenter work at East Buffalo. The carrier
denied his demand on the ground that there was not sufficient bench
carpenter work at East Buffalo to warrant his employment exclu-
sively on that work. On December 31, 1920, the force was reduced,
at which time Anthony George was laid off and younger men in
the service were retained for regular roustabout work of the bridge
and building gang.
The reason advanced by the carrier for not retaining Anthony
George was that he was unable to safely and efficiently perform this
class of work, and that the employment of Anthony George in such a
gang would endanger himself and the rest of the gang, as he was very
clumsy in the handling of materials and was in general incapable.
The employees based their claim entirely upon Mr. George's seniority,
which is not disputed, but the carrier contends that they have the
right under the seniority provisions of the agreement to determine
whether or not an employee is capable of performing the work as
referred to in section (-2), Article II, of the agreement of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers.
Decision-The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of the agree-
ment in handling the matter as herein outlined.
The Labor Board, however, recommends that when the forces are
increased Anthony George be reemployed in some line of work that
he may be capable of performing.
DECISION NO. 800.-DOCKET 1316.
Chicago, Ill, March 8, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. New York, New Haven &
Hartford Railroad Co.
Question. Shall Edward T. Garrison, now classified and rated as
signal maintainer, be reclassified and rated as leading maintainer?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this dispute indicates as follows:
Section 3, Article V, of agreement entered into between the signal-
department employees and the carrier, the New York, New Haven
& Hartford Railroad Co., reads:
The hourly rate of a leading signal maintainer, gang foreman, or leading
signalman will be 5 cents per hour above the established hourly rate of the
signal maintainers or signalmen of the class supervised.
Statement is made by the carrier and not denied by the employees
that during the period of Federal control of railroads a conference
was held between representatives of the carrier and the employees at
which time it was agreed to classify Mr. Garrison as signal main-
tainer and F. Thiem as assistant maintainer, and that when the sig-
nalmen's rules were promulgated it was agreed to reclassify Mr.
Thiem as signal maintainer and give him a separate territory.
It is shown that Mr. Garrison is assigned as signal maintainer con-
tinuously at signal station 38, having one assistant and two helpers;
that Mr. Thiem's duties require that he take care of four crossing
194
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
bells on the New Canaan branch and in addition to station himself
at the west end of signal station 38 plant between 7 and 9 each morn-
ing during the heavy traffic to be in readiness in case of any failure,
and that during the balance of the day when he is not required on the
New Canaan branch he is occupied in working about signal station
38; that when working within the limits of signal station 38 plant
Mr. Thiem's instructions are conveyed to him by Mr. Garrison in the
absence of the foreman.
It is not contended by the employees that Mr. Garrison supervises
the work of Mr. Thiem on the New Canaan branch, which it is agreed
consumes a majority of his time, but that he does exercise supervision
over Mr. Thiem when engaged at plant 38.
The carrier denies that Mr. Garrison has any supervisory authority
over Mr. Thiem, and further that he (Mr. Garrison) is not held
responsible for any service performed by Mr. Thiem. The repre-
sentatives of the carrier state that if Mr. Thiem was continuously
employed at plant 38 and worked under the direction of Mr. Garrison
they would be willing to pay the rate of leading maintainer.
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Thiem does work
under the direction of and receive instructions from Mr. Garrison
when employed at plant 38; that Mr. Garrison is held responsible for
the proper maintenance of said plant; and that regardless of the
service performed by Mr. Thiem on the New Canaan branch, Mr.
Garrison is a leading maintainer within the meaning and intent of
the agreement entered into and should receive the 5 cents per hour
differential.
Decision.—The Labor Board decides that Edward Garrison is not
a leading maintainer within the meaning and intent of the agreement.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 801.-DOCKET 1317.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Railroad Co.
Question.-Seniority rights of signal maintainer at Congress
Park, Ill.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that C. L. Bend was formerly employed as signal
maintainer on the Congress Park territory of the Chicago, Burling-
ton & Quincy railroad; that he was promoted to the position of signal
supervisor on the St. Joseph division in November, 1917; that Gus
Peterson took the position vacated by Mr. Bend; that on March 6,
1918, Mr. Peterson was promoted to the position of signal draftsman
in the signal engineer's office; and that at this time Peter J. May was
hired as a signal maintainer to fill the position made vacant by the
promotion of Mr. Peterson.
It is shown that Mr. May continued in the position as signal main-
tainer on the automatic signal territory at Congress Park from March
6, 1918, until May 23, 1921, at which time Mr. May was "bumped "
from his position by Mr. Bend, whose position as supervisor of sig-
nals was abolished previous to May 23, 1921.
DECISIONS.
195
Section 8, Article IV, of the agreement of the Brotherhood Rail-
road Signaĺmen of America, in effect at the time this change was
made, reads as follows:
Employees in service will be considered for promotion to position as foreman.
Employees promoted to the position of foreman shall retain their seniority
rights but shall exercise such seniority rights only when new positions are
created or vacancies occur. When force is reduced a foreman, if no new posi-
tion or vacancy is open in the class in which he held seniority rights when
promoted, will have the right to displace the employee with the least seniority
rights in that class and will regain his former seniority rights.
Evidence shows that both Mr. May and Mr. Bend have been at
work since the above-referred-to change was made, Mr. Bend at
Congress Park and Mr. May at Plano, Ill. As the rate of pay for
the two positions is the same no money consideration is involved in
this dispute. At oral hearing the representative of the carrier stated
that they had no record of having indicated to Mr. May that the
position of signal maintainer at Congress Park would be temporary,
but claim that there was a verbal understanding between Mr. Bend
and the signal engineer that he would be returned to his old position
at Congress Park.
Employees' position.-The position of the employees has been
summarized as follows:
It is the contention of the employees that when Mr. May was
hired as a signal maintainer on the Congress Park territory there
was no mention made of this position being temporary, nor was there
any stipulation made by the officer employing him that one of the
former men would return to that position in the event the position
which he was then filling was abolished.
The employees further contend that in view of the fact that Mr.
Bend was promoted to the position of supervisor of signals, which
was considered an official position, the position does not come within
the provisions of the signalmen's agreement; nevertheless, they con-
tend that the provisions of section 8, Article IV, of the signalmen's
agreement should govern in the return of Mr. Bend to the ranks of
the employees; that Mr. Bend should have bumped R. E. Hancock,
who is the employee in the signal maintainer's class having the least
seniority rights on the supervisor's district.
Carrier's position. The carrier's position has been summarized
as follows:
The carrier contends that during the early summer of 1917 C. L.
Sueber, division signal supervisor of the St. Joseph division, was
transferred temporarily to the valuation department for special
work; that signal maintainer C. L. Bend of Congress Park was pro-
moted to signal supervisor of the St. Joseph division during the
absence of Mr. Sueber with the understanding between the signal
engineer and Mr. Bend that when Mr. Sueber returned to his posi-
tion of division signal supervisor at St. Joseph, Mr. Bend would be
returned to his position as signal maintainer at Congress Park;
that Mr. Peterson from Mendota, Ill., was transferred to Congress
Park with the understanding that when Mr. Bend was returned to
Congress Park Mr. Peterson would be returned to Mendota.
It is the further contention of the carrier that in January, 1918,
owing to certain draftsmen being called for military service, it was
necessary to transfer field forces to engineer's office, Chicago; that
196
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Mr. Peterson was, therefore, brought from Congress Park into Chi-
cago, making it necessary to hire a man for Congress Park; Mr. May
was hired on March 6, 1918, and placed at Congress Park.
The carrier states that it was expected that Mr. Sueber would
finish his work sooner than he did, but that the war with its conse-
quent disarrangement of forces delayed same, and that just prior
to completion of his special work the position of supervisor on the
St. Joseph division was abolished. This relieved Mr. Bend from
service as supervisor on the St. Joseph division and he was trans-
ferred back to Congress Park on May 23, 1921, which, the carrier
states, was in accordance with the agreement Mr. Bend had with of-
ficers of the carrier when he took the position at St. Joseph.
It is the position of the carrier that it was the practice on the
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad that employees accepting
official positions would retain all of their seniority rights, and by
consent of the carrier return to position vacated during incumbency
of an official position; further, that this assurance was given Mr.
Bend when he was promoted to the official position of supervisor.
Decision.-(a) On the evidence submitted, the Labor Board de-
cides that the appointment of C. L. Bend to the position of signal
supervisor did not constitute a temporary appointment.
(b) That the continuity of Mr. Bend's service with the carrier
was not disturbed by said appointment.
(c) That Mr. Bend, as a result of being demoted, is entitled to
the position of signal maintainer by displacing the signal main-
tainer having the least seniority rights on seniority district, as per
section 8, Article IV, of the above-referred-to agreement.
(d) That Peter J. May is entitled to retain the position of signal
maintainer at Congress Park, provided he is not the junior signal
maintainer on the seniority district as provided in section 8, Article
IV, of the signalmen's agreement.
DECISION NO. 802.-DOCKET 1321.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question.-Seniority of Joseph Rousseau, who bid for and accepted
temporary position of car inspector, but who refused to bid on posi-
tion when advertised as permanent.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that prior to February, 1920, Joseph Rousseau
was a car repairman in good standing at East Fitchburg shops with
approximately 19 years' seniority; that in February, 1920, account
sickness of P. R. Dacey, the latter's position of car inspector at the
passenger station at Fitchburg was advertised by notice signed by
J. S. Clarke, foreman, who has jurisdiction over these inspectors,
and that this notice showed that the job was temporary.
The evidence further indicates that Mr. Rousseau applied for and
was assigned to this temporary job in February, 1920; that when
Mr. Dacey died the job was then advertised as a permanent vacancy,
and was assigned to some one other than Mr. Rousseau, he having
DECISIONS.
197
refused to bid on the permanent position; that Mr. Rousseau then
returned to Fitchburg shops, where he was informed by the officer
in charge that he had lost his seniority; that he then reported to the
superintendent of motive power at Boston, who directed him to re-
turn to Fitchburg and go to work, which he did; that he remained
at work until December, 1920, when he was laid off account of re-
duction in force, as per letter from superintendent of shops, dated
December 3, 1920.
The committee contends that Mr. Rousseau did not lose his
seniority at East Fitchburg shops by bidding for and accepting
temporary assignment at passenger station, while the carrier takes
the position that East Fitchburg shops and Fitchburg station are
two separate points, and that under rule 31 of the national agreement
covering shopmen Mr. Rousseau lost his seniority at the shops when
he took the position at the station.
Decision. The evidence clearly indicates that the position of car
inspector at Fitchburg passenger station was advertised as tem-
porary. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Mr. Rousseau
accepted the position with that understanding.
In view of the fact that the position was advertised as tem-
porary, the Labor Board does not feel that Mr. Rousseau should have
been denied his seniority at Fitchburg shops when the position was
advertised as permanent, and therefore decides that Mr. Rousseau
shall be restored to his seniority standing at the Fitchburg shops,
and compensated to the extent that he has suffered a wage loss ac-
count of the denial of such seniority, deducting any amount he may
have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 803.-DOCKET 1341.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Pennsylvania System.
Question. Claim of A. M. Nine, carpenter, Macedonia, Ohio, who
was laid off in a reduction in force, for reinstatement in accordance
with his alleged seniority.
Statement.-An oral hearing was conducted in connection with
this dispute at which the representatives of the employees stated that
they would again handle the matter with the carrier in an effort to
reach a satisfactory agreement.
Decision. This docket will be closed without prejudice to the right
of either party to the dispute to again bring the matter to the atten-
tion of the Labor Board in accordance with the transportation act,
1920, in the event a settlement is not effected.
DECISION NO. 804.-DOCKET 1384.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Was the Michigan Central Railroad Co. within its
rights in displacing L. H. Leggitt, section foreman at Frederick,
Mich., by Edward Gibbons, assistant roadmaster, Mackinaw division?
198
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. In March, 1921, general reductions in forces in the
maintenance of way department and in other departments of the rail-
road were made. In these reductions in forces, the position of
assistant roadmaster on the Mackinaw division was discontinued.
Mr. Gibbons, who held the position of assistant roadmaster, was re-
duced to section foreman on March 24, 1921, and assigned to the
Frederick section, thereby displacing Mr. Leggitt, who was assigned
to the position of section foreman at Deward.
Mr. Gibbons was employed in 1896 and served as laborer until 1906,
at which time he left the service. He was again employed August
19, 1907, and on September 25, 1907, he was promoted to the position
of section foreman, in which capacity he served until September 1,
1916. He was then promoted to assistant roadmaster and served in
that capacity until March 24, 1921, when he was reduced to section
foreman.
Mr. Leggitt was employed May 17, 1917; was promoted to section
foreman on June 22, 1918, and served in that capacity at Deward
until October 22, 1920; he was then transferred to Frederick, on
which section he remained until March 25, 1921, when he was again
transferred to Deward.
Employees' position. The position of the employees has been sum-
marized by the Labor Board as follows:
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Gibbons, formerly
assistant roadmaster, was an official of the carrier, and therefore
has no seniority that will give him the right to "bump" foremen
as per Article I of the national agreement of the United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers,
which reads in part "not including supervisory forces above the rank
of foremen."
The employees call attention to paragraph (-1), Article II of
the same agreement which reads: "Limits. (c-1) Seniority rights
of all employees are confined to the subdepartment on which em-
ployed."
The employees therefore contend that such "officials" are out of
the subdepartment of foremen by reason of being officials and have
no seniority rights as foremen; further, that there had been a va-
cancy at the point in question; that same should have been handled
in accordance with paragraphs (f) and (g), Article III of the
agreement, which prescribes the method of filling vacancies, and
provides that officials can obtain such positions by "bidding "in as
new employees; and that therefore Mr. Leggitt, former section fore-
man at Frederick, who was displaced by Mr. Gibbons, assistant
roadmaster, should be reinstated to said section.
Carrier's position.-The contention of the carrier has been sum-
marized as follows:
It is the position of the carrier that it was found necessary to
reduce its working force in the maintenance of way department in
order to keep pace with the business depression; that in this reduc-
tion in force the position of assistant roadmaster on the Mackinaw
division held by Mr. Gibbons since September 1, 1916, was discon-
tinued on March 24, 1921; that Mr. Gibbons was assigned to the
position of section foreman at Frederick with a reduction in salary
DECISIONS.
199
from $230 to $135.60 per month, thereby displacing Mr. Leggitt, who,
in turn, was assigned to position of section foreman at Deward with
a reduction in salary from $135.60 to $133.10 per month.
The carrier contends that the retention of both employees in the
service and the changes which were made to keep each of them em-
ployed was the only fair and logical arrangement which could be
inade under the circumstances.
66
(6
It is the position of the carrier that Mr. Gibbons in the capacity
of assistant roadmaster was not an official," but was a subordi-
nate official" as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission,
and admits that while serving in the capacity of a subordinate offi-
cial he did not come within the scope of the maintenance of way
agreement in so far as complying with the rules and regulations of
that agreement to his duties as supervisory official is concerned.
The carrier, however, holds that there is no provision in said
agreement providing that an employee who does not properly come
within the scope of that agreement shall not be returned to a position
within the scope of the agreement through force of circumstances
over which he, as an employee, has no control and can no longer hold
the position to which advanced; that to hold otherwise would be
wrong in principle and would have the effect of removing all in-
centive for an employee, who, by diligent effort, has reached the rank
of foreman, to aspire to further advancement.
The carrier further contends that the promotion of Mr. Gibbons
from the rank of section foreman to the position of roadmaster
occurred many years before the maintenance of way agreement was
made effective, and that it would be manifestly unfair to this em-
ployee to now deprive him of an opportunity to provide for himself
and family by taking the position demanded by the maintenance
of way organization, which would require him to reenter the ranks
of employees as a new employee; however, to assume such a course
would leave him without such position.
It is the further statement of the carrier that the practice as fol-
lowed in this case has been in vogue for years on the Michigan Cen-
tral Railroad, which practice they contend was perpetuated by sec-
tion (¿), Article VI, of the maintenance of way agreement.
Decision,-On the evidence submitted the Labor Board decides:
(a) That the appointment of Edward Gibbons to assistant road-
master did not constitute a temporary appointment.
(b) That the continuity of Mr. Gibbons's service with the carrier.
was not disturbed by said appointment.
(c) That Mr. Gibbons, as a result of being demoted, is entitled to
a position as section foreman by displacing the junior (in point of
service) section foreman as provided in section (e), Article II, of
agreement in effect at the time of such demotion.
(d) That L. H. Leggitt is entitled to retain the position formerly
held by Mr. Gibbons provided he is not the junior section foreman on
the seniority district, as provided in section (e), Article II, of the
agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers.
2
200
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 805.-DOCKET 1394.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Question. Should employees who were paid time and one-half
after 10 hours prior to Government control, which then constituted
a day's work, be paid time and one-half after 8 hours under Adden-
dum No. 2 to Decision No. 119?
Decision. Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119 clearly covers question in dispute and shall therefore apply
to this case.
DECISION NO. 806.-DOCKET 1456.
Chicago, Ill., March 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Albert Schimming, engine watchman, Mont-
fort, Wis., for adjustment in rate of pay in accordance with section
8, Article III of Decision No. 2.
The submission contained the following joint statement of facts:
Statement of facts.-Mr. Schimming, engine watchman, Montfort, Wis., was
receiving an hourly rate of 43 cents as of 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, which rate
was increased to 53 cents May 1, 1920, in accordance with the provisions of
section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the Railroad Labor Board.
Effective March 1, 1921, a monthly rate was established on the basis of the
hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920, plus $20.40, in accordance with the
provisions of section (a-12), Article V, of the national agreement of the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers,
reading:
"Watchmen, etc.: (a-12) Except as otherwise provided in this section, posi-
tiɔns not requiring continuous manual labor such as track, bridge and highway
crossing watchmen, signal men at railway non-interlocked crossing, lamp men,
engine watchmen at isolated points, and pumpers, will be paid a monthly rate
to cover all services rendered. This monthly rate shall be based on the present
hours and compensation. If present assigned hours are increased or decreased,
the monthly rate shall be adjusted pro rata as the hours of service in the new
assignment bear to the hours of service in the present assignment except that
hours above 10 either in new or present assignment shall be counted as one and
one-half in making adjustments. Nothing herein shall be construed to permit
the reduction of hours for the employees covered by this section (a-12) below
8 hours per day for six days per week. The wages for new positions shall be
in conformity with the wages for positions of similar kind, class and hours of
service where created.
"Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for individual posi-
tions at busy crossings or other places requiring continuous alertness and ap-
plication, when agreed to between the management and a committee of em-
ployees. For such excepted positions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply."
The employees claim that Montfort, Wis., is not an isolated point
as referred to in section (a-12), Article V, of the national agreement
of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers; further, that if Montfort is an isolated
point, then the monthly rate should have been determined by apply-
ing the provisions of section (a-12) of the maintenance of way na-
tional agreement to the hourly rate established in accordance with
DECISIONS.
201
section 8. Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the Railroad
Labor Board.
Decision. It is decided that Decision No. 524 of the Labor Board
shall be followed in determining whether or not Montfort, Wis., shall
be considered an "isolated point.'
If, in accordance with Decision No. 524, it is proper to consider
Montfort an isolated point, the Labor Board decides that the carrier
was justified in establishing a monthly rate for the position in ques-
tion. The monthly rate, however, should have been predicated upon
the rate of pay and assignment in effect at the time such change was
made.
If section (a-12), Article V, of the national agreement of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers, above quoted, does not apply, the hourly rate
shall be reestablished on the basis of what the hourly rate would have
been had the monthly rate not been established, making necessary
allowance for all subsequent adjustments that have been made by
decision of the Labor Board.
Adjustment in compensation shall not be made retroactive beyond
July 1, 1921.
DECISION NO. 807.-DOCKET 1485.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Question-Claim of George A. Ebert, Erastus Belcher, George
Berthold, and James H. Hicks, carpenters, for reinstatement with-
out loss of seniority and pay for time lost while being held out of
service and men younger in the service retained.
Statement.-Evidence submitted shows that on August 1, 1921, a
reduction in force was made and the employees above named were
laid off and men younger in the service were retained. Erastus
Belcher was reemployed at a slightly lower rate at Dover, N. J., and
was laid off September 16, 1921, in reduction in forces; George Ber-
thold was reemployed at slightly lower rate at Dover, N. J., and on
August 13, 1921, voluntarily left the service.
There is no dispute that men younger in the service than the four
herein named were retained, and it is the contention of the em-
ployees that this procedure was contrary to the meaning and intent
of the seniority rules as incorporated in section (c-2), Article II,
of the agreement then in effect, reading as follows:
(0-2) Except as provided in section (d) of this article and in section (h),
Article III, when force is reduced the senior men in the subdepartment, on the
seniority district, capable of doing the work shall be retained.
The employees contend that the four men herein named were com-
petent to perform the work, and in view of the fact that they held
seniority over men who were retained, they should be reinstated with
full seniority rights and paid for all time lost.
The carrier claims that it has complied with the above-quoted
rule; that it recognizes seniority, but contends that in its application
202
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
it must not cause undue impairment of the service; that when force.
reductions are necessary the men to be retained in service according
to seniority must be capable of performing necessary work constitut-
ing their assignments; and that in the case of the four men herein.
involved they did not have the qualifications necessary to perform
high-grade carpenter work in an efficient manner within a reason-
able time.
Opinion. The Labor Board recognizes that the language of the
above-quoted rules leaves the matter largely in the hands of the car-
rier to determine whether or not an employee is capable of doing
the work. The board also recognizes, and without any reflection
as to the motive or future intention of any carrier or organization,
that unless some restriction is placed upon that portion of the rule
reading "capable of doing the work," it would be subject to applica-
tion that would minimize, if not entirely destroy, the principle of
seniority.
The board is therefore of the opinion that when the reduction in
forces such as outlined in this decision becomes necessary, and when
the question as to the capabilities of employees is involved, that care-
ful consideration should be given to the qualifications of the em-
ployees involved, and if practicable conference held between repre-
sentatives of the respective parties in an effort to arrive at a mutual
understanding prior to such reduction in force.
Decision. The claim for reinstatement of the men involved in
this particular dispute is denied.
DECISION NO. 808.-DOCKET 1502.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Should crossing watchman H. U. Neeley at Cherry-
vale, Kans., paid a monthly rate under section (a-12), Article V,
maintenance of way agreement, be paid overtime at pro-rata rate
for ninth and tenth hour and time and one-half thereafter for all
time worked in excess of his regular monthly assignment.
Statement. Mr. H. U. Neeley, serving as crossing watchman at
Cherryvale, Kans., and paid a monthly rate to cover all service
rendered, under section (a-12), Article V, maintenance of way agree-
ment, in December, 1920, and January, 1921, was assigned to work
from 10 a. m. to 6 p. m. On December 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1920, and
on January 1 and 2, 1921, he received verbal instructions from the
agent at Cherryvale to serve three hours in addition to his assign-
ment for which service he was not paid an amount in addition to
his regular salary covering his regular monthly assignment.
Section (a-12), Article V, of the maintenance of way agreement,
reads as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, positions not requiring continuous
manual labor, such as track, bridge and highway crossing watchmen, signal
men at railway noninterlocked crossings, lamp men, engine watchmen at
isolated points, and pumpers, will be paid a monthly rate to cover all services
rendered. This monthly rate shal be based on the present hours and com-
DECISIONS.
203
pensation. If present assigned hours are increased or decreased the monthly
rate shall be adjusted pro rata as the hours of service in the new assignment
bear to the hours of service in the present assignment except that hours above
10 either in new or present assignment shall be counted as one and one-half
in making adjustments. Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the reduc-
tion of hours for the employees covered by this section (a-12) below 8 hours
per day for six days per week. The wages for new positions shall be in con-
formity with the wages for positions of similar kind, class, and hours of service
where created.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for individual positions
at busy crossings or other places requiring continuous alertness and application,
when agreed to between the management and a committee of employees. For
such excepted positions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply.
Decision.-Section (a-12) of Article V, above quoted, provided
for the establishment of a monthly rate to cover all service rendered.
It further provided that if the present assigned hours were increased
or decreased the monthly rate should be adjusted. The Board does
not construe the language of the above rule to prohibit the temporary
assignment of employees covered thereby to longer hours in case of
emergency, this condition apparently having been recognized when
the rule was written.
The position of the management in connection with this case is
therefore sustained.
This decision, however, should not be construed to permit the
assignment of employees covered by the above rule to longer hours
for any considerable period of time without the payment of overtime
therefor, and in no case unless an emergency exists.
DECISION NO. 809.-DOCKET 1560.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of track laborer, Joe Barber, to the position of
temporary section foreman.
Statement. The position of temporary track foreman on section
12-A at Big Run, Pa., was advertised for bids in April, 1921, on
account of the regular foreman bidding in the seasonal position of
the inspector. Joe Barber, section laborer, who had in previous in-
stances acted as temporary foreman on this section pending perma-
nent appointment, was placed in charge while the position was being
advertised for bids. The only bidder on the position was Carman
Roselli, but the position was awarded finally to Frank Bianck, a
former employee who had left the service, on the ground that Mr.
Roselli was incompetent to fill the position.
The position of the employees is quoted from the submission, as
follows:
Employees' position.—Our contention is that Laborer Barber who was placed
as temporary foreman of section 12-A must have been qualified for the position
when the officers placed him in that position after having acted as foreman of
this section in 1917 during his former service with the railway company and
when they had many competent men to pick from.
This part of not being competent does not bear out as he was afterwards
asked to take main-line section by the roadmaster, temporarily, which he would
20936°-23-14
204
:
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
not accept, it being away from home and a hard place to get board, while a
nonemployee had displaced him from the temporary position right at home.
Therefore we contend that temporarily Mr. Barber should be placed as fore-
man of section 12-A, who was appointed as foreman and having rights as an
employee over Mr. Bianck, who was not an employee of the railway company
but who was appointed to displace Foreman Barber.
We further contend that Laborer Barber should be placed as foreman of
section 12-A instead of Mr. Bianck, who had no seniority rights when ap-
pointed to the position, and be paid the difference in the rates of pay as
laborer and that of foreman.
The position of the carrier is quoted from the submission, as
follows:
Carrier's position.—Mr. Barber did not bid on the position of foreman on
section 12-A at Big Run when the job was advertised, and therefore the man-
agement was under no obligation to continue him in the position which he was
filling temporarily pending closing of the bids. He was considered competent
to fill the position temporarily, but he did not have sufficient experience or
ability to hold the position during the time that the regular foreman would be
away, which would be practically the entire working season.
This decision of the management was based upon the fact that Mr. Barber's
experience as a trackman had been comparatively slight, and that the manage-
ment was entirely within its rights under section (a), Article III, of the
national agreement, which reads, "Ability and merit being sufficient, seniority
shall prevail, the management to be the judge.”
Furthermore, Mr. Barber left the service of the company and was later re-
employed. At the time this matter came up he had been employed only seven
weeks and three days and was not entitled to exercise seniority rights to this
position in accordance with section (h), Article II of the national agreement,
which reads:
Seniority rosters will show the name and date of entry of the employees
into the service of the railroad, except that names of laborers will not be in-
cluded and their seniority rights will not apply until they have been in con-
tinuous service of the railroad in excess of six months."
This case arose prior to July 1, 1921, the effective date of the maintenance
of way foremen's agreement and is properly handled with the representative
of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers.
Opinion. In view of the fact that Mr. Barber was credited with
less than six months' service record at the time the above promotion
took place, the Labor Board is of the opinion that in view of the
language of section (h), Article II, of the agreement that the ques-
tion as to his seniority has no bearing on this case.
The board is further of the opinion that section (a) of Article
III clearly extends to the management the right to judge the ability
and merit of employees when considered for promotion, which right
was apparently exercised in this case.
The agreement recognized the principle of seniority, which princi-
ple the board feels should have been followed as closely as possible
în promoting employees in the maintenance of way department, and
from available information the board believes that this has been
adhered to. The board can not find that the management has vio-
lated the rules of the agreement in regard to the particular case in
dispute.
Decision.—The claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISIONS.
205
DECISION NO. 810.-DOCKET 384.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault
Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions for
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the car-
rier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of General Instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 811.—DOCKET 490.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Western Maryland Railway Co.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions for
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the car-
rier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of General Instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 812.-DOCKET 491.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions for
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the car-
rier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of General Instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 813.-DOCKET 496.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions for
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the car-
rier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of General Instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 814.-DOCKET 644.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions for
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
206
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the
carrier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of General Instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 815.-DOCKET 709.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question. Application of rules governing working conditions for
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the
carrier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of General Instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 816.-DOCKET 976.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
International Longshoremen's Association v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
Hocking Valley Railway Co., Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Question. This decision is upon a controversy between the organi-
zation and the carriers named above as to the application of Adden-
dum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 to employees engaged in the loading
and unloading of coal and ore at Toledo, Ohio.
Decision.-At hearing before the Labor Board the representatives
of the employees and the carrier stated that the conference held prior
to the submission of the question in dispute to this board dealt ex-
clusively with the application of Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119.
The organization named was not a party to Decision No. 119;
therefore Addendum No. 2 to said decision has no application in this
dispute, and the case is removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 817.-DOCKET 1020.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Mr. E. E. Gardner, trans-
fer man, Dallas, Tex.
Statement.—Ón January 8, 1921, Mr. Gardner, who was employed
as transfer man at Dallas, Tex., was relieved from the service on
account of alleged inability to satisfactorily perform the duties as-
signed to him.
The employees contend that when Mr. Gardner's services were
discontinued he had been in the employ of the carrier for a period
of two and one-half years and had performed satisfactorily the
DECISIONS.
207
duties assigned to him, except, perhaps, some of the heavier duties,
to which the employees contend he should not have been assigned.
The carrier states that Mr. Gardner was 51 years of age and was
employed during the war period when there was a shortage of labor,
and that under normal circumstances he would not have been em-
ployed, not only because he was over the age limit for new employees,
but because his physical condition prevented him from doing any but
light work. During the period of the war the volume of business
handled was sufficiently large to enable the carrier to divide the
work in a manner that would permit of assigning Mr. Gardner to
light duties. However, when business fell off and a reduction in
force was necessary it was no longer possible to secure sufficient light
work to enable Mr. Gardner to satisfactorily perform his duties, and
he was therefore dropped from the service. The carrier contends
that Mr. Gardner could not have been retained in the service with-
out impairment thereof, and that the action taken was in accord-
ance with the provisions of the agreement between the employees
and the carrier pertaining to reduction in force.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that E. E. Gardner did not
have sufficient fitness and ability to handle the position to which
he was assigned when it became necessary to rearrange the work in
connection with reduction in force, and the request of the employees
for reinstatement is therefore denied. However, when the forces
in the seniority district in which Mr. Gardner was employed are
increased he should be permitted to return to any position in the
service to which his seniority, fitness, and ability may entitle him.
DECISION NO. 818.-DOCKET 1135.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Anna Hill, clerk, auditor's
office, Wichita, Kans.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 819.-DOCKET 1386.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship_Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Cổ.
Question. Dispute with reference to posting of seniority roster
in the mechanical department offices, Topeka, Kans.
208
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 820.-DOCKET 1610.
Chicago, Ill., March 3, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute as to right of Mr. H. F. Preddy to exercise his
seniority to position of train earnings clerk, conductors' bureau.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised that the employee in ques-
tion has left the service of the carrier; and the employees having re-
quested the withdrawal of the dispute, the board grants the request.
for withdrawal.
The case is therefore removed from the docket, and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 821.-DOCKET 1152.
Chicago, Ill., March 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southeastern Express Co.
Question.-Were the rules and regulations and conditions of em-
ployment that were in effect on the American Railway Express Co.
binding upon the Southeastern Express Co. when that company com-
menced operation on the line of the carriers over which the Ameri-
can Railway Express Co. operated prior to May 1, 1921?
Statement. The Southeastern Express Co. commenced operation
May 1, 1921, and handled on the railroads over which it operates the
greater part of the business formerly handled over such lines by the
American Railway Express Co. It absorbed practically all of the
employees of the latter company in the territory in which it operates.
When this change was made the rates of pay and working conditions
of these employees were governed by orders of the United States
Railroad Administration, decisions of the Labor Board, and agree-
ments between the employees and the American Railway Express Co.
The Southeastern Express Co. established for a large number of its.
employees rates of pay considerably less than the rates formerly paid.
such employees by the American Railway Express Co. in accordance
with the orders of the United States Railroad Administration and
decisions of this board.
The employees contend that the Southeastern Express Co. suc-
ceeded to the business of the American Railway Express Co. on the
railroads over which it operates; that it absorbed the employees of
that company; that it is bound by the orders and agreements affect-
ing the wages and working conditions of such employees; that the
employees of the Southeastern Express Co. are performing the same
identical work as they performed prior to May 1, 1921, for the Ameri-
DECISIONS.
209
can Railway Express Co.; and that they are entitled to the rates
of pay which formerly accrued to them in their service for the
American Railway Express Co.
The carrier states that when it commenced operation on May 1,
1921, and during the period prior to July 1, 1921, there was no agree-
ment governing the rules and working conditions of its employees,
and that certain employees who entered its service were, prior to
May 1, 1921, employed by the American Railway Express Co., but
claims that it was understood by such employees that the agreement
they had with the American Railway Express Co. was not binding
in any respect on the Southeastern Express Co., and that their former
status with another express company could not be binding upon the
Southeastern Express Co., whose service they entered on May 1, 1921.
It is claimed by the carrier that in the negotiations on rules the
employees sought to preserve the rates of pay established by the
orders of the United States Railroad Administration and Decision
No. 3 of the Labor Board, but they were informed that under the
circumstances of commencing operation May 1, 1921, the rates of pay
for the employees of the Southeastern Express Co. were not depend-
ent on rules governing the service of former employees of the Ameri-
can Railway Express Co. and that it was not bound by any agree-
ment covering rules and working conditions for such employees.
The carrier further claims that almost without exception the salaries
of its employees were based on the ruling rate of pay; that an under-
standing as to the compensation of each employee was reached with
the individual; and that there is no dissatisfaction or dissension
among its employees.
Decision.-The Labor Board has given consideration to all of the
evidence presented by both the employees and the carrier in support
of their respective contentions as herein set forth, and decides that
the Southeastern Express Co was not bound by any rules and regu-
lations and conditions of employment previously in effect for em-
ployees of the American Railway Express Co.
DISSENTING OPINION.
For reasons set out below the undersigned dissents from the de-
cision rendered by the majority.
Section 300 (1), Title III, transportation act, 1920, reads:
""
The term "carrier includes any express company, sleeping-car company,
and any carrier by railroad, subject to the interstate commerce act, except a
street, interurban, or suburban electric railway not operating as a part of a
general steam railroad system of transportation.
Section 301 of the act above quoted reads:
It shall be the duty of all carriers and their officers, employees, and agents
to exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available means to avoid any
interruption to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between
the carrier and the employees or subordinate officials thereof. All such dis-
putes shall be considered and, if possible, decided in conference between
representatives designated and authorized so to confer by the carriers, or the
employees or subordinate officials thereof, directly interested in the dispute.
If any dispute is not decided in such conference, it shall be referred by the
parties thereto to the board which under the provisions of this title is author-
ized to hear and decide such dispute.
210
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In Decision No. 3, issued under date of August 10, 1920, the Labor
Board decided:
The board assumes as the basis of this decision the continuance in full
force and effect of the existing rules, working conditions, and agreements, and
pending the further consideration and determination of the questions per-
taining to the continuation or modification of such rules, conditions, and agree-
ments no changes therein shall be made except by agreement between the car-
rier and employees concerned. As to all questions with reference to the
continuation or modification of such rules, working conditions, and agreements,
further hearings, if desired, will be had at the earliest practicable date, and
decision thereon will be rendered as soon as adequate consideration can be
given.
Under date of December 17, 1920, the board issued an announce-
ment based upon failure to observe the spirit and intent of Title III,
transportation act, 1920, saying in part:
The importance of maintaining the uninterrupted operation of the railroads
must be manifest to everyone. Congress, by the transportation act of 1920,
made it the duty of all carriers and their officers, employees, and agents to
exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available means to avoid any
interruption to the operation of carriers growing out of labor disputes. The
act further makes it the duty of the carriers and employees directly interested
in the dispute to confer and, if possible, decide such disputes in conference.
Any dispute not decided in such conference is required by the act to be referred
by the parties to the United States Railroad Labor Board for its decision.
In Decision No. 119 (Exhibit B) issued under date of April 14,
1921, the board decided that certain principles should govern the
procedure of the carriers and employees, from which the following
is quoted:
4. The right of railway employees to organize for lawful objects shall not be
denied, interfered with, or obstructed.
5. The right of such lawful organization to act toward lawful objects through
representatives of its own choice, whether employees of a particular carrier or
otherwise, shall be agreed to by management.
7. The right of employees to be consulted prior to a decision of management
adversely affecting their wages or working conditions shall be agreed to by
management. This right of participation shall be deemed adequately com-
plied with, if and when the representatives of a majority of the employees of
each of the several classes directly affected shall have conferred with the
management.
The following letters are necessary to a clear understanding of
the situation:
MR. J. B. HOCKADAY,
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 4, 1921.
President, Southeastern Express Co.,
739 Southern Railway Building,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: With reference to our recent conversation relative to the agree-
ment signed by the American Railway Express Co. and our brotherhood, dated
February 5, 1920, and which is now in effect, covering the employees of that
company.
A new express company having been organized covering the Southern and
the Mobile & Ohio Railroads to begin operations soon and knowing you to have
been chosen president of the new company, we are desirous of learning your
attitude toward our organization and members thereof, who will doubtless be-
come your employees under the new organization; whether or not you are
agreeable to signing an agreement identical to the one now in effect covering
the employees of the American Railway Express Co. now operating over these
lines; also, if it is your intention to retain the employees of the American
Railway Express Co. who desire transfer to your company and what seniority
rights and privileges they will be allowed to enjoy.
DECISIONS.
211
You further indicated to us that you could see no reason why the agree-
ment now in effect covering express employees would be other than satisfac-
tory to you, also that you would be agreeable to signing a verbatim agreement
of the one now in effect within the next 30 days.
Knowing you to be a very busy man, we are disposed to give you all the
time possible; however, we are desirous of appeasing the minds of the em-
ployees on the lines affected, also of completing our files and having a thorough
understanding of the matter; I would, therefore, thank you to give this your
prompt attention, and oblige
Yours very truly,
JOHN R. ABBOTT,
Vice Grand President.
P. S.-I will remain in the city a few days awaiting your reply.
address me New Winston Hotel.
Please
MR. J. R. ABBOTT,
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 4, 1921.
Vice Grand President,
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Care of New Winston Hotel, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. ABBOTT: Acknowledging your letter of February 4th.
As explained to you in our informal talk yesterday, our attitude is as out-
lined below:
First. The Southeastern Express Co. is not yet in actual operation; it is
merely in a formative stage, preparing to commence business at a later date,
and therefore it is wholly inconsistent for the company at this time to con-
sider or undertake engaging in any understanding or agreement, tentative or
otherwise, with prospective employees.
Second. Our intention is to take care of the American Railway Express Co.'s
employees on the lines of the Southern Railway System and the Mobile & Ohio
Railroad (when we begin actual operations) to that extent their serviecs may
be available and are needed and they are sufficiently efficient to warrant their
consideration.
Third. At the earliest possible moment after we take over, from the American
Railway Express Co., the handling of the express business on the lines re-
ferred to above, I shall be glad to begin negotiations with you, or other repre-
sentative of the employees, for reaching an agreement with them.
Again assuring you of our friendly disposition and desire for harmonious
relations and a cooperative spirit on the part of all, I am
Yours very truly,
J. B. HOCKADAY,
President and General Manager.
On May 1, 1921, the Southeastern Express Co. commenced actual
operation, continuing in its service practically all the employees who
had been in the service of the American Railway Express Co. on
April 30, 1921, rates of pay being reduced and less favorable condi-
tions of employment being established. Neither the provisions of
the transportation act nor the decisions and rules of procedure pro-
mulgated by the Labor Board were observed by the carrier in fixing
wage rates or conditions of employment.
Ďuring the period of Federal control the various express com-
panies in operation at that time were consolidated and operated under
the name of the American Railway Express Co. Following the
presentation of evidence by the employees and the express company,
Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27 was issued by the
Director General of Railroads providing for certain increases in
wages. This decision further provided for the equalization of rates
of pay for the same work at the same agency or on the same mes-
senger run and thus authorized special consideration of the rates
of practically all positions in express service.
212
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
On August 10, 1920, the Labor Board issued Decision No. 3 (Amer-
ican Railway Express Co. and its employees) which decreed that cer-
tain increases added to the rates established under the authority of
the United States Railroad Administration would establish just and
reasonable wages for the positions specified therein. This decision
was based upon careful consideration of a great deal of evidence
pertaining to the scale of wages paid for similar kinds of work in
other industries; the relation between wages and the cost of living;
the hazards of employment; the training and skill required; the de-
gree of responsibility; the character and regularity of the employ-
ment; and inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the
result of previous wage orders or adjustments. As a result the board
found express employees entitled to a greater increase than employees
of other carriers. The rates of pay thus established continued in
effect until the issuance of Decision No. 217, July 11, 1921, which au-
thorized certain decreases in the rates of pay for the classes of em-
ployees specified in Decision No. 3. In promulgating Decision No.
217, the Labor Board also gave full consideration to all the evidence
introduced by the respective parties in support of their contentions
as to what constituted just and reasonable wages, and this decrease
was generally less than that applied to the employees of all carriers
named in Decision No. 147, effective July 1, 1921.
In establishing rates of pay for the employees in its service when
it commenced operations on May 1, 1921, the Southeastern Express
Co. gave no consideration to the wages prescribed by the Labor
Board in Decision No. 3 as just and reasonable for the service per-
formed, but established rates of pay which were not only less than
those established by Decision No. 3, which was in effect at that time,
but considerably less than those established by Decision No. 217
several months later.
The employees of the American Railway Express Co. in contigu-
ous territory are still being paid the rates established by Decision
No. 3, and that company has not filed any application with the board
for reduction in wages or otherwise indicated that the rates paid its
employees for service similar to that being performed by the em-
ployees of the Southeastern Express Co. are not just and reasonable.
Furthermore, the representatives of the Southeastern Express Co.,
in their appearance before the board in connection with the unau-
thorized application of the decreases provided in Decision No. 217,
stated in support of their action that Decision No. 217 was applied
in order that their employees would be treated in identically the
same manner as the employees of the American Railway Express Co.
The undersigned can not subscribe to any procedure which in effect
produces wage rates and working conditions adversely affecting the
employees in the service of a carrier, unless or until the intent and
spirit of the law has been complied with and, where disagreement
results, the dispute is submitted to the board and decided upon its
merits.
As far as the public and employees are concerned, the Southeastern
Express Co. performs the same identical service as that of the Amer-
ican Railway Express Co. The whole procedure of the Southeastern
Express Co. in this case is obviously a deliberate and striking dis-
regard of the purposes for which the labor provisions of the trans-
DECISIONS.
213
portation act, 1920, were created, and the sustaining of such an
action on the part of either carrier or employees will not win, retain,
or command the respect of the public, the employees, or the carriers.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 822.-DOCKET 1153.
Chicago, Ill., March 13, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southeastern Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to application of decreases in
rates of pay authorized in Decision No. 217 to employees of the
Southeastern Express Co.
Statement. On July 11, 1921, the Labor Board rendered Decision
No. 217 covering the question of what constituted just and reason-
able wages for the employees and subordinate officials of the Ameri-
can Railway Express Co. The Southeastern Express Co. com-
menced operation May 1, 1921, and handles on the railroads over
which it operates the greater part of the business formerly handled
by the American Railway Express Co. The Southeastern Express
Co. was not a party to the dispute upon which Decision No. 217
was rendered, but the decreases authorized therein were applied to
certain employees in its service.
The employees contend that this action on the part of the carrier
should not have been taken without proper conference and agree-
ment with the employees, and that the carrier did not hold or at-
tempt to hold such conferences before applying the decreased rates
provided for in Decision No. 217.
The carrier states that while Decision No. 217 did not apply to
the Southeastern Express Co. in name, it applied the decreases
authorized thereby to those employees who were receiving the rates
of pay formerly paid them in the service of the American Railway
Express Co. in order that employees of the Southeastern Express
Co., who were previously employed by the American Railway Ex-
press Co., should be treated in identically the same manner as em-
ployees of the latter company.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the Southeastern Ex-
press Co. in reducing wages without seeking conference with the
representatives of the employees interested has acted in conflict with
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, and in conflict with
Order No. 1 of the Labor Board, and that it shall restore to all of
the employees affected by the application of said decision the dif-
ference between the rates of pay they have received since August 1,
1921, and the rates of pay they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect.
214
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 823.-DOCKET 936.
Chicago, Ill., March 13, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to seniority of Eugene Bogart,
employed as clerk, Grand Street, Jersey City, N. J.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 824.-DOCKET 614.
Chicago, Ill., March 13, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Paul Union Depot Co.
Question. Is rule 49 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees applicable to positions of foremen and assistant.
foremen in the baggage and mail departments, train directors, train
callers or announcers, gatemen, information-bureau clerks, telephone-
switchboard operators, railroad mail sorters, and elevator operators
at the Union Depot, St. Paul, Minn.?
Statement. The classes of employees above mentioned are being
paid a monthly rate to cover all service rendered in accordance with
rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
The employees contend that they should be paid a daily rate to be
determined in the manner provided in rule 66 of the agreement.
The carrier contends that the service performed by these employees
is of an intermittent character, or that it does not require continuous
application, and that therefore they are properly paid under rule 49.
It appears from the evidence before the Labor Board that the em-
ployees designated as assistant foremen are not assistant foremen but
are callers, and that prior to the application of Supplement No. 7
to General Order No. 27 issued by the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration, they were paid an hourly rate of 2 cents in excess of
the rate paid truckers. This differential was eliminated in the ap-
plication of Supplement No. 7 on account of the truckers and callers
being increased to the maximum hourly rate authorized therein. In
order to maintain the differential, the carrier placed these employees
on a monthly rate which preserved the differential of 2 cents per
hour, and clasified them as assistant foremen. The employees classi-
fied as telephone and switchboard operators are in fact telephone
information clerks, as the operation of the switchboard consumes a
very small portion of their time, the greater part of their time being
devoted to answering telephone inquiries for information regarding
trains, etc. The employees classified as train directors are in reality
ushers, their duties being to direct passengers to trains.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the service performed by
the employees classified as train directors, gatemen, elevator opera-
DECISIONS.
215
tors, train announcers, and railroad mail sorters does not require
continuous application, and that they are, therefore, being properly
paid in accordance with rule 49 of the national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees. The information-bureau clerks and
telephone information clerks and foremen should be paid a daily rate
to be established as provided in rule 66 of the clerks' national agree-
ment. The employees classified as assistant foremen and paid a
monthly rate are not assistant foremen in fact, but are employees
who have heretofore been paid an hourly rate of 2 cents above the
hourly rate of truckers, and they should be restored to this basis of
pay.
This decision is based on the particular facts of this case.
DECISION NO. 825.-DOCKET 1263.
Chicago, Ill., March 20, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Rail-
road Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to negotiation of an agreement
covering rules for the government of agents and agent-telegraphers
in the service of the carrier named.
Statement. On April 24, 1921, a committee representing the Order
of Railroad Station Agents requested conference with the carrier for
the purpose of negotiating an agreement covering working conditions
of agents, assistant agents, chief clerks, cashiers, and warehousemen
in the carrier's service. At that time certain agents, agent-telegra-
phers, and other employees in the telegraph department were included
in an agreement between the carrier and the Order of Railroad Teleg-
raphers, effective January 1, 1920.
The carrier states that the committee representing the Order of
Railroad Station Agents presented evidence which they considered
sufficient to show that said committee represented a majority of the
classes of employees for whom they desired to negotiate an agree-
ment, and an agreement was duly executed May 9, 1921. The carrier
further states that the nature of the work performed by the classes
of employees included in the agreement made with the Order of
Railroad Station Agents requires considerably more skill and train-
ing and involves greater responsibility than that of the telegraphers
or other classes of employees covered by the agreement with the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers, and that the majority of said
classes of employees are entitled to the right to be represented by a
committee or organization of their own choice.
Copies of the agreement made between the Order of Railroad Sta-
tion Agents and the carrier party to this dispute have been filed with
the Labor Board. This agreement is effective May 16, 1921, and con-
tains rules for the government of working conditions of agents,
assistant agents, agent-telegraphers, chief clerks, and cashiers, and
supersedes all rules of existing agreements, practice, and working
conditions in conflict therewith.
216
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
At the hearing before the Labor Board representatives of the car-
rier, the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, and the Order of Railroad
Station Agents, which has presented an intervening petition in con-
nection with this dispute, were present. The carrier stated that the
classes of employees included within the scope of the agreement with
the Order of Railroad Station Agents are a class separate and dis-
tinct from the telegraphers and other employees in telegraph service
covered by the agreement with the Order of Railroad Telegraphers,
and should, therefore, be covered by a separate agreement if a ma-
jority of such employees so desire. The carrier also stated that it
was willing to negotiate an agreement with the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers covering rules for the government of straight teleg-
raphers in its service.
The representative of the Order of Railroad Station Agents claims.
to have authority from 62.5 per cent of the agents and agent-teleg-
raphers in the carrier's service to represent them in negotiations on
wages and working conditions. The representative of the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers contends that 80 per cent of the agents, agent-
telegraphers, and other employees in the telegraph department are
members of that organization and that over 90 per cent have given
their committee written authority to represent them in all matters
affecting their wages and working conditions.
It appears from the evidence before the Labor Board that the
question to be decided is whether the agents, assistant agents, chief
clerks, and cashiers shall be considered a separate class or craft, a
majority of whom may designate what organization may represent
them in negotiating an agreement governing wages and working con-
ditions.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the classes of employees
included within the scope of the agreement between the carrier and
the Order of Railroad Station Agents do not constitute a separate
class of whom a majority may designate what organization shall
represent them in negotiations pertaining to wages and working con-
ditions. The only employees covered by the said agreement which
the Order of Railroad Telegraphers claims to represent are agents
and agent-telegraphers. The Labor Board holds that employees
filling these positions are not a class separate and distinct from the
positions designated in rule 1 (Scope) of Decision No. 757.
The evidence is not conclusive as to what organization represents
a majority of the employees included in rule 1, Decision No. 757, and
the Labor Board therefore directs that a vote shall be taken to de-
termine the choice of a majority of the employees included in said
rule of said decision as to their representation in the negotiation of
rules and working conditions.
A conference shall be held on or before April 1, 1922, at such
place as the carrier may designate and of which due notice shall be
given to all interested parties, by the duly authorized representatives
of the carrier, the Order of Railroad Station Agents, the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers, the duly authorized representatives of any
other organization representing the classes of employees herein re-
ferred to and whose by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that
the organization was established for the purpose of performing the
functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of the
DECISIONS.
217
transportation act, 1920, and the duly authorized representatives
of 100 or more unorganized employees.
Representatives of unorganized employees authorized to attend.
this conference must have the individual and personal signature and
authorization of not less than 100 employees of the said class, said
authorization to show the place of employment and the title of the
position held in the service.
Said conference will arrange all the details of said proposed ballot
and election along the same lines and under rules and regulations
analogous to those provided for in Decision No. 218. When the bal-
lots have been canvassed the result shall be reported to the Labor
Board, and the authorized representative of the carrier and the chosen.
representatives of the employees will proceed with the negotiation of
rules.
DECISION NO. 826.-DOCKET 1624.
Chicago, Ill., March 20, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad
Corporation.
Question. Is the Order of Railroad Telegraphers entitled to nego-
tiate an agreement with the carrier named covering rules and work-
ing conditions for the government of agents, agent-telegraphers,
and telegraphers?
Statement. The wages and working conditions of the classes of
employees above named were covered by an agreement between the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers and the carrier executed in the
year 1917. The provisions of Supplement No. 13 to General Order
No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administration were observed
by the carrier during the period of Federal control and applied until
July, 1921, at which time the carrier served a notice upon the em-
ployees of desire to terminate the provisions of Supplement No. 13
to General Order No. 27 and revise certain other rules in the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier.
At negotiations subsequently held the carrier sought to exclude
from the provisions of the agreement employees classified as agents
and agent-telegraphers, and being unable to reach any satisfactory
agreement with the employees, the carrier subsequently negotiated
with the employees, individually, wages and working conditions
which were accepted by said employees as satisfactory. The com-
mittee representing the Order of Railroad Telegraphers contends
that the agreements reached with the individual employees covering
their wages and working conditions were not properly arrived at and
that the carrier should be required to negotiate an agreement cov-
ering the wages and working conditions of said employees with the
organization representing a majority thereof. The carrier contends
that the existing wages and working conditions were established by
agreement with each individual affected thereby and that there is
no dissatisfaction or dissention among its employees.
Decision. The Labor Board has given due consideration to the
oral and written arguments presented by the employees and the
carrier and reaffirms its former decisions that the majority of any
218
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine what
organization shall represent members of such craft or class. Such
organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall
apply to all employees in such craft or class.
The evidence before the Labor Board is not conclusive as to
whether the Order of Railroad Telegraphers represents a majority
of the classes of employees referred to herein, and the Labor Board
therefore directs that a poll shall be taken of the classes of employees
designated in rule 1 (Scope) of Decision No. 757, who are in the
service at the time of the receipt of this decision, to determine the
choice of a majority thereof as to whether the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers shall represent them in such negotiations.
A conference shall be held on or before April 1, 1922, at such place
as the carrier may designate and of which due notice shall be given
to all parties interested, between the duly authorized representatives
of the carrier, the duly authorized representatives of the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers, the duly authorized representatives of any
other organization representing the classes of employees herein re-
ferred to and whose by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that
the organization was established for the purpose of performing the
functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of
the transportation act, 1920, and the duly authorized representatives
of 100 or more unorganized employees.
Said conference will arrange all of the details of a secret ballot
and election along the same lines and under rules and regulations
analogous to those provided in Decision No. 218 of the Labor Board.
When the ballots have been canvassed the result shall be reported to
the Labor Board, and the authorized representatives of the carrier
and the chosen representatives of the employees will proceed with
the negotiation of rules.
DECISION NO. 827.-DOCKET 1661.
Chicago, Ill., March 20, 1922.
Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question. Dispute with reference to rules governing working
conditions of dining-car stewards.
Decision. The employees and the carrier agreed to withdraw this
dispute from further consideration by the Labor Board, with the
understanding that further conference will be held between the local
representatives of the respective parties. The case is therefore re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 828.-DOCKET 1300-10H.
Chicago, Ill., March 20, 1922.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) v. Brotherhood of Dining Car
Conductors.
Question. Dispute as to what shall constitute just and reasonable
wages for dining-car stewards.
DECISIONS.
219
Decision. The employees and the carrier agreed to withdraw this
dispute from further consideration by the Labor Board, with the
understanding that further conference will be held between the local
representatives of the respective parties. The case is therefore re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 829.-DOCKET 633.
Chicago, Ill., March 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees; Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Association
v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the positions enumerated herein be considered as
coming within the scope of group 1 of Decision No. 220 in connec-
tion with the voting of clerical employees in the service of the car-
rier named in accordance with Decision No. 583?
Statement. The carrier and the organizations parties to this dis-
pute being unable to reach an agreement as to what organization
represented a majority of the clerical employees in the carrier's
service, the Labor Board, under date of January 7, 1922, issued Deci-
sion No. 583, which provided that the duly authorized representa-
tives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, the Michigan Central
Railroad Clerks' Association, and the Michigan Central Railroad
Co. should confer for the purpose of arranging the details of the pro-
cedure to be followed in taking a vote of the employees involved as
provided for in Decisions Nos. 218 and 220, issued by the Labor
Board.
Decision No. 220 divides the employees in clerical and station
service into three groups for the purpose of taking a ballot; group
1 embraces all clerical and office forces, group 2 embraces foremen
and supervisory employees, and group 3 embraces other office and
station employees, including freight handlers and other similar or
common labor in and around stations, storehouses, and warehouses.
The representatives of the respective parties to this dispute are un-
able to agree as to the allocation of certain classes of employees in
the said groups.
The representatives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees contend
that the following classes of employees come within the scope of
group 1 of Decision No. 220 for the purpose of voting for clerical
representation in accordance with Decision No. 583:
1. Station, warehouse, and elevator foremen, assistant foremen, and other
foremen, except general and assistant general foremen.
2. Baggageroom employees.
3. Storeroom and stockroom employees.
4. Train and engine crew callers (messengers).
5. Warehousemen.
6. Clerical employees filling excepted clerical positions.
The representatives of the two organizations involved and the
carrier have submitted a considerable amount of data and detailed in-
formation in support of their respective contentions as to the allo-
cation of the classes of employees above named.
20936°-23--15
220
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision.-The Labor Board, after due consideration of all of the
evidence presented by the various parties to this dispute, decides that
the employees filling the positions specified shall be considered as
coming within the following groups of Decision No. 220 for the
purpose of voting for clerical representation in accordance with
Decision No. 583:
First. Station, warehouse, and elevator foremen, assistant foremen,
and other foremen, except general and assistant general foremen,
shall be included in group 2.
Second. Baggageroom employees. The Labor Board decides that
the baggageroom employees at Detroit, Mich., classified as checkmen,
tube clerks, scale clerks, inbound and outbound billers, custom clerks,
record clerks, transfer clerks, company material clerks, milk clerks,
and delivery clerks, and employees similarly classified at any other sta-
tion, or baggageroom employees who regularly devote not less than
four hours per day to work of a clerical nature, shall be considered
clerks and be included in group 1 in connection with voting for cleri-
cal representation.
Third. Storeroom and stockroom employees. The employees in
this department who are shown on the pay rolls as stockkeepers,
stock clerks, and shipping clerks, and any other employees in the
storekeeping department who regularly devote not less than four
hours per day to work of a clerical nature, shall be included in
group 1.
Fourth. Train and engine crew callers. Employees filling these
positions shall be included in group 1.
Fifth. Warehousemen. Employees filling these positions who
regularly devote not less than four hours per day to the work of
checking freight, receiving and delivering freight, and performing
other similar clerical work shall be included in group 1.
Sixth. Clerical employees filling excepted positions whom the car-
rier is willing to include within the scope of the agreement to be
negotiated with the organization representing a majority of the
clerical employees shall participate in the vote. Clerical employees
filling excepted clerical positions who are not to be included within
the scope of said agreement shall not participate in the vote.
The word "regularly" as used herein shall be construed to mean
habitually and customarily.
DECISION NO. 830.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., March 24, 1922.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co. et al. v. International Union
of Steam and Operating Engineers.
Subject of the dispute.-This decision is upon a controversy or
dispute between the carriers named below and the classes of employ-
ees named herein represented by the above-named organization.
The subject matter of the dispute is what shall constitute just and
reasonable rules and working conditions.
Parties to the dispute.-The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
DECISIONS.
221
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
New York Central Railroad Co.
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each of
the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
International Union of Steam and Operating Engineers.
Nature of the proceeding.-Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, the
carriers or employees named herein have held or attempted to hold
conferences on rules and working conditions.
Each of these carriers or the representatives of its employees either
negotiated or attempted to negotiate rules, and they made either joint
or ex-parte certifications to the Railroad Labor Board containing the
rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they disagreed,
with the respective proposals of the parties as to the latter; there-
fore, each of the carriers party to this decision has a dispute with its
employees on one or more of the rules.
In deciding the disputes between the various carriers and their
respective employees relative to said rules, the board gave careful
consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties at the
original hearing, including the evidence, data, and arguments, oral,
written, and documentary, and information gathered by its own
forces, as well as to the written arguments filed along with the cer-
tification of the disputed rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out
are just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, hereby made effective
April 1, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are as
follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
RULE 1. Scope. These rules govern the hours of service and
working conditions of stationary engineers, except employees who
are covered by the provisions of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto.
It is understood that existing agreements with other organizations
are not hereby annulled, unless and until a majority of the employees
concerned express a desire for a change.
RULE 2. (a) Except as provided in rule 2 (b), eight consecutive
hours, exclusive of meal period, shall constitute a day's work.
Employees who are required to work during the meal period will
be allowed 20 minutes for lunch without loss of pay.
(b) Where service is intermittent 8 hours' actual time on duty
within a spread of 12 hours shall constitute a day's work. Employ-
ees filling such positions shall be paid overtime for all time actually
on duty or held for duty in excess of 8 hours from the time required
to report for duty to the time of release within 12 consecutive hours,
222
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and also for all time in excess of 12 consecutive hours computed
continuously from the time first required to report until final release.
Time shall be counted as continuous service in all cases where the
interval of release from duty does not exceed 1 hour.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for in-
dividual positions when agreed to between the management and
duly accredited representatives of the employees. For such ex-
cepted positions the foregoing paragraph shall not apply.
This rule shall not be construed as authorizing the working of
split tricks where continuous service is required.
Intermittent service is understood to mean service of a character
where during the hours of assignment there is no work to be per-
formed for periods of more than one hour's duration and service
of the employees can not otherwise be utilized.
Employees covered by this rule will be paid not less than 8 hours
within a spread of 12 consecutive hours.
RULE 3. Time worked in excess of eight hours will be considered
overtime and paid for on the minute basis at pro-rata rate for the
ninth and tenth hours and at time and one-half thereafter, except
that time and one-half will not be allowed to employees changing
shifts at their own request.
RULE 4. Employees notified or called to perform work not con-
tinuous with the regular work period will be allowed a minimum of
three hours for two hours' work or less, and if held on duty in excess
of two hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the minute basis.
RULE 5. Sunday and holiday work-Full-day period.-Time
worked on Sundays and the following holidays-namely, New Year's
Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas-shall be paid for at the pro-
rata hourly rate when the entire number of hours constituting the
regular week-day assignment are worked.
RULE 6. Sunday and holiday work-Less than full-day period.-
When assigned, notified, or called to work on Sundays and/or
the above specified holidays a less number of hours than constitute
a day's work within the limits of the regular week-day assignment,
employees shall be paid a minimum allowance of three hours for two
hours' work or less, and at the pro-rata hourly rate after the second
hour of each tour of duty.
RULE 7. To compute the hourly rate of monthly-rated employees,
take the number of working days constituting a calendar year,
multiply by eight and divide the annual salary by such total hours,
which is exclusive of overtime and disregarding time absent on vaca-
tion, sick leave, holidays, or for any other cause. In determining
the hourly rate, fractions less than one-half cent will not be counted;
one-half cent and over will be counted as 1 cent.
RULE 8. This agreement shall be effective as of April 1, 1922, and
shall continue in effect until it is changed as provided herein or
under the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise or
modify these rules, 30 days' written advance notice, containing the
proposed changes, shall be given, and conferences shall be held im-
mediately on the expiration of said notice unless another date is
mutually agreed upon.
DECISIONS.
223
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1. Application of adopted rules.-The rules approved by
the Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers party to the dis-
pute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such instances
as any particular carrier may have agreed with its employees upon
any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule or rules agreed
upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on said road.
SECTION 2. Interpretation of this decision. The rules herein pro-
mulgated are to be considered and construed as new rules adopted
by the Labor Board in accordance with the transportation act, 1920,
and the principles announced in Decision No. 119.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employees
of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision,
or the rules contained herein, which can not be decided in con-
ference between the parties directly interested, such dispute shall
be handled in the manner provided by the transportation act, 1920.
A
DECISION NO. 831.-DOCKET 643.
Chicago, Ill., March 23, 1922.
Petition of San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad for Rehearing on Decision
No. 552, Docket 643.
Question. Motion for rehearing in connection with dispute be-
tween the above-named parties regarding the dismissal of G. F.
Davis, formerly employed as section foreman at North Pleasanton,
Tex., which dispute was decided in Decision No. 552, issued by the
Labor Board.
Decision.—Motion for rehearing is denied.
DECISION NO. 832.-DOCKET 1620.
Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules for the
government of employees in telegraph service.
Statement.—The wages and working conditions of employees in
telegraph service were governed by an agreement between the Order
of Railroad Telegraphers and the carrier named which was nego-
tiated during the period of Federal control and continued in effect
subject to 30 days' notice by either party of desire to terminate it.
Following the issuance of Decision No. 119, the telegraphers' com-
mittee submitted a proposition on rules to the carrier and requested
conferences for the purpose of considering same in accordance with
that decision. June 14, 1921, was set as the date for conference. In
the meantime, however, the Order of Railroad Telegraphers had
taken the position that Decision No. 119 did not apply to the class of
employees they represented, and the general committees were in-
structed to request carriers to defer negotiations of rules pending
decision on that question by the Labor Board. The carrier, however,
224
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
insisted that the negotiation of rules should proceed on a basis of the
principles set forth in Decision No. 119, and the conference therefore
adjourned. Notice was then served upon the representatives of the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers that 30 days from that date-
namely, July 14, 1921-the agreement, and all other rules, orders,
etc., covering working conditions in effect at that time would be
abrogated and terminated.
On July 15, 1921, the day after the 30-day period elapsed, the car-
rier distributed a ballot among the employees with instructions to
vote for representatives to conduct negotiations with the carrier.
The result of this ballot was the selection by the employees of a com-
mittee of employees of the same personnel as the committee of the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers, but it was not designated by the
employees as such on the ballot. The carrier advised the committee
elected by ballot that it was ready to proceed with the conference for
the purpose of considering revision of the agreement, using as a basis
the 16 principles laid down by the Labor Board in Decision No. 119.
The committee, however, would negotiate only as a committee of the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers and the conference terminated with-
out any settlement being reached.
Both the carrier and the employees thereupon made ex-parte
submissions to the Labor Board. The carrier requested authority to
place certain proposed rules in effect, and the employees, claim-
ing that the carrier erred in attempting to conduct negotiations
under Decision No. 119 which did not apply to employees in tele-
graph service, requested that the original agreement be restored
pending negotiations and effort to agree upon the proposed rules
in the manner provided for in the transportation act, 1920. Hearing
was conducted by the Labor Board at which both the employees and
the carrier were represented. After the hearing before the Labor
Board the carrier again sought conference with the duly elected
committee of employees in telegraph service and the board has been
advised that this committee has refused to negotiate with the carrier.
Decision.—The Labor Board decides that in view of the refusal
of the duly elected representatives of the employees in telegraph
service to negotiate with the carrier, the rules promulgated by the
Labor Board in Decision No. 757 under date of March 3, 1922, shall
apply to employees in telegraph service effective April 1, 1922.
If there are any questions in dispute as to the right of any em-
ployee under this decision or any question involving submission to
the Labor Board, the matter should be handled in conference and
in the event of failure to agree same should be submitted to the Labor
Board for decision. Upon the receipt of such dispute properly pre-
sented, the Labor Board will render its decision upon the merits
of the case.
DECISION NO. 833.-DOCKET 1224.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Question. Should shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Rail-
way Co. be included in agreement governing rules and working con-
ditions for the Gulf Coast Lines?
DECISIONS.
225
Statement.—The Louisiana Southern Railway is 65.1 miles in length.
Its Federated Shop Crafts employees number but 12.
Its prin-
cipal business heretofore was from sugar cane and its products and
truck gardening. The sugar industry along this line has dwindled to
zero, and the mills have been abandoned. Good road construction
has resulted in extension of truck service to the extent of draining
what little merchandise and garden truck yet remained. Pipe-line
extension now handles all oil. There is no real industry requiring
rail transportation in existence on this line outside of the New
Orleans switching district.
The road is operated under a lease by the New Orleans, Texas
& Mexico Railway Co.; that lessee assumes control of the property
and operates it, but deficits occurring are paid by the owners of the
property.
The representatives of the employees state their understanding to
be that the Louisiana Southern Railway is operated and controlled
by the Gulf Coast Lines; therefore, they can see no logical reason
why in justness and fairness the employees should not be included
in the Gulf Coast Lines' agreement.
The carrier states that the Louisiana Southern Railway is oper-
ated by the Gulf Coast Lines under an operating contract; that the
Gulf Coast Lines own none of the securities, nor participate in any
of the earnings until they reach a certain point; and that up to this
time the earnings have never been such as to extend a credit to the
Gulf Coast Lines.
The carrier contends that the Louisiana Southern Railway has
never been a paying concern; that the object of the contract was
solely one by which the Gulf Coast Lines might secure the inter-
change from the Louisiana Southern Railway; and that for the rea-
sons stated, in addition to the reasons of justice, economy, and effici-
ency, the Louisiana Southern Railway Co. should receive a different
kind of treatment from that accorded larger trunk lines, and that
under the terms of the lease they are legally entitled to separate
treatment.
Prior to Federal control the rates of pay of shop employees on the
Louisiana Southern Railway were very much lower than the rates
of pay of similar employees on the Gulf Coast Lines; during that
period the employees in question did not have an agreement covering
working conditions with the Louisiana Southern Railway, and since
the expiration of Federal control negotiations with the employees on
the Louisiana Southern Railway have been independent of those on
the Gulf Coast Lines.
Decision.-From the evidence submitted, the Labor Board decides
that the Louisiana Southern Railway Co. is not a part of the Gulf
Coast Lines and that the carrier is within its rights in insisting that
the shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway Co. be cov-
ered by a separate agreement.
DISSENTING OPINION.
For the reasons set out below the undersigned dissents from the
decision of the majority.
226
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The violation of the provisions of existing agreements was not
involved in this dispute. The question is whether shop employees
shall be included in and considered a part of agreement governing
rules and working conditions of the shop employees of the Gulf
Coast Lines.
The Louisiana Southern Railroad is operated by the Gulf Coast
Lines under an operating contract. The term "Gulf Coast Lines"
has always been understood to apply to certain carriers, including
the Louisiana Southern Railway Co., which are designated in the
Official Guide in the following manner:
GULF COAST LINES.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
The Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
The Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
The St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
Louisiana Southern Railway Co. (N. O., T. & M. Ry. Co.
lessee).
It will be noted that the Louisiana Southern Railway Co. is shown
as one of the Gulf Coast Lines under lease to the New Orleans, Texas
& Mexico Railway Co. Furthermore, the officers of the Gulf Coast
Lines are likewise the officers of the Louisiana Southern Railway Co.
The carrier's reason for desiring that the Louisiana Southern Rail-
way Co. be omitted from the Gulf Coast Lines' agreement is ap-
parently that they did not feel that rules and working conditions
applicable to the other lines should be imposed upon the Louisiana
Southern Railway and that to do so would impose a financial burden
that would be difficult, if not impossible, for it to carry. An analysis
of the rules submitted to the Labor Board by the carrier (ex parte)
on June 30, 1921, and which this carrier requested be made appli-
cable to the Louisiana Southern Railway Co. developed that the
said rules correspond closely to the so-called national agreement
promulgated by the United States Railroad Administration and are
as a whole much more favorable to the employees than the rules that
have been promulgated by the Labor Board in its Decision No. 222,
and are also much more favorable to the employees than the rules
proposed by the carrier for the other lines operated by this carrier
and shown on joint submission, which was the result of conference
commencing September 7, 1921.
Considering the evidence submitted by the carrier in this case,
particularly the working rules which it proposed June 30, 1921, and
requested the board to decide as applicable to the Louisiana Southern
Railway Co.'s shop employees, I can not subscribe to the decision of
the majority.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISIONS.
227
DECISION NO. 834.-DOCKET 1076.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Louisville & Nashville Rail-
road Co.
Question. Claim of George Seiffert, dispatcher, Evansville, Ind.,
for pay for time absent from duty account of sickness.
Statement. The rule in effect at the time this dispute arose gov-
erning pay for time lost by train dispatchers on account of sickness
is as follows:
Chief, assistant chief, regular trick and relief dispatchers, will be extended
the same treatment as is the practice on each road to accord to other division
officers for loss of time on account of sickness.
Mr. Seiffert was off duty on account of sickness from December 1
to December 18, 1920, both dates inclusive, and suffered deduction in
pay for that period.
The employees contend that under the rule above quoted, and the
practice of the carrier in question with respect to paying division
officers for time lost on account of sickness, Mr. Seiffert is entitled
to pay for the period above stated.
The carrier states that it has never been the practice to pay di-
vision officers for time lost on account of sickness when it was neces-
sary to employ someone else in their place, and that in such cases
where payment was allowed it was made on a basis of merit and
individual service record. The carrier contends that the employee
in question was accorded the same treatment as is accorded to divi-
sion officers for loss of time on account of sickness, and that the rule
above quoted was not violated in this instance.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the practice in
effect, George Seiffert, dispatcher, is not entitled to pay for time
absent from duty on the dates named.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 835.-DOCKET 1126.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of chief clerks to agents at River Junction, Ar-
cadia, St. Petersburg, Palatka, and Tampa, Fla., for back pay for
period March 1, 1920, to April 1, 1921, in connection with the appli-
cation of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees.
Statement. The clerks' national agreement contains the follow-
ing provision with respect to chief clerks to supervisory agents:
This agreement shall not apply to chief clerks of supervisory agents at the
larger stations.
NOTE. As it is impracticable to designate "larger stations" for all rail-
roads, the proper officer of the railroad and the representative of the employees
should agree upon the proper classification with right of appeal from the deci-
sion of the officer if no agreement is reached.
22.8
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
When this agreement was placed in effect the carrier took the posi-
tion that certain stations, about 70 in number, were larger stations
where the agreement would not apply to the chief clerks to agents,
while the employees claim that there were no stations on the line of
the railroad that would come under this classification, but later
agreed to except 10 of the larger stations. Failing to reach an agree-
ment on all the stations involved, a joint submission was made to
the United States Railroad Administration, and under date of Au-
gust 12, 1920, Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3 issued Decision
No. 733, which provided that chief clerks to local freight agents
should be subject to the provisions of the clerks' national agreement.
This decision was not put into effect, but after conferences between
the representatives of the employees and the carrier an agreement
was reached in March, 1921, which provided that chief clerks to
the agents at 10 stations enumerated therein should be excepted
from the rules of the clerks' national agreement, and that effective
April 1, 1921, the agreement would apply to all other chief clerks
to freight station agents. The chief clerks to the agent at Tampa
was excepted from the clerks' national agreement, effective April 1,
1921. The chief clerks to the agents at the other four stations named
were by agreement included in the clerks' national agreement effec-
tive April 1, 1921. The claim presented to the Labor Board covers
request for the additional compensation that would have accrued
to the chief clerks at the five stations named if the rules of the
clerks' national agreement had applied to their positions during
the period March 1, 1920, to April 1, 1921.
The employees contend that the rules of the clerks' national agree-
ment should have been applied to the chief clerks to the agents
at all stations on the line of the carrier from the effective date
thereof in accordance with decision of Railway Board of Adjustment
No. 3, and request that the chief clerks to the agents at the five sta-
tions named be reimbursed for the difference between the wages they
have received and the earnings that would have accrued to them
under the application of the rules in the clerks' national agreement.
The carrier contends that at conferences held in March, 1921, no
reference whatever was made to the question of retroactive pay nor
was any claim presented by the employees at that time; furthermore,
that it was specifically set forth in the memorandum of agreement
dated March 23, 1921, that it would be effective April, 1921, and that
the employees accepted and promulgated this agreement. The memo-
randum of agreement dated March 23, 1921, referred to, is as follows:
Confirming the understanding reached in conference which we have had
during the past few days, I am advising that the chief clerks to the following
supervisory agents-
Richmond,
Wilmington,
Charleston,
Norfolk-Pinners Point,
Jacksonville-Bay Street,
Savannah-Liberty Street,
Savannah River Wharf,
Montgomery,
Tampa,
Columbia,
will be excepted from the application of the terms of the clerks' national
agreement as contemplated by the provisions of section (b), rule 1, Article I,
of that agreement.
Effective April 1, 1921, the clerks' national agreement will be applied to all
other chief clerks to freight-station agents.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
229
DECISION NO. 836.-DOCKET 1171.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Claim of Edna Simmons for position of timekeeper in
the office of shop accountant, Waco, Tex.
Statement.—Miss Simmons entered the service of the carrier
August 1, 1918, and commenced work in the shop accountant's office
September 1, 1919. On February 16, 1921, it became necessary to
reduce the force. The position held by Miss Simmons, which was
that of a comptometer operator, as well as one of the timekeeping
positions, was abolished. Miss Simmons made application for a
position of timekeeper which was held by an employee with less
seniority, but her application was denied on the ground that she was
not qualified for said position and, there being no other position in
the same seniority district for which the carrier considered her quali-
fied, she was relieved from the service.
The employees state that Miss Simmons performed the duties of
the position she held in the service satisfactorily, and contend that,
while she never performed all the duties pertaining to the position
of timekeeper, she did have sufficient fitness and ability to justify
assignment to the position which she sought and should have been
permitted to exercise her seniority thereto in accordance with rule 21
of the clerks' national agreement.
The carrier contends that Miss Simmons did not have sufficient
fitness and ability to qualify on the position of timekeeper and that
there was no other course to pursue but to relieve her from the serv-
ice when it became necessary to reduce the force on February 16,
1921. The carrier further contends that their action was not in con-
flict with rule 21 or any other rule of the agreement between the
employees and the carrier governing the employees in the class of
service in which Miss Simmons was engaged.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
before it that the position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 837.-DOCKET 1173.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Dispute regarding reclassification of position of ticket
agent as ticket clerk at a reduced rate of pay.
Statement.-On February 28, 1921, the position of ticket agent at
Sedalia, Mo., rate 713 cents per hour was reclassified as ticket clerk
at rate of 50 cents per hour.
The employees state that prior to that date separate freight and
ticket offices were maintained at Sedalia, in charge of a freight
and ticket agent, respectively, each making their reports direct to
the auditing department and reporting to the superintendent, and
that since the reclassification of title and change in rate of pay has
230
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
taken place no change has been made in the duties or responsi-
bilities of the position, the only difference being that the reports
are now made in the name of the agent instead of in the name of the
ticket clerk. The employees contend that under the provisions of
the agreement between the employees and the carrier covering wages.
and working conditions of employees in telegraph service the car-
rier can not properly change the classification or rate of pay of a
position without consulting the telegraphers' committee and in the
event of failure to agree until the change is approved by the Labor
Board.
The carrier states that the business conditions at Sedalia justified
the reclassification of position of ticket agent as herein described,
and it was decided to extend the jurisdiction of the freight agent to
cover the passenger station; that the former ticket agent, who is now
ticket clerk, is only required to sell tickets and make reports inci-
dent thereto; and that his rate of pay has been adjusted in accordance
with similar positions on its line and pursuant to the rules of the
agreement.
The carrier contends that the determination of the character of
the service to be rendered in its relation to the public at the various.
stations is purely a managerial function, and that there is no rule in
the agreement between the carrier and the employees to support the
employees' contention that they shall confer with the employees
prior to making changes of this character.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 838.-DOCKET 1288.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees v. Portland Terminal Co.
Question. Does the position of shop watchman at the repair shops
of the carrier named come within the scope of paragraph 2, rule 1,
Article I of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees?
Decision. The Labor Board has already decided, in Decision
No. 113, dated April 7, 1921, that shop watchmen do not come within
the scope of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 839.-DOCKET 1129.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question.-What is the proper compensation under the rules of
the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
DECISIONS.
231
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees for
a clerical employee in a continuously operated office, who, after ful-
filling his own assignment, is required to relieve the regular assigned
employee on the succeeding assignment?
Statement.-Employees in certain departments, where conditions
require continuous service throughout the 24-hour period, are assigned
to three tricks of 8 hours each. No extra employees are maintained
in connection with this service, and when an employee lays off it is
customary to require the employee on the preceding shift to continue
working in place of the employee who lays off. Employees who have
been required to do this have been paid for the service performed
on the shift of the employee whom they are required to relieve at
the straight time rate of the position of the employee relieved.
The employees claim that such employees should be paid at the rate
of time and one-half in accordance with rule 57 of the clerks' national
agreement, whereas, the carrier maintains that such employees should
be paid in accordance with rule 72 of the clerks' national agreement.
The rules of the clerks' national agreement referred to in this dis-
pute are as follows:
RULE 57. Except as otherwise provided in these rules time in excess of eight
hours, exclusive of the meal period, on any day, will be considered overtime and
paid on the actual minute basis.
For hourly-rated employees, except as otherwise provided in these rules, over-
time will be computed at the rate of time and one-half time.
For daily-rated employees, except as otherwise provided in these rules, when
the full number of hours per week (produced by multiplying by eight the days
of the weekly assignment) are worked, overtime will be computed at the rate
of time and one-half time. Where the total hours worked in regular assignment
do not equal the number of hours so produced, overtime will be computed pro
rata until the weekly period is fulfilled; therefore, overtime will be computed
at the rate of time and one-half time.
RULE 72. Employees temporarily or permanently assigned to higher-rated
positions shall receive the higher rates while occupying such positions; em-
ployees temporarily assigned to lower-rated positions shall not have their rates
reduced.
The carrier contends that if an employee assigned to a certain
shift is required to work the full period of a succeeding shift, he is
temporarily assigned to another position and therefore properly
paid under rule 72, above quoted. However, it is admitted that if
the same employee was required to work a part of a succeeding shift
in place of another employee, he would be paid at the rate of time
and one-half in accordance with rule 57.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the service performed
by the employees involved in this dispute was not a temporary assign-
ment within the meaning of rule 72 of the clerks' national agreement.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 840.-DOCKET 1467.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. Claim of J. C. Aldridge, clerk, Helena, Ark., for back
pay under the application of section 3, Article II of Decision No. 2.
232
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a settlement has been reached and that they desire to
withdraw same from further consideration by the Labor Board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 841.-DOCKET 1469.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper application of sec-
tion 2, Article II of Decision No. 2, to position occupied by M. B.
Vonderau, clerk, Helena, Ark.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a settlement has been reached and that they desire to with-
draw same from further consideration by the Labor Board. The
case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 842.-DOCKET 1472.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of H. Cohen, Pittsburgh, Pa., for the right to
exercise his seniority to position held by a junior employee.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 843.-DOCKET 1510.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for equalization of wages of money clerks,
Huntington, W. Va.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 844.-DOCKET 1512.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of J. S. Nunez for the right to exercise his
seniority in the general office of the carrier, Gulfport, Miss.
DECISIONS.
233
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and file closed.
DECISION NO. 845.-DOCKET 1516.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Claim of H. B. Rich, messenger, for pay for extra
trip between Barstow and Johannesburg.
Decision. This dispute is closed in accordance with the under-
standing reached between representatives of the employees and the
carrier at a hearing held by the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 846.-DOCKET 1517.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to classification and rate of pay
of transfer clerks, Charleston, S. C.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 847.-DOCKET 1601.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Dispute with reference to proper application of De-
cisions Nos. 2 and 147 to multigraph operators.
Decision. At hearing before the Labor Board the representatives
of the employees and the carrier agreed to withdraw this dispute for
further negotiation and effort to reach a settlement. With this
understanding, the case is removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 848.-DOCKET 1621.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions of
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the car-
rier for conference and further consideration in accordance with sec-
tion 1 of general instructions, Decision No. 721.
234
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 849.-DOCKET 1622.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. International & Great Northern
Railway.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions of
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the car-
rier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of general instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 850.-DOCKET 1623.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.-Application of rules governing working conditions of
train dispatchers to chief train dispatchers, Montevideo, Minn.
Decision. This dispute is returned to the employees and the
carrier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of general instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 851.—DOCKET 1070.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. El Paso & Southwestern System.
Question.-Claim of train dispatchers for vacation for the year
1921.
Statement. The rule in effect at the time this dispute was sub-
mitted to the Labor Board governing vacations for train dispatchers
is as follows:
Question. Will chief, assistant chlef, regular trick and regular relief dis-
patchers be granted two weeks' vacation per annum with pay?
Answer. They will be granted two weeks' (12 working days) vacation per
annum with pay provided they have been in the service in such capacities con-
tinuously for one year.
In the month of July, 1921, the carrier notified the dispatchers
in its service that they would not be allowed the usual two weeks'
annual vacation with pay. The employees thereupon took the matter
up with the carrier and were advised that the carrier had decided
that, pending a decision by the Labor Board on the rule covering
vacations with pay and pay for time off account sickness, neither
vacations nor pay for time absent from duty would be allowed.
The employees contend that the rule above quoted was promul-
gated by the United States Railroad Administration on October 1,
1919, and was continued in effect by Decision No. 2, and that the
action of the carrier in denying train dispatchers vacations for 1921
is also in violation of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119. The
A
DECISIONS.
235
employees therefore request that the dispatchers in the service of
the carrier named be granted vacations with pay as provided for in
the rule above quoted or any other relief to which they may be en-
titled in equity.
The carrier takes the position that inasmuch as the train dis-
patchers are now paid on a daily basis and allowed overtime after
eight hours for all time worked, there is no more reason for allowing
pay for time off account of sickness or vacations with pay than to
make similar allowance for other classes of employees who are paid
on the same basis.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the rule in effect
governing vacations for train dispatchers, the train dispatchers who
had been in the service of the carrier named for a period of one year
or more were entitled to a vacation for the year 1921. However,
since the year 1921 has passed and the rule does not provide for a
double vacation period in the following year nor for pay in lieu of
vacations not granted, the Labor Board can not afford the employees
any relief in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 852.-DOCKET 1305.
Chicago, Ill., March 29, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Railway.
Question.—Claim of train dispatchers for vacation for the year
1921.
Statement. At the time this dispute was submitted to the Labor
Board the rule in effect governing vacations for train dispatchers
was as follows:
Question.—Will chief, assistant chief, regular trick and regular relief dis-
patchers be granted two weeks' vacation per annum with pay?
Answer.—They will be granted two weeks' (12 working days) vacation per
annum with pay provided they have been in service in such capacity continu-
ously one year.
In the month of June, 1921, the train dispatchers on the line of the
carrier named were notified that they would not be allowed the usual
two weeks' annual vacation with pay. The employees thereupon took
the matter up with the carrier and were advised that arrangement
would be made upon application to grant train dispatchers vacations,
subject to the needs of the service and ability of the superintendent to
provide relief; this vacation, however, not to be at the expense of the
carrier but at the expense of the employees. The employees were
also advised that if there were any deserving cases of long service
which were worthy of special consideration they would be handled
on their merits.
The employees contend that the rule above quoted was promul-
gated by the United States Railroad Administration on October 1,
1919, and was continued in effect by that part of Addendum No. 2
to Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board, reading as follows:
In lieu of any other rules not agreed to in the conferences held under De-
cision No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the United
States Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such time as the
rules are considered and decided by the Labor Board.
20936°-23——16
236
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees request that the dispatchers in the service of the
carrier named be granted vacations with pay as provided for in the
rule above quoted or any other relief to which they may be entitled
in equity.
The carrier states that vacations were denied the train dispatchers
during the year 1921, for the reason that the allowance of pay for
service not performed was in violation of the principles announced
by the Labor Board, and, furthermore, it was a discrimination in
favor of the dispatchers as against other classes of employees which
is not warranted by the conditions of employment or character of
service performed by dispatchers. The carrier contends that in-
asmuch as the question of vacations for dispatchers was the subject
of conference and was presented to the Labor Board in the sub-
mission made in accordance with Decision No. 119, it was proper to
withhold from the dispatchers the vacations which would otherwise.
have been granted for the year 1921 pending a hearing on the joint
submission.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the rule in effect
governing vacations for train dispatchers, the train dispatchers who
had been in the service of the carrier named for a period of one year
or more were entitled to a vacation for the year 1921. However,
since the year 1921 has passed and the rule does not provide for
double vacation period in the following year nor for pay in lieu of
vacations not granted, the Labor Board can not afford the employees
any relief in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 853.-DOCKET 1117.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall William Paisley be given seniority rights as a
clerk from the date he was assigned to position of receiving clerk
and be allowed back pay for the period that he was not paid as a
clerk while holding said position subsequent to March 1, 1920?
Statement. The employee in question entered the service of the
carrier as a laborer at Hazleton, Pa., on August 10, 1917, and prior
to the application of Decision No. 2 he was paid at the rate of 401
cents per hour. On October 1, 1920, he was classified by the carrier
as a receiving clerk and shown on the clerical seniority roster, and
paid the receiving clerk's rate.
The employees state that the duties performed by Mr. Paisley
consist of receiving all freight for shipment, seeing that it is properly
packed and marked and that all old marks are obliterated, and sign-
ing bills of lading; and, furthermore, that he is required to have a
general knowledge of the official and other classifications pertaining
to freight shipments. The employees contend that the duties per-
formed by Mr. Paisley prior to October 1, 1920, were of a clerical
nature; that he should have been paid as a clerk and shown on the
clerical seniority roster from August 10, 1917; and that the volun-
tary reclassification of the position on October 1, 1920, without any
DECISIONS.
237
substantial change in the duties, constitutes an admission of the fact
that he was performing the work of a receiving clerk prior to that
date. The employees request that Mr. Paisley be reimbursed for the
difference between the compensation he received and the compensa-
tion he would have received under the proper classification.
The carrier states that Mr. Paisley was a freight-house laborer
and continued in that capacity until his position was reclassified on
October 1, 1920, and that he is not required to have any general
knowledge of official or other classifications pertaining to freight
shipments. The carrier contends that the duties and responsibilities
of his position would not justify reclassifying it as receiving clerk
before October 1, 1920, and, further, that the reclassification of the
position does not carry with it any obligation on the part of the
carrier to make the reclassification retroactive either as to wages or
seniority.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that the agent in
charge of the freight station at which Mr. Paisley was employed
and a representative of the employees made a check of the duties
performed by Mr. Paisley in August, 1920, and they made the fol-
lowing report:
Upon making this check, we have found the greater portion of his time is
consumed in receiving freight for shipment--which consumes practically six
hours each period-and tallying and examining the packages received to see
whether they weer properly packed and marked and whether all of the old
marks had been obliterated from the packages.
The balance of the time consumed-practically two hours-was taken up in
signing the bills of lading and issuing bills of lading for the people who
brought shipments and were unable to make out bills of lading themselves; also
in issuing Form T-770, which is requested by the claim-prevention bureau to
be executed whenever an exception is found in article of freight which is offered
for shipment.
The carrier admits that Mr. Paisley has been on the same position
since entering the service in August, 1917.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that Mr. Paisley shall be
classified as a clerk and shown on the clerical seniority roster from
August 10, 1917, and paid the difference between the compensation
he received in the service from March 1 to October 1, 1920, and the
compensation he would have received if he had been classified and
paid as a clerk effective March 1, 1920.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 854.-DOCKET 605.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Question. Dispute regarding alleged unauthorized reduction of
wages of certain employees engaged in handling baggage and mail,
Union Station, Kansas City, Mo.
Statement.—On March 1, 1920, the employees above referred to
were paid at the rate of 43 cents per hour. On April 1, 1920, an
agreement was entered into between the employees and the carrier
establishing a rate of $3.80 per day for the first 90 days' service and
238
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
$4.10 per day for employees in service over 90 days. When De-
cision No. 2 was issued, an increase of 13 cents per hour was added
to the rates established by agreement on April 1, 1920, which made
the rates 60 cents for the first 90 days' service and 64 cents per hour
after 90 days' service. These rates continued in effect until June 1,
1921, when the carrier applied a decrease of 41 cents per hour with-
out conference with the employees or approval of the Labor Board.
In applying Decision No. 147 the rates were further decreased 10
cents per hour.
The employees contend that the establishment of the daily rates
by the agreement of April 1, 1920, was an application of rule 66 of
the clerks' national agreement, and that the rates thus established
should be considered as the rates in effect by or under the authority
of the United States Railroad Administration, March 1, 1920, to
which should be added the increase provided in Decision No. 2 and
that said rates should not have been decreased without conference
with the employees or approval of the Labor Board.
The carrier contends that the increases granted the employees on
April 1, 1920, were for the purpose of preventing a suspension of
work, and that inasmuch as the rates of pay thus produced were not
established by any order of the Railroad Administration, the carrier
had a right to return, at any time, to rates not less than those estab-
lished by the Administration.
Decision. Inasmuch as the rates established under the agreement
of April 1, 1920, were used as the basis of applying the increases
provided in Decision No. 2, and paid for a period of 13 months, the
Labor Board decides that the reduction, made by the carrier on
June 1, 1921, without conference or agreement with the employees or
approval of the Labor Board, was improper; therefore, the em-
ployees affected shall be reimbursed for the difference between the
wages they have received since June 1, 1921, and the wages they
would have received if the unauthorized reduction had not been made.
DECISION NO. 855.-DOCKET 680.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf and Ship Island Railroad.
Question. (a) Was the abolition of position of claim clerk and
the creation of position of utility clerk in the freight office at Hat-
tiesburg, Miss., in violation of rule 84 of the clerks' national agree-
ment?
(b) Were H. H. Wade and M. E. Pickett entitled to the oppor-
tunity to qualify for position of utility clerk in accordance with the
rules of the clerks' national agreement?
Statement.—Under date of February 1, 1921, the position of claim
clerk in the local freight agency at Hattiesburg was abolished and
position of utility clerk was created and bulletined in accordance.
with the rules of the clerks' national agreement. Messrs. Wade and
Pickett and Miss Helen Hays made application therefor, but the
position was awarded to W. J. Littrell, an employee who had less
seniority in the service than any of the three applicants named.
DECISIONS.
239
The employees contend that the carrier was not within its rights
in adding new duties to the position of claim clerk, that there had
not previously been a stenographic position in the Hattiesburg
freight office, and that the stenographic duties were added to the
position for the purpose of preventing Mr. Wade-who was the
senior applicant-from qualifying for the position. The employees
further contend that Messrs. Wade and Pickett and Miss Hays were
typists and that in view of the comparatively small amount of steno-
graphic work attached to the position of utility clerk any of these
employees could have qualified therefor.
The carrier states that in January, 1921, it became necessary to
reduce operating expenses and it was decided to abolish the position
of yardmaster at Hattiesburg and assign the work formerly attached
to the yardmaster's position to the agent at Hattiesburg. This
necessitated relieving the agent at Hattiesburg of many of the
details of the work in his office which he had previously handled,
and it was decided to establish the position of utility clerk and as-
sign thereto an employee who could, in conjunction with the work
of handling claims, relieve the agent of certain clerical details and
to whom the agent's correspondence could be dictated. Messrs.
Wade and Pickett and Miss Hays were found lacking in the sten-
ographic requirements for this position and it was, therefore, as-
signed to an employee with less seniority but who had stenographic
ability and who was otherwise fitted therefor.
Rule 84 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under
a different title covering relatively the same class of work for the purpose of re-
ducing the rate of pay or evading the application of these rules.
Decision. (a) The evidence shows that the position of claim
clerk was abolished and position of utility clerk, with some added
duties, was established in lieu thereof. The rate of pay of the posi-
tion was not changed. The position of utility clerk was bulletined
as required by the rules of the clerks' national agreement and was
not excepted from the rules of said agreement; therefore, the claim
that rule 84 of the clerks' national agreement was violated is not
sustained.
(b) The employees do not claim that Messrs. Wade and Pickett
or Miss Hays could fulfill the stenographic requirements of the posi-
tion of utility clerk, and they therefore did not have the requisite
fitness and ability to qualify thereon. Claim of employees that they
be granted a trial on the position in accordance with the rules of
the clerks' national agreement is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 856.—DOCKET 800.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for increase in rate of pay of three positions
at Camden, N. J., to equalize with rates of pay of certain positions
at Philadelphia, Pa.
240
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement.-Under date of April 16, 1920, the salaries of the em-
ployees of the carrier at Camden were increased to amounts equiva-
lent to the salaries paid employees performing the same class of
work at Philadelphia, with the exception of the positions of cashier,
pay-roll clerk, and collector, which were not increased.
The employees state that some time prior to April 14, 1920, a
request was made upon the management of the American Railway
Express Co. by the employees at Camden for an adjustment of
salaries to conform with the salaries paid at Philadelphia to em-
ployees performing the same class of work. Under date of April
14, 1920, the carrier advised the employees that effective April 16,
1920, the salaries of the employees at Camden would be increased to
equalize with the salaries paid employees in similar positions at
Philadelphia.
The employees contend that when request was made upon the
carrier to adjust the inequalities between the employees at Camden
and employees filling similar positions at Philadelphia, no excep-
tions were made and none were indicated in the letter from the car-
rier to the employees under date of April 14, 1920. The employees
further contend that in denying the three employees referred to
herein an increase in salary, the carrier has established an unjust
inequality which should be eliminated by increasing the rates of
the employees in the three positions named from the date the other
employees at Camden were increased.
The carrier states that on April 15, 1920, the salaries of certain
positions at Camden were increased to the rates of similar positions
at Philadelphia. The carrier contends that the three positions in-
volved in this dispute were not increased for the reason that there
are no corresponding positions at Philadelphia, and for the further
reason that the salaries then paid those positions at Camden were
just and adequate. The carrier further contends that there was no
understanding nor agreement on their part to increase these salaries,
and that therefore there has been no violation of any rule, or order,
or agreement by failure to increase same.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 857.-DOCKET 884.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Shall the increase granted under Article II of Deci-
sion No. 3, to certain employees in express service at Dallas, Tex., be
added to the rates in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, or shall the
increases be added to the rates which include increases granted by
the carrier since that date?
Statement.—Article II, Decision No. 3, issued by the Labor Board,
reads in part as follows:
For each of the hereinafter-named classes, add the following amounts per
hour to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, provided that in-
creases in rates of pay made since March 1, 1920, where such increases were
made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities, will be preserved and the in-
creases herein established added thereto.
DECISIONS.
241
Positions held by Messrs. Daugherty, Cain, and Murrell at Dallas
were increased $10 per month, effective March 1, 1920.
The employees contend that the salaries of the positions held by
the three employees in question were not, prior to March 1, 1920, com-
mensurate with salaries paid other employees who performed work
requiring considerable less responsibility; that in a conference be-
tween the employees and the superintendent of the carrier the super-
intendent admitted that an inequality existed and that the increase
of $10 per month, effective March 1, 1920, was for the purpose of
adjusting this inequality; and that, therefore, the increases set forth
in Decision No. 3 should have been added to the rates established on
March 1, 1920.
The carrier states that the positions held by the employees named
were increased $10 per month, effective March 1, 1920, and contends
that this increase was not for the purpose of adjusting inequalities
within the meaning of Article II of Decision No. 3, but that on the
contrary this increase was solely for the purpose of keeping these
employees in their positions to avoid appointing new and inexperi-
enced employees. The carrier further contends that a complete re-
view of the testimony of the superintendent in the conference_re-
ferred to by the employees shows that the increases were granted in
anticipation of a general increase in pay and as such were properly
absorbed in the application of Decision No. 3.
Decision. The Labor Board has given consideration to all of the
oral and written arguments presented in connection with this dis-
pute, and decides that the increases granted the employees in ques-
tion were not made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities within
the meaning and intent of Article II of Decision No. 3. Therefore,
the increases granted under Article II of Decision No. 3 shall be
added to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920. Claim
of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 858.-DOCKET 885.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.—Request for reinstatement of Homer J. Daniels, express
messenger on trains operating between Fort Worth and Sweetwater,
Tex.
Decision. Basing this decision on the evidence before it, including
proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 859.-DOCKET 1067.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. El Paso & Southwestern System.
Question.-Claim of Charles Blyth, material accountant, resident
engineer's office, Douglas, Ariz., for vacation pay.
242
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. On November 14, 1920, Mr. Blyth was granted a leave
of absence for a period of 30 days and was allowed pay for six days
of this time. Mr. Blyth claims that under the past practice he was
entitled to two weeks vacation pay for the year 1920.
The national agreement between the Director General of Railroads
and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees did not contain any pro-
vision with reference to vacations or pay for time lost account of
sickness, but under date of January 30, 1920, the following instruc-
tions were issued to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the Broth-
erhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that under the past practice of the carrier in
question Charles Blyth was not entitled to two weeks' vacation in
the year 1920.
DECISION NO. 860.-DOCKET 1069.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. El Paso & Southwestern System.
Question.-Claim of J. M. Daniel, clerk in accounting department,
for pay for time absent from duty account of sickness, January 10,
11, and 12, 1921.
Statement.-J. M. Daniel was employed as clerk in accounting de-
partment on May 7, 1919, and in the month of January, 1921, was
absent from duty a period of 20 hours account of sickness, for which
absence deduction was made from his pay.
The employees state that prior to September 1, 1920, clerks in the
accounting department were allowed pay when absent account of
sickness; that on that date this practice was discontinued. Em-
ployees contend that the past practice with regard to paying em-
ployees for time lost account of sickness was continued in effect by
the orders of the United States Railroad Administration and by
Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board and that it should not have been
changed or discontinued except by agreement with the employees
or in the manner provided in the transportation act, 1920.
The carrier states that the question of pay for time lost account
of sickness by clerks in the accounting department is one which
has been the subject of conference with the employees and submitted
to the Labor Board for decision with other rules in disagreement as
a result of these conferences; that from the effective date of the
national agreement with the clerks' organization and at the time this
submission was made to the Labor Board employees working outside
of the regular daily assignment were paid additional for such time
either at the pro rata rate or at the rate of time and one-half.
DECISIONS.
243
The carrier therefore contends that inasmuch as employees must
be paid for every minute of service performed either inside or out-
side of regularly assigned hours it is not just that the employees
should demand payment for time which they do not work. It is
further stated that, except during the period of Federal control, the
regular monthly rate received by these employees covered all time.
worked either during the regularly assigned working hours of the
day or for work performed outside of such hours; that employees
who were paid compensation additional to their regular monthly
pay for time worked outside of the regularly assigned hours were
not allowed pay for time absent on account of sickness or for any
other reason, and that the employees' request in behalf of Mr. Daniel
is not consistent with justness.
The national agreement between the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
and the Director General of Railroads, the rules of which govern
the working conditions of employees in the class of service in which
Mr. Daniel is engaged, does not contain any specific provision with
respect to time lost account of sickness, but under date of January 30,
1920, the director, division of operation, United States Railroad
Administration, issued the following telegraphic instructions to the
regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point, but
it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick leave
would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal managers.
The employees contend that under the past practice, as referred to
in the above-quoted instructions, Mr. Daniel is entitled to pay for the
time he was absent in the month of January, 1921, and the carrier
has not denied or produced any evidence in rebuttal of the employees'
contention.
Decision. Under the carrier's interpretation, the instructions above
quoted would not mean anything and were not intended to mean
anything. The board can not adopt this view and inasmuch as the
carrier has not denied that it was the practice to pay employees in
the class of service in which Mr. Daniel was engaged for time absent
from duty account of sickness, the Labor Board decides that the em-
ployee named is entitled to pay for the period he was absent in the
month of January. 1921, and shall be compensated therefor.
Position of the employees is therefore sustained.
DECISION NO. 861.-DOCKET 1114.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding allowance of extra compensation to
lever men at Harlem Avenue tower for operating street-crossing
gates in connection with interlocker.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a satisfactory settlement has been reached and request is
244
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
made for the withdrawal thereof from further consideration by the
board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 862.-DOCKET 1115.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding allowance of extra compensation to
lever men at Peru tower for attending or caring for semaphore lights
in connection with interlocker.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a settlement of the question in controversy has been reached
and request is made for the withdrawal thereof from further con-
sideration by the board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 863.—DOCKET 1123.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad.
Question.-Claim for back pay under Decision No. 2 for H. M.
Dobbins, employed in the freight station of the carrier at Tampa, Fla.
Statement. On February 28, 1920, Mr. Dobbins was paid at the
rate of $2.56 per day. The rate of the position was increased 5 cents
per hour in accordance with section 6 of Article II, Decision No. 2.
The employees state that Mr. Dobbins' duties consisted of sorting
and filing waybills for billing clerks and filing tickets in alpha-
betical order, and that while he did carry certain tickets from the
loading office to the billing office this did not consume more than one
hour of his time each day. The employees further state that when
Decision No. 2 was issued the position was increased 12 cents per
hour under section 7 of Article II, but later the increase was cut to
5 cents per hour, in accordance with section 6 of Article II. The
employees contend that Mr. Dobbins was not an office boy or mes-
senger, as specified in section 6 of Article II, but, on the contrary,
was an employee engaged in sorting waybills and tickets and per-
forming other similar work as described in section 5 of Article II,
and therefore entitled to an increase of 10 cents per hour under said
section.
The carrier states that in December, 1917, the position of press
boy, or messenger, was carried on the laborers' pay roll and paid at
the rate of 12 cents per hour-the laborers' rate being 20 cents per
hour. Under General Order No. 27 and Supplement No. 7 thereto,
issued by the United States Railroad Administration, freight han-
dlers were increased 12 cents per hour, establishing a rate of 32 cents
per hour. Through an error the press boy, or messenger boy, was
also increased to 32 cents per hour, the same rate as fixed for
DECISIONS.
245
laborers. It is further stated that when Decision No. 2 was issued by
the Labor Board, 5 cents per hour was added under section 6 of
Article II, thus establishing a rate of 37 cents per hour.
The carrier further states that Mr. Dobbins was first carried on
the pay rolls as press boy and later changed to messenger; that his
work is so varied that he does not devote the majority of his time
to any particular duty; that an investigation developed that he
averages 25 round trips between the loading platform and the bill-
ing department, makes several trips carrying waybills to and from
the yardmaster's office, and is required to put together the shipping-
order tickets of the previous day from the billing office and assort
and bind them for permanent record; that he takes up, perforates,
and arranges in numerical order and binds for permanent record
the carbon copies of the previous day's waybills. The employee
is also required to put in order stationery for billing clerks and to
take shipping tickets from loading platform to billing office and
when billing is completed to return them to the loading platform.
The carrier contends that the increase of 10 cents per hour as
claimed by the employees is not warranted, not only because the
position is essentially that of a messenger, but because an erroneous
rate was established in the application of the increases provided in
Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27. The carrier further
contends that if the increase provided in Supplement No. 7 had been
properly applied the rate at the termination of Federal control would
have been 243 cents per hour, to which the increase of 5 cents per
hour added under section 6, Article II of Decision No. 2, would have
established a rate of 293 cents per hour.
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 864.-DOCKET 1343.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Railway Express Drivers, Chauffeurs, Conductors, and Helpers, Local No. 720
of Chicago Teamsters' Union v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to changing pay days from
weekly to semimonthly basis for vehicle employees.
Statement.-Prior to January 1, 1919. the carrier paid its em-
ployees in the city of Chicago semimonthly. On or about that date
a change was made to quarter monthly payments. Later, the quar-
ter monthly payments were changed to weekly payments. On or
about November 1, 1921, the weekly basis was discontinued and
wages were paid semimonthly. This change in the method of pay-
ment involved no change in compensation but simply that wages
instead of being calculated and paid weekly were calculated and
paid semimonthly.
The employees contend that rule 95 of the agreement between the
employees and the carrier effective February 15, 1920, continued
past practice until or unless changed by mutual agreement between
the employees and the carrier, and that under this rule the carrier
should not have changed the pay-day periods without conference or
agreement with the employees. The employees further state that
246
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the change in the pay-day arrangement was made after conference
and agreement with the employees, and that the semimonthly basis
of payment which was inaugurated in November, 1921, is unsatis-
factory and has resulted in a severe hardship to the employees
affected.
The carrier states that the payment of wages to employees is a
matter regulated by State and Federal laws, that it is not governed
by any rule or agreement covering conditions of employment, and
that it is not a practice continued in effect by rule 95 of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier effective February 15,
1920.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the payment of salaries
to the employees involved in this dispute on a semimonthly basis is
not in violation of any rule, order, or agreement affecting the wages
and working conditions of employees in the carrier's service. Claim
of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 865.-DOCKET 1529.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. R. Newcomb, clerk,
Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 866.-DOCKET 634.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question.-Dispute regarding application of rules pertaining to
seniority of train dispatchers to position of assistant chief dis-
patcher.
Decision. It is the contention of the carrier that chief and assist-
ant chief dispatchers are officers and not subordinate officials as
referred to in Interstate Commerce Commission regulations. This
dispute is therefore returned to the employees and the carrier for
conference and further consideration in accordance with section 1
of general instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 867.-DOCKET 659.
Chiago, Ill., April 11, 1922,
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
System.
Question. Shall regular dispatchers, promoted from the ranks
of telegraphers, be permitted to displace regularly assigned teleg-
raphers at "NR" office, Emporia, Kans.?
....
DECISIONS.
247
Decision. The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a satisfactory settlement of the question in controversy has
been reached, and joint request has been made for withdrawal of the
dispute from further consideration by the Labor Board. The case
is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 868.-DOCKET 1110.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question. Claim of H. R. Peterson and other clerical employees
in the mechanical department, St. Joseph, Mo., for pay for time lost
account of sickness and other reasons during the year 1920.
Statement. The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, which governs the working conditions of employees in
the class of service in which the above-named employee is engaged,
does not contain any specific rule on the question of vacations or
pay for time lost account of sickness. However, under date of Jan-
uary 30, 1920, the director, division of operation, United States Rail-
road Administration, issued the following telegraphic instructions
to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point, but
it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick leave
would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal managers.
Decision-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that under past practice the employees in ques-
tion are not entitled to pay for time lost account of sickness.
DECISION NO. 869.-DOCKET 1112.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.—Claim of Ruby Anderson, clerk in the mechanical de-
partment, Hannibal, Mo., for pay for time lost account of sickness,
March 3 to 10, 1921, inclusive.
Statement. The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, which governs the working conditions of employees in
the class of service in which the employee named is engaged, does not
contain any specific rule on the question of vacations or pay for time
lost account of sickness. However, under date of January 30, 1920,
the director, division of operation, United States Railroad Admin-
248
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
istration, issued the following telegraphic instructions to the regional
directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Broth-
erhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point,
but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick
leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal man-
agers.
Decision. Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that under past practice the employee in ques-
tion is not entitled to pay for time lost account of sickness.
DECISION NO. 870.-DOCKET 1244.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of H. H. Clayton and W. C. Hefner, yard
clerks, Weston, W. Va., for reimbursement of money deducted in
March, 1921, to cover vacation allowed in the year 1919.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 871.-DOCKET 1488.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to E. C. Eisner, exercising sen-
iority to position in office of auditor of disbursements.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having agreed to withdraw
same from further consideration by the Labor Board, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 872.-DOCKET 1635.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rule 66, clerks' national agreement, to
positions paid on piecework basis.
Decision. This case is removed from the docket and the file closed
in accordance with the understanding reached between the employees
and the carrier at hearing conducted by the Labor Board.
DECISIONS.
249
DECISION NO. 873.-DOCKET 802.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question.-Shall the supervisory agency, Las Animas, Colo., be
included within the scope of the agreement between the carrier and
the Order of Railroad Telegraphers and be subject to the provisions
thereof?
Statement. During the negotiations between the representatives
of the telegraphers and the carrier in October, 1919, it was agreed
that the agency at Las Animas was, in accordance with the pro-
visions of Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, properly in-
cluded within the scope of the telegraphers' agreement, and it was
thereupon included in an agreement made November 1, 1919. The
rate of the position after the application of Decision No. 2 was $1.035
per hour. Effective September 10, 1920, the position was classified
as supervisory agency at rate of $255 per month.
The employees state that in conference in October, 1919, the ques-
tion of whether or not Las Animas should be considered supervisory
was given full consideration, and it was agreed that the position was
one which, under the provisions of Supplement No. 13 to General
Order No. 27, was properly included in the telegraphers' agreement.
Section (a), Article II, of said agreement provides that-
The entering of employees in the positions occupied in the service or chang-
ing classification or work shall not operate to establish a less favorable rate of
pay or condition of employment than is herein provided.
The employees contend that the carrier has violated the agreement
in eliminating the position in question therefrom and changing the
classification to establish a less favorable condition of employment.
Employees further contend that the carrier also violated the agree-
ment in failing to advertise the position in accordance with sec-
tion (b), Article VI, thereof.
The carrier states that on August 5, 1920, a letter was addressed
to the general chairman of the telegraphers' organization stating that
the force at Las Animas was sufficient to relieve the agent of routine
work, and 30 days' notice was thereby served upon the committee as
required by Article XIII of the agreement that the agency should
be placed on a supervisory basis. Under date of August 9, the gen-
eral chairman replied that the organization was agreeable to classify-
ing the agency as supervisory, but felt that it should be included in
the agreement as a supervisory agency.
The carrier contends that the agreement between the carrier and
the employees does not now and never has included supervisory
agencies, as they are considered in the official class and were so recog
nized by the Director General of Railroads in all wage orders issued
during the period of Federal control; furthermore, that the teleg-
raphers have admitted that it was proper to classify Las Animas
station as a supervisory agency and that no evidence has been sub-
mitted since notice was served to indicate that that classification was
not proper. The carrier further contends that section (a), Article II,
of telegraphers' agreement has not been violated, as a less favorable
rate of pay or condition of employment has not been established by
250
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
making the agency at Las Animas supervisory, and that the action
taken is in strict adherence to the orders of the Railroad Adminis-
tration and the rules of the agreement with the telegraphers.
It is admitted by the employees that in negotiations in November,
1919, supervisory agents were not included in the agreement, and it
further appears that under date of August 9, 1920, the employees
advised the carrier of their willingness to consider this station a
supervisory agency, with the understanding that it would remain in
the agreement as such.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the station in question
shall not be included within the scope of the agreement between the
carrier and employees in telegraph service, nor subject to the pro-
visions thereof.
Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 874.-DOCKET 834.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Question. Claim of R. J. FitzGerald, clerk, Seventh Street Sta-
tion, St. Louis, Mo., for pay for time absent from duty account of
death of his brother.
Statement. Rule 2 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees reads as follows:
The rules of this agreement shall supersede and be substituted for all rules
of existing agreements, practices, and working conditions in conflict herewith;
provided that rules of existing agreements dealing with conditions of employ-
ment not specifically provided for herein shall remain in effect and be recog-
nized as addenda to this agreement by the several railroads which negotiated
such rules.
Under date of September 10, 1920, the carrier issued the following
notice to the representative of the employees in clerical and station
service:
In case there might be any misunderstanding on the part of any of the em-
ployees whom you represent, I hope that you will have it distinctly understood
that any employee absent from duty for personal reasons will not be carried
on the pay roll during the period they are absent.
Decision.—The Labor Board reaffirms its direction in previous de-
cisions that pending decisions of the board, orders, agreements, and
decisions of the United States Railroad Administration shall remain
in effect unless or until changed by mutual agreement between the
employees and the carrier, or as provided in the transportation act,
1920.
It appears that the claim presented by the employees named in
this dispute has not been considered in conference by the employees
and the carrier on a basis of the practice in effect prior to Federal
control. The Labor Board therefore remands this dispute to the
employees and the carrier for consideration on the basis of the past
practice, and in the event of failure to agree thereon it may be re-
DECISIONS.
251
submitted for decision. This decision is based upon the rules of the
clerks' national agreement, and is not to be construed as indicating
the attitude of the Labor Board on the question of pay for time
absent account of personal reasons.
DECISION NO. 875.-DOCKET 891.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Question.-Claim of John L. Rich, clerk, freight station, Kansas
City, Mo., for pay for time lost account of illness.
Statement. The national agreement between the Director Gen-
eral of Railroads and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees does not
contain any specific rule in regard to vacations or pay for time lost
on account of sickness, but under date of January 30, 1920, the di-
rector, division of operation, United States Railroad Administration,
issued the following instructions to regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
The employees contend that prior to Federal control it was the
practice of the carrier to pay employees for time absent on account
of sickness where no additional expense was incurred by the carrier;
that in accordance with the instructions quoted above this practice
should not have been rescinded; and that under said practice the
employee named herein is entitled to pay for the period he was
absent.
The carrier states that the question of pay for time absent on ac-
count of sickness was discussed with the representatives of the
employees at the conference held in accordance with Decision No. 119
and that they were unable to reach an agreement on this question, and
that inasmuch as the question was before the board they did not deem
it necessary to participate in the presentation of this particular
claim; furthermore, that the Labor Board decided in Decision No.
309, an analogous case, that under the past practice of the carrier
as to paying employees for time lost account of sickness, the em-
ployee named therein was not entitled to pay for the period of her
absence.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that it was the prac-
tice of the carrier in question to pay employees for time lost on
account of sickness under certain circumstances or conditions. Un-
der date of September 10, 1920, the carrier issued the following
notice to the representative of the employees in clerical service:
In case there might be a misunderstanding on the part of any of the employees
whom you represent, I hope that you will have it distinctly understood that
any employee absent from duty for personal reasons will not be carried on the
pay roll during the period they are absent.
20936°-23-17
252
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board has heretofore decided that, pending
decisions by the board, the instructions of the director, division of
operation, United States Railroad Administration, herein quoted,
shall remain in effect.
It appears that the claim presented by the employee named in
this dispute has not been considered in conference by the employees
and the carrier on a basis of the practice which was continued in
effect by the orders of the United States Railroad Administration,
above quoted. The Labor Board therefore remands this dispute to
the employees and the carrier for consideration on the basis of the
past practice, and in the event of failure to agree thereon it may be
resubmitted for decision.
This decision is based upon the rules of the national agreement
and the above-quoted instructions of the director, division of opera-
tion, United States Railroad Administration, and is not to be con-
strued as indicating the attitude of the Labor Board on the question
of pay for time lost account of sickness, remanded to the employees
and the carrier in Decision No. 630.
DECISION NO. 876.-DOCKET 892.-
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Question.-Claim of John J. Daly, clerk, Seventh Street Station,
St. Louis, Mo., for pay for time lost on account of sickness.
Statement. The national agreement between the Director General
of Railroads and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees does not contain
any specific rule in regard to vacations or pay for time lost on account
of sickness but under date of January 30, 1920, the director, division
of operation, United States Railroad Administration, issued the fol-
lowing instructions to regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
The employees contend that prior to Federal control it was the
practice of the carrier to pay employees for time absent on account
of sickness where no additional expense was incurred by the carrier;
that in accordance with the instructions quoted above this practice
should not have been rescinded; and that under said practice the
employee named herein is entitled to pay for the period he was absent.
The carrier states that the question of pay for time absent on ac-
count of sickness was discussed with the representatives of the em-
ployees at the conference held in accordance with Decision No. 119
and that they were unable to reach an agreement on this question,
and that inasmuch as the question was before the board they did not
DECISIONS.
253
deem it necessary to participate in the presentation of this particular
claim; furthermore, that the Labor Board decided in Decision No.
309, an analogous case, that under the past practice of the carrier
as to paying employees for time lost account of sickness the employee
named therein was not entitled to pay for the period of her absence.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that it was the prac-
tice of the carrier in question to pay employees for time lost on
account of sickness under certain circumstances or conditions. Un-
der date of September 10, 1920, the carrier issued the following notice
to the representative of the employees in clerical service.
In case there might be a misunderstanding on the part of any of the employees
whom you represent, I hope that you will have it distinctly understood that
any employee absent from duty for personal reasons will not be carried on the
pay roll during the period they are absent.
Decision.—The Labor Board has heretofore decided that, pending
decisions by the board, the instructions of the director, division of
operation, United States Railroad Administration, herein quoted,
shall remain in effect.
It appears that the claim presented by the employee named in
this dispute has not been considered in conference by the employees
and the carrier on a basis of the practice which was continued in
effect by the orders of the United States Railroad Administration,
above quoted. The Labor Board therefore remands this dispute to
the employees and the carrier for consideration on the basis of the
past practice, and, in the event of failure to agree thereon, it may
be resubmitted for decision.
This decision is based upon the rules of the national agreement
and the above-quoted instructions of the director, division of opera-
tion, United States Railroad Administration, and is not to be con-
strued as indicating the attitude of the Labor Board on the ques-
tion of pay for time lost account of sickness, remanded to the em-
ployees and the carrier in Decision No. 630.
DECISION NO. 877.-DOCKET 895.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Question.-Claim of R. M. Epps, clerk, office of general store-
keeper, Springfield, Mo., for pay for time absent from duty on
account of illness.
Statement. The national agreement between the Director General
of Railroads and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees does not contain
any specific rule in regard to vacations or pay for time lost on
account of sickness, but under date of January 30, 1920, the director,
division of operation, United States Railroad Administration, issued
the following instructions to regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express,
254
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on
this point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations
and sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Fed-
eral managers.
The employees contend that prior to Federal control it was the
practice of the carrier to pay employees for time absent on account
of sickness where no additional expense was incurred by the car-
rier; that in accordance with the instructions quoted above this
practice should not have been rescinded; and that under said prac-
tice the employee named herein is entitled to pay for the period he
was absent.
The carrier states that the question of pay for time absent on
account of sickness was discussed with the representatives of the
employees at the conference held in accordance with Decision No.
119 and that they were unable to reach an agreement on this ques-
tion, and that inasmuch as the question was before the board they
did not deem it necessary to participate in the presentation of this
particular claim; furthermore, that the Labor Board decided in
Decision No. 309, an analogous case, that under the past practice
of the carrier as to paying employees for time lost account of sick-
ness, the employee named therein was not entitled to pay for the
period of her absence.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that it was the prac-
tice of the carrier in question to pay employees for time lost on ac-
count of sickness under certain circumstances or conditions. Under
date of September 10, 1920, the carrier issued the following notice to
the representative of the employees in clerical service:
In case there might be a misunderstanding on the part of any of the em-
ployees whom you represent, I hope that you will have it distinctly understood
that any employee absent from duty for personal reasons will not be carried
on the pay roll during the period they are absent,
Decision. The Labor Board has heretofore decided that, pending
decisions by the board, the instructions of the director, division of
operation, United States Railroad Administration, herein quoted,
shall remain in effect.
It appears that the claim presented by the employee named in this
dispute has not been considered in conference by the employees and
the carrier on a basis of the practice which was continued in effect
by the orders of the United States Railroad Administration, above
quoted. The Labor Board therefore remands this dispute to the
employees and the carrier for consideration on the basis of the past
practice, and in the event of failure to agree thereon it may be re-
submitted for decision.
This decision is based upon the rules of the national agreement
and the above-quoted instructions of the director, division of opera-
tion, United States Railroad Administration, and is not to be con-
strued as indicating the attitude of the Labor Board on the question
of pay for time lost account of sickness which was remanded to
the employees and the carrier in Decision No. 630.
DECISIONS.
255
DECISION NO. 878.-DOCKET 896.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Question.-Claim of H. P. Batchelder, clerk, freight station,
Kansas City, Mo., for pay for time lost on account of sickness,
Statement. The national agreement between the Director General
of Railroads and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees does not contain
any specific rule in regard to vacations or pay for time lost on ac-
count of sickness, but under date of January 30, 1920, the director,
division of operation, United States Railroad Administration,
issued the following instructions to regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the National Agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
The employees contend that prior to Federal control it was the
practice of the carrier to pay employees for time absent on account
of sickness where no additional expense was incurred by the carrier;
that in accordance with the instructions quoted above this practice
should not have been rescinded; and that under said practice the
employee named herein is entitled to pay for the period he was
absent.
The carrier states that the question of pay for time absent on ac-
'count of sickness was discussed with the representatives of the em-
ployees at the conference held in accordance with Decision No. 119
and that they were unable to reach an agreement on this question,
and that inasmuch as the question was before the board they did not
deem it necessary to participate in the presentation of this particular
claim; furthermore, that the Labor Board decided in Decision No.
309, an analogous case, that under the past practice of the carrier
as to paying employees for time lost account of sickness, the employee
named therein was not entitled to pay for the period of her absence.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that it was the prac-
tice of the carrier in question to pay employees for time lost on ac-
count of sickness under certain circumstances or conditions. Under
date of September 10, 1920, the carrier issued the following notice
to the representative of the employees in clerical service:
In case there might be a misunderstanding on the part of any of the em-
ployees whom you represent, I hope that you will have it distinctly understood
that any employee absent from duty for personal reasons will not be carried
on the pay roll during the period they are absent.
Decision. The Labor Board has heretofore decided that, pend-
ing decisions by the board, the instructions of the director, division
of operation, United States Railroad Administration, herein quoted,
shall remain in effect.
It appears that the claim presented by the employee named in this
dispute has not been considered in conference by the employees and
256
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the carrier on a basis of the practice which was continued in effect
by the orders of the United States Railroad Administration, above
quoted. The Labor Board, therefore, remands this dispute to the
employees and the carrier for consideration on the basis of the past
practice, and in the event of failure to agree thereon it may be re-
submitted for decision.
This decision is based upon the rules of the national agreement and
the above-quoted instructions of the director, division of operation,
United States Railroad Administration, and is not to be construed
as indicating the attitude of the Labor Board on the question of pay
for time lost account of sickness, which was remanded to the em-
ployees and the carrier in Decision No. 630.
DECISION NO. 879.-DOCKET 901.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Question.-Claim of M. C. Anderson, clerk, freight station, Kan-
sas City, Mo., for pay for time lost account of sickness.
Statement. The national agreement between the Director General
of Railroads and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees does not contain
any specific rule in regard to vacations or pay for time lost on ac-
count of sickness, but under date of January 30, 1920, the director,
division of operation, United States Railroad Administration, issued
the following instructions to original directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations
and sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
The employees contend that prior to Federal control it was the
practice of the carrier to pay employees for time absent on account
of sickness where no additional expense was incurred by the carrier;
that in accordance with the instructions quoted above this practice
should not have been rescinded; and that under said practice the
employee named herein is entitled to pay for the period he was
absent.
The carrier states that the question of pay for time absent on ac-
count of sickness was discussed with the representatives of the em-
ployees at the conference held in accordance with Decision No. 119
and that they were unable to reach an agreement on this question,
and that inasmuch as the question was before the board they did not
deem it necessary to participate in the presentation of this particular
claim, furthermore that the Labor Board decided in Decision No. 309,
an analogous case, that under the past practice of the carrier as to
paying employees for the time lost account of sickness, the employee
named therein was not entitled to pay for the period of her absence.
DECISIONS.
257
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that it was the prac-
tice of the carrier in question to pay employees for time lost on ac-
count of sickness under certain circumstances or conditions. Under
date of September 10, 1920, the carrier issued the following notice
to the representative of the employees in clerical service:
In case there might be a misunderstanding on the part of any of the employees
whom you represent, I hope that you will have it distinctly understood that
any employee absent from duty for personal reasons will not be carried on the
pay roll during the period they are absent.
Decision. The Labor Board has heretofore decided that, pending
decisions by the board, the instructions of the director, division of
operation, United States Railroad Administration, herein quoted,
shall remain in effect.
It appears that the claim presented by the employees named in this
dispute has not been considered in conference by the employees and
the carrier on a basis of the practice which was continued in effect
by the orders of the United States Railroad Administration above
quoted. The Labor Board therefore remands this dispute to the
employees and the carrier for consideration on the basis of the past
practice, and in the event of failure to agree thereon it may be re-
submitted for decision.
This decision is based upon the rules of the national agreement and
the above-quoted instructions of the director, division of operation,
United States Railroad Administration, and is not to be construed
as indicating the attitude of the Labor Board on the question of pay
for time lost account of sickness which was remanded to the em-
ployees and the carrier in Decision No. 630.
DECISION NO. 880.-DOCKET 1044.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of A. Grubbs, transferman,
Dallas, Tex.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 881.-DOCKET 1049.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of the carrier to change
the starting time of assignment of two employees at Deshler, Ohio,
from 12 midnight to 1.30 a. m.
258
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. The starting time of assignment of C. W. Rayle and
C. E. Zurnell, employees of the carrier, at Deshler, was changed
from 12 midnight to 1.30 a. m.
The employees contend that the changing of the starting time
of the employees named from 12 midnight to 1.30 a. m. is in viola-
tion of rule 53 of agreement between the employees and the carrier,
effective February 15, 1920, reading as follows:
Where three consecutive shifts are worked covering the 24-hour period, no
shift will have a starting time after 12 o'clock midnight and before 5 a. m.
The employees further contend that where employees are contin-
uously engaged during the entire 24-hour period, the starting of an
assignment between 12 o'clock midnight and 5 a. m. for any such
employees is in conflict with rule 53; furthermore, that the starting
of employees' assignments between the hours of 12 midnight and 5
a. m. works an unjustifiable hardship upon the employees.
The carrier states that rule 53 applies to employees who work in
three-shift positions; that the employees referred to in this dispute
are not so assigned; and that therefore the action of the carrier in
changing the assignment of the employees named from 12 midnight
to 1.30 a. m. was not a violation of said rule.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that platform men at
the station named are not assigned to three-shift positions as re-
ferred to in rule 53, but that the service performed by said employees
is continuous throughout the 24-hour period-there being from one
to three platform men on duty at all times.
Decision.-Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 882-DOCKET 1065.
Chicago Ill., April 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper application of Decision No. 2
to positions held by L. E. Jenison, Hazel Nelson, and Temperance
Davis.
Statement. The employees named above are employed as clerks
in the office of the superintendent of telegraph at Denver, Colo., and
on December 31, 1919, the rates of their positions were as follows:
L. E. Jenison_
Hazel Nelson__
*
Temperance Davis_
On February 29, 1920, the rates were as follows:
L. E. Jenison_.
Hazel Nelson__
Temperance Davis
-per month $119
_do____
_do__
100
95
-per month
-per day__
__do__
$127.93
4. 216
4.005
In applying the increases provided in Decision No. 2, the carrier
established the following rates of pay:
L. E. Jenison_
Hazel Nelson__
Temperance Davis-
per month
-per day__
__do____
$142.93
4. 96
4.77
DECISIONS.
259.
The employees contend that under the proper application of
Decision No. 2, the rates of these employees should have been in-
creased to $6.06, $5.25, and $5.10 per day, respectively, by the addi-
tion of $1.04 per day to the rate of pay in effect on February 29,
1920; and request that said positions be paid on a daily basis and
employees reimbursed for the difference between the wages they
have received and the wages they would have received under the
proper application of Decision No. 2.
The carrier states that there are four employees in the office in
question, including the chief clerk who is excepted under the agree-
ment with the clerks' organization, who are the joint employees of
the carrier and Western Union Telegraph Co. The total compensa-
tion of these employees is carried on the pay rolls of the carrier and
one-half of same billed against the Western Union Telegraph Co.
The carrier further states that effective January 1, 1920, the
Western Union Telegraph Co. increased the wages of its employees
15 per cent and requested that this increase be added to their pro-
portion of the monthly compensation of these joint employees, which
was equivalent to a 7 per cent increase in the monthly rates in ef-
fect on December 31, 1919. The national agreement of the clerks'
organization, effective January 1, 1920, provides in rule 66, a method
for converting the rates of all clerks covered thereby from a monthly
to a daily basis. The conversion of the rates in accordance with the
provisions of rule 66 established the following rates of pay:
L. E. Jenison.
Hazel Nelson_.
Temperance Davis_.
-per month__ $127.93
-per day__ 4.216
.__do____ 4.005
When Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board was issued effective May
1, 1920, it was the carrier's intention to add one-half of the increase
to the monthly or daily rate of pay of each of the above-specified
employees, but as the increases provided by Decision No. 2, when
reduced to a percentage basis, were slightly greater than the increase
granted by the Western Union Telegraph Co., the carrier applied
the full increase to the rates in effect January 1, 1920, prior to the
application of the increase granted by the telegraph company for
the reason that it brought about a slightly greater compensation than
if each company applied the respective increases to the one-half
proportion of the monthly rate. The rates of pay thus produced,
effective May 1, 1920, were as follows:
L. E. Jenison_.
Hazel Nelson_.
Temperance Davis.
-per month_- $149. 00
per day 4.96
_do____ 4.77
The carrier contends that to apply to these joint employees the
increases granted by the Western Union Telegraph Co. and by the
carrier to their own exclusive employees, would constitute a dis-
crimination against the exclusive employees of the carrier and the
telegraph company. The carrier also states that these employees
have been amply provided for and that the telegraph company has
objected to approving bills for one-half of the total wages of these
joint employees because the carrier has increased their compensa-
tion more than 50 per cent of the increase authorized by Decision
No. 2.
260
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the full amount of the
increase provided in Decision No. 2 for the classes of employees
named herein shall be added to the rates in effect 12.01 a. m.,
March 1, 1920.
DECISION NO. 883.-DOCKET 475-10-176.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. New York & Long Branch
Railroad.
Question.-Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules for the
government of train dispatchers.
Decision. The parties to this dispute have requested that it be
withdrawn from further consideration by the Labor Board. The
case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 884.-DOCKET 475-10-11.
Chicago, Ill., April 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to the negotiation of rules
governing working conditions of train dispatchers.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised that the employees and
the carrier have reached a mutually satisfactory understanding and
request that the dispute be withdrawn from further consideration
by the Labor Board. The case is therefore removed from the docket
and file closed.
DECISION NO. 885.-DOCKET 1263.
Chicago, Ill., April 15, 1922.
Petition of Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad for Rehearing on
Docket No. 1263, Decision No. 825.
Question. This decision is upon the application of the Cincin-
nati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad for rehearing on Docket 1263,
Decision No. 825.
Decision.—The Labor Board, after due consideration of the mo-
tion of the carrier named for a rehearing of the dispute herein, over-
rules said motion and declines to reopen said case.
DECISION NO. 886.-DOCKET 408.
Chicago, Ill., April 19, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Interstate Railroad Co.
Question. This is a proceeding under section 313 of the trans-
portation act, 1920, to ascertain and determine whether or not the
DECISIONS.
261
above-named carrier has violated Decision No. 528 of the Railroad
Labor Board.
Statement.-S. B. Arwood, switchman, and H. E. Silvers, fireman,
were dismissed from the service of the carrier because in response
to the requests of the chief executives of their organizations they
had furnished certain information relative to the status of wage
questions on that line-the chief executives having been previously
asked for said information by the Labor Board. Messrs. Arwood
and Silvers were the general chairmen of their respective organiza-
tions on said road.
It appeared in the evidence in that case that the officials of the
carrier obtained a copy of the message sent by said employees, and
thereupon called the two employees to the offices of the carrier and
informed them that Mr. Miller, president of the road, had ordered
their discharge. On the following day the two employees were again
called to the office, and an endeavor was made by the officials of the
company to secure from them a pledge that they would not in the
future take up any similar questions with the executives of their
organizations. Messrs. Arwood and Silvers declined to make such
promise and were thereupon discharged from the service. The chair-
man of another organization, called to the office at the same time and
for the same purpose, did make such promise and was retained in
the service.
A formal dispute was filed with the Labor Board by the Brother-
hood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen, involving the grievance of said employees.
The carrier refused to appear before the board at the hearing of
said dispute, and in a letter to the board said, "We do not deal with
our employees through representatives of labor organizations."
Based upon all the evidence in the case, the Labor Board rendered
its Decision No. 528, sustaining the contention of said employees
that their discharge had been unwarranted and holding that they
should be restored to the service and compensated for time lost.
Subsequently the board upon receipt of information that its De-
cision No. 528 was being violated by the carrier, instituted this
pro-
ceeding under section 313 of the transportation act, 1920, as afore-
said.
Opinion. In this proceeding the carrier again refused to appear
before the Labor Board, and in a letter from its attorney, Mr. J.
F. Bullitt, Philadelphia, Pa., made the following statement:
I beg to state that the Interstate Railroad Co. is of opinion that the Labor
Board has only advisory powers in matters of this kind.
The question thus presented in this case is a most important one.
Here is a carrier which arbitrarily and unfairly denies to its em-
ployees the simple right to perform their duties as members of their
organizations, which is equivalent to a denial of their right to be-
come members of such organizations. This action is taken in the
teeth of the transportation act passed by the Congress of the United
States which expressly recognizes the right of employees to organize
and to function as organizations.
The fact that this carrier is a small road down in the Virginia
mountains makes its conduct none the less reprehensible. It con-
nects with other carriers and the irritating effect of its disregard for
262
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the rights of its men and for the authority of the law extends to em-
ployees on other roads.
Decision.-The Railroad Labor Board therefore decides that the
Interstate Railroad Co. and its responsible officials have violated
Decision No. 528 of the board as hereinbefore indicated.
DECISION NO. 887.-DOCKET 17.
Chicago, Ill., April 19, 1922.
Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America (Local No. 40 of San Francisco);
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (Local No. 35 of San Francisco);
Ferry Boatmen's Union of California v. Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.;
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail-
way System; Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. This decision relates to the undecided portion of
Docket 17, controversy between the organizations of employees and
the carriers named above, and is applicable only to the question of
rules governing working conditions for the employees on railroad-
operated floating equipment in the port of San Francisco, Calif.
Statement.-Evidence was submitted in the case by the interested
parties at hearing on wages and working conditions held on August
31, September 1, 3, and 4, 1920. Decision No. 20 (Docket 17), dated
November 23, 1920, disposed of dispute regarding wages, but the
Labor Board did not undertake therein to consider or change the
rules and working conditions then in existence which it understood
at that time, as it does now, are those in force by the authority of
the United States Railroad Administration.
Decision. Due to the lapse of time since this question was heard,
and the possibility that conditions to-day may be materially changed
from those existing in 1920, together with the fact that since this
question was submitted there have been many decisions on working
conditions covering large groups of employees, the board deems it
advisable to remand this question to the interested parties, with the
request that they again confer on the subject matter of the dispute,
and endeavor to reach an agreement as to rules governing conditions
of service. Should they fail to reach an agreement they are requested
to make a joint submission of the disputed questions, if possible,
otherwise ex parte submissions, and furnish the Labor Board with
15 copies.
It is suggested that the submission, if made, be on paper 17 by 20
inches, so ruled as to leave a 1-inch margin on the left side for bind-
ing, a 1-inch column for "article number," a 5-inch column for rules
proposed by employees and argument in support thereof, a 5-inch
column for rules agreed upon, and a 5-inch column for rules proposed
by carrier and argument in support thereof, in accordance with the
subjoined form:

Article
No.
Rules proposed by
employees.
Rules agreed upon.
(1 inch.) | (1 inch.)
(5inches.)
(5 inches.)
Rules proposed by
carrier.
(5 inches.)
DECISIONS.
263
DECISION NO. 888.-DOCKET 1414.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Herman S. Wood, yard
clerk, Paducah, Ky.
Decision. Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 889.-DOCKET 607.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Seniority of Elliott C. Goeller, machinist, who for-
merly occupied a supervisory position.
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from the com-
plainant organization that the board's file in connection with this
case may be considered closed. The docket is accordingly closed.
DECISION NO. 890.-DOCKET 1325.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Question. Under the provisions of rule 6, Addendum No. 6 to
Decision No. 222, shall time and one-half be allowed an employee
who is required to work on Saturday when the shops are bulletined
to work Monday to Friday, inclusive?
Decision. Yes. This is time outside of bulletined hours and
should therefore be compensated on the basis of time and one-half.
DECISION NO. 891.-DOCKET 1499.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of inside hostlers' rate of pay to certain
roundhouse laborers from March 1, 1920.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence submitted by the respec-
tive parties to this dispute indicates that prior to September 15,
1920, the carrier had never maintained, recognized, or paid inside
hostlers at Muskogee. On September 15, 1920, the carrier entered
into an agreement with the firemen's organization which provided
for the maintenance of position of inside hostler at Muskogee. In-
264
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
side hostlers were accordingly put on and assigned to the perform-
ance of certain service incumbent upon that position, some of which
the management claims the laborers could not and were never re-
quired to perform.
After the assignment of the inside hostlers at Muskogee, certain
roundhouse laborers submitted claim to the carrier for the rate of in-
side hostler from March 1, 1920, stating that they were required as a
part of their duties to handle engines in and out of the roundhouse.
This question was not raised until after the assignment of inside
hostlers to Muskogee. Evidence filed by the carrier shows that less
than 25 per cent of the laborers' time was consumed in moving loco-
motives, the balance of their time being consumed in roundhouse
laborers' work; further, that the assignment of inside hostlers, in
accordance with the agreement with the firemen's organization, had
no effect on the status of the roundhouse laborers in question, they
being retained in the service at Muskogee as roundhouse laborers
under which designation and rating they had previously been car-
ried.
Decision. The claim of the laborers for rating as inside hostlers
from March 1, 1920, is denied.
DECISION NO. 892.-DOCKET 880.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway
Co.; Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Question.-(a) What rules governing working conditions shall be
incorporated in agreement between the Toledo & Ohio Central Rail-
way Co. and the American Federation of Railroad Workers govern-
ing carmen and blacksmiths?
(b) What rules governing working conditions shall be incorpo-
rated in agreement between the Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
and the American Federation of Railroad Workers governing all of
the so-called shop crafts?
Decision. (a) The rules agreed upon in conference pursuant to
the issuance of Decision No. 119 affecting blacksmiths and carmen
shall be incorporated in agreement governing these classes of em-
ployees.
With reference to rules upon which no agreement could be reached
in conference and which were submitted to the Labor Board for
decision, the board decides that the rules as shown in Decision No.
222 and addenda thereto corresponding to the rules in dispute shall
be incorporated into agreement or agreements in so far as said rules
pertain to these crafts.
(b) The rules agreed upon in conference pursuant to the issuance
of Decision No. 119 affecting all shop crafts on the Zanesville &
Western Railway shall be incorporated in agreement covering these
classes of employees.
With reference to the rules upon which no agreement could be
reached in conference and which were submitted to the Labor Board
for decision, the board decides that the rules as shown in Decision
DECISIONS.
265
No. 222 and addenda thereto, corresponding to the rules in dispute,
shall be incorporated into agreement or agreements between the par-
ties to this dispute.
DECISION NO. 893.-DOCKETS 476 AND 1311.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Shall the provisions of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto be applied to car-department employees on the Wheeling &
Lake Erie Railway in the manner provided therein and from the
effective date therein specified?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence filed with the Labor Board
in connection with this case indicates that on May 23, 1921, the man-
agement issued a notice to car-department employees represented by
the American Federation of Railroad Workers requesting a confer-
ence for the purpose of considering certain changes in rules and
working conditions then in effect, and that on June 23, 1921, a con-
ference was held, at which time certain rules were agreed upon and
certain rules not agreed upon, the disagreed rules being referred to
the Labor Board for decision.
The Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. was listed in Decision No.
119 as a party to the dispute resulting in the issuance of that deci-
sion, and the American Federation of Railroad Workers was among
other organizations listed in Addendum No. 1 to Decision No. 119,
which addendum specified that said organizations were parties to
the dispute and that Decision No. 119 was applicable to said organi-
zations as fully and effectively as if named in the original decision.
Upon the issuance of Decision No. 222 the management of the
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. applied the provisions specified
therein to all classes of employees enumerated therein regardless of
organization affiliation, the carrier taking the position that it would
have been inconsistent to have continued more favorable working
conditions to employees who were members of the American Federa-
tion of Railroad Workers and to have denied the more favorable
conditions to employees who were members of other organizations
who in some instances worked in the same shop and in other in-
stances worked in the same gang.
The carrier contends that to establish or continue such practice.
would not only be a discrimination against the latter class of em-
ployees but would create dissension in the ranks of the employees.
It is the contention of the employees that the working conditions
in effect immediately prior to the negotiations conducted with the
carrier should remain in full force and effect until superseded or
amended by a specific decision of the Labor Board upon the dis-
puted rules submitted to it by said American Federation of Rail-
road Workers and the management of the Wheeling & Lake Erie
Railway Co., and that the car-department employees should be reim-
bursed to the extent that they have suffered a wage loss account of
266
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the alleged improper application of the provisions of Decision No.
222.
Opinion.-Based upon the evidence submitted and the circum-
stances cited in this case, it is the opinion of the Labor Board that
it would have been irregular and would undoubtedly have caused
considerable dissatisfaction to have established different working
conditions for employees who had previously enjoyed the same work-
ing conditions and who are at present and have been in the past con-
sidered in the same general class-namely, the shop crafts.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides that the provisions
of Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto shall apply to the car work-
ers on the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway in the same manner and
from the same effective date as if they had been included in original
Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto.
DECISION OF 894.-DOCKET 1454.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Texas & Pacific Railway.
Question.-Shall J. P. Carnahan be paid the foreman's rate from
February 1 to December 16, 1920, inclusive?
Statement.-Written evidence was submitted in connection with the
case, which was supplemented by oral presentation. It is shown that
Mr. Carnahan, who was employed as a bridge and building carpen-
ter, was placed in charge of a gang of laborers on February 1, 1920,
which was organized to do special work, such as installing cattle
guards and wing fences. When placed in charge of this gang he
was classified as assistant foreman and paid 5 cents per hour in excess
of the rate he received as bridge and building carpenter.
The rate paid bridge and building foremen was in excess of the
rate paid Mr. Carnahan as assistant foreman.
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Carnahan should
have been classified and rated as a bridge and building foreman
during the period he was in charge of the gang when, it is alleged, he
was required to supervise work usually performed by bridge and
building gangs. It is contended by the employees that Mr. Carnahan
had complete charge of the gang in question and performed all of
the duties of a bridge and building foreman, such as keeping the
time, making requisitions for tools and material, and making reports
to the bridge and building supervisor, and assumed responsibility
regarding the safety of the employees and the efficiency of the work
performed, subject to the orders of the bridge and building super-
visors.
The employees claim that Mr. Carnahan should have been paid the
rate of bridge and building foreman for the period he was in charge
of the gang referred to, and should be reimbursed to the extent he
suffered a wage loss account of being compensated as an assistant
foreman.
The carrier claims that the work performed by the gang over
which Mr. Carnahan had supervision was engaged in the framing
DECISIONS.
267
of wings and the placing of surface guards, which work it is claimed
does not require men of great skill; this was evidenced by the fact
that the gang consisted of laborers, and that the work done by Mr.
Carnahan was far different from that performed by bridge and build-
ing foremen. It is further claimed by the carrier, and not denied by
the employees, that when the gang in question was created the super-
visor of bridges and buildings had an understanding with Mr. Carna-
han that he would take charge as assistant foreman and agreed to
accept the position at the rate of 5 cents per hour in excess of what he
was receiving as bridge carpenter.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that that portion of the dis-
pute affecting the period February 1 to February 29, 1920, is not
within the jurisdiction of the board.
In regard to the remainder of the dispute, it is the decision of the
Labor Board that the supervisory service performed by J. P. Carna-
han was not comparable with the service usually performed by
bridge and building foremen, and therefore sustains the carrier's
position.
DECISION NO. 895.-DOCKET 1324.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Question.-Is Fred Martin entitled to occupy his present position
under the provisions of rules 18 and 31 of the national agreement?
Statement.-The evidence submitted indicates that Mr. Martin
was formerly employed in the Columbus train yards as foreman of
car inspectors for approximately 14 years. This position, however,
was abolished on September 1, 1921, and Mr. Martin was assigned
as car inspector on the first trick, thereby displacing the junior
man, Mr. Harter, on first trick, and he in turn displaced the junior
man on second trick, and so on the displacements continued.
It was agreed, nevertheless, that Mr. Martin should retain his
seniority rights in his craft subdivision, "Other carmen," rule 31,
but conferences have been held between duly authorized representa-
tives of the management and duly authorized representatives of the
organization, and no agreement has been reached as to where the
employee in question should be placed. The carrier contends that
Mr. Martin is entitled to the position he now occupies; and the
organization contends that Mr. Martin should have been assigned to
whatever position was open on his craft, or that he had the right to
displace the junior mechanic on the seniority roster of "Other
carmen."
Opinion. The Labor Board feels that the foreman in question,
whose position was abolished, is entitled to the continuity of his
seniority, dating from the last time he entered the service, and that
when his position was abolished the only seniority rights he could
have exercised would have been to take any vacant position to
which his seniority entitled him. In the event of there being no
vacancies, he would displace the junior man of his craft and class
20936°—23——18
268
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
in accordance with the subdivision set out in rule 31 of the shop
crafts' agreement.
If questions arise as to the inability of employees whose positions
are abolished, as outlined herein, to perform certain classes of work,
a conference should be held between the representatives of the inter-
ested parties in an effort to arrive at a mutual understanding re-
garding the position to which the employee involved should be
assigned.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the procedure outlined
in the foregoing opinion should be followed in determining the posi-
tion to which Fred Martin should be assigned.
Rule 23 should also be given proper consideration, if applicable.
If any change is made in Mr. Martin's assignment, there shall
be no monetary adjustment account of the issuance of this decision.
DECISION NO. 896.-DOCKET 1559.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
+
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Question.-Shall deduction be made in the pay of a monthly-rated
foreman when the gang he supervises is laid off one day per week?
Statement. The submission contained the following joint state-
ment of facts:
Statement of facts.-During the months of February, March, and April the
extra track gang in charge of Foreman Nick Noble, a monthly-rated employee,
was required by the carrier to lay off one day per week to effect necessary
economy, and time was deducted from his pay on the days which the gang
was laid off, as Mr. Noble himself was not required to work on those days.
Section (h), Article V of the national agreement of the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, reads as fol-
lows:
Supervisory employees: (h) Employees whose responsibilities and/or
supervisory duties require service in excess of the working hours or days as-
signed for the general force, will be compensated on a monthly rate to cover
all services rendered, except that when such employees are required to per-
form work which is not a part of their responsibilities or supervisory duties,
on Sunday or in excess of the established working hours, such work will be
paid for on the bases provided in these rules in addition to the monthly rate.
For such employees, now paid on an hourly rate, apply the monthly rate, de-
termined by multiplying the hourly rate by 208. *
Employees' position. Our understanding of section (h), Article V of the
national agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers, places supervisory employees on a monthly
rate for all service rendered instead of paying them on an hourly or daily rate
on the basis of 208 hours. We can not agree with the carrier, who is paying
this class of employees an hourly or daily rate, when the rules of the agree-
ment take this class of employees off an hourly rate and place them on a
monthly rate for service rendered as specified by the above rule and also by a
decision of Adjustment Board No. 3 dated June 28, 1920, covering this carrier.
Therefore, we contend that Foreman Noble should be paid for wages deducted
from his pay for the days he was required to lay off by the carrier, in accord-
ance with the above rule which places all supervisory employees on a monthly
basis.
Carrier's position.-Foreman Noble is classified and paid under section (h),
Article V of the national agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, and he is paid a monthly rate
to compensate him for all services rendered. This section of the agreement
DECISIONS.
269
does not require the carrier to compensate monthly employees for any services
not rendered; furthermore, in Decision No. M-639, Board of Adjustment No. 3,
ruled that monthly-rated employees in addition to their monthly rate must
be paid for all overtime after eight hours and for all work done on Sundays
or holidays.
If, therefore, the monthly-rated employee is entitled to additional compensa-
tion beyond this monthly rate for overtime and Sunday and holiday work, the
railway company is fully justified in deducting from the employee's pay time
not worked within the limits of the regular eight-hour week-day period. The
payment of wages for time not worked or services not performed is not con-
templated in the agreement, and it is expressly prohibited under section (r)
of Article V, which reads: " Except as provided in these rules no compensa-
tion will be allowed for work not performed."
Decision.-(a) If a foreman is compensated on a monthly basis
for all service rendered, not including the excepted service provided
for in section (h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of
the regular working hours or days assigned for the general force, it
is clearly the intent of section (h) of Article V, above quoted, that
such foreman would receive not less than the monthly rate so estab-
lished, provided he was ready and available to perform the service
required.
(b) If a foreman is compensated on a monthly basis and was paid
overtime for work performed after eight hours and all work per-
formed on Sundays and holidays, no valid claim can be made for the
time lost under the provisions of section (h), Article V of the agree-
ment then in effect.
DECISION NO. 897.-DOCKET 1396.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.—The question in dispute is in regard to the claim of
three engine watchmen at Sleepy Eye, Minn., for an hourly basis of
payment and back pay from March 1, 1921.
Statement. The submission contained the following joint state-
ment of facts:
Statement of facts.-Messrs. W. Weisner, J. Lang, L. Bertrand, and R.
Tretbar, engine watchmen, Sleepy Eye, Minn., Minnesota division, were com-
pensated at an hourly rate as of 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, which hourly rate
was increased 10 cents per hour in accordance with the provisions of section 8,
Article III, Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad Labor Board,
effective May 1, 1920.
Effective March 1, 1921, rates of pay for these employees were established at
a monthly rate in accordance with the provisions of section (a-12), Article V
of the national agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, on the basis of the hourly rate in
effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, plus increase of $20.40 per month authorized in
accordance with the provisions of Decision No. 2.
Employees' position.-In the first place we contend that the term "isolated
point" should not apply to a place like Sleepy Eye, Minn., where engines tie
up regularly and several employees are employed at all times in order to
properly handle the engines and make necessary repairs to same.
The provisions of Interpretation No. 2 to Decision No. 2 provide that the
increases established by the provisions of Decision No. 2 are to be applied to
the rates in effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920; therefore, as these employees
were receiving an hourly rate of 37 cents per hour at 12.01 a. m., March 1,
270
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
1920, the carrier increased their rate properly when they applied the 10-cent
per hour increase, as provided in section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2,
making an hourly rate of 47 cents per hour; however, on March 1, 1921, they
saw fit to change these employees to a monthly rate, and in doing so they
used the hourly rate which was in effect prior to the application of the pro-
visions of Decision No. 2 and then added the increase for monthly-paid em-
ployees, as given in section 3, Article XIII of Decision No. 2.
As these employees were receiving an hourly rate at 12.01 a. m., March 1,
1920, we contend that the first method used by the carrier was correct in
allowing these employees the 10-cent per hour increase, as provided for in
section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2; therefore, as they were drawing an
hourly rate of 37 cents per hour prior to the application of Decision No. 2, the
increase of 10 cents per hour, making an hourly rate of 47 cents, should have
remained in effect until July 1,1921, at which time they would have been
reduced 10 cents per hour by the provisions of Decision No. 147, making their
proper hourly rate since that date 37 cents. In accordance therewith we
claim that Messrs. Weissner, Lang, Bertrand, and Tretbar are entitled to
receive back pay from March 1 to July 1, 1921, equal to the difference between
the monthly rate which has been allowed them and the amount they would
have received by figuring their time at the rate of 47 cents per hour, allowing
rate and one-half for overtime, and the difference between the monthly rate
which they received and the amount they would have received at 37 cents per
hour since July 1, 1921.
Carrier's position.-The carrier takes the position that:
The provisions of section (a–12), Article V, of the national agreement of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers, are applicable at points such as Sleepy Eye, Minn., for the reason
that this point is removed from division headquarters, and that the work of
engine watchman does not require continuous or arduous manual labor;
and that
Assuming that the position had been established at a monthly rate as of
12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, the increase granted under the provisions of sec-
tion 8 of Article III, and sections 3 of Article XIII, Decision No. 2, would
have been determined by multiplying the increase of 10 cents per hour by
204 hours, resulting in a monthly increase of $20.40, which increase was
applied to the monthly rate established on the basis of the hourly rate in effect
12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
Decision.-The Labor Board in Decision No. 524 gave its inter-
pretation of section (a-12), Article V of the national agreement of
the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers, which interpretation shall govern in deter-
mining whether or not the position in question should be rated on a
monthly basis. If under such interpretation the position should be
rated on an hourly basis, proper adjustment shall be made for the
period subsequent to March 1, 1921, account of having been paid
on a monthly rated basis.
DECISION NO. 898.-DOCKET 1455.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Gust Kausaulas, pumper, Smithwick, S. Dak.,
for adjustment in rate of pay, based on provisions of section 7.
Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad
Labor Board.
Statement.—The submission contained the following joint state-
ment of facts:
DECISIONS.
271
Statement of facts.-Mr. Kausaulas, pumper, Smithwick, S. Dak., was receiv-
ing an hourly rate of 37 cents as of 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, which rate was
increased to 45 cents on May 1, 1920, in accordance with the provisions of sec-
tion 7, Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad Labor
Board. Effective November 1, 1920, a monthly rate was established on the basis
of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920, plus $20.40, in accordance with
the provisions of section (a-12), Article V of the national agreement of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers, reading as follows:
"Watchmen, etc.: (a-12) Except as otherwise provided in this section, posi-
tions not requiring continuous manual labor, such as track, bridge, and high-
way-crossing watchmen, signalmen at railway noninterlocked crossings, lamp
men, engine watchmen at isolated points, and pumpers, will be paid a monthly
rate to cover all services rendered. This monthly rate shall be based on the
present hours and compensation. If present assigned hours are increased or
decreased, the monthly rate shall be adjusted pro rata as the hours of service
in the new assignment bear to the hours of service in the present assignment,
except that hours above 10, either in new or present assignment, shall be
counted as one and one-half in making adjustments. Nothing herein shall be
construed to permit the reduction of hours for the employees covered by this
section (a-12) below 8 hours per day for 6 days per week. The wages for
new positions shall be in conformity with the wages for positions of similar
kind, class, and hours of service where created.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for individual posi-
tions at busy crossings or other places requiring continuous alertness and
application when agreed to between the management and a committee of
employees. For such excepted positions the foregoing paragraph shall not
apply."
The employees claim that the monthly rate should have been determined by
applying the provisions of section (a-12), Article V of the national agree-
ment of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers to the hourly rate established in accordance with section
7, Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad Labor
Board.
The carrier takes the position that in establishing the monthly rate as de-
scribed in the statement of facts they have complied with the provisions of
section (a-12), Article V of the national agreement of the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, and section 3,
Article XIII, Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad Labor Board.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the carrier was justified
in establishing a monthly rate for the employee in question in ac-
cordance with section (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly
rate should have been predicated upon the hourly rate and assign-
ment in effect at the time such change was made.
The employee in question shall be reimbursed to the extent he has
suffered a wage loss account of the improper application for the
period from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is made.
DECISION NO. 899.-DOCKET 1503.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Controversy regarding the establishment of a monthly
rate of pay for Clarence C. Kelley, engine watchman, in accordance
with section (a-12), Article V of the national agreement of the
272
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers, subsequent to issuance of Decision No. 2.
Statement. The submission contained the following joint state-
ment of facts:
Statement of facts.-Mr. Kelley, engine watchman, Wall Lake, Iowa, was
receiving an hourly rate of 37 cents as of 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, which
rate was increased to 47 cents May 1, 1920, in accordance with the provisions
of section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Rail-
road Labor Board. Effective March 15, 1921, a monthly rate was established
on the basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920, plus $20.40, in
accordance with the provisions of section (a-12), Article V of the national
agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers, reading as follows:
"Watchmen, etc.: (a-12) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
positions not requiring continuous manual labor such as track, bridge, and
highway-crossing watchmen, signalmen at railway noninterlocked crossings,
lamp men, engine watchmen at isolated points, and pumpers, will be paid a
monthly rate to cover all services rendered. This monthly rate shall be based
on the present hours and compensation. If present assigned hours are in-
creased or decreased, the monthly rate shall be adjusted pro rata as the hours
of service in the new assignment bear to the hours of service in the present
assignment except that hours above 10, either in new or present assignment,
shall be counted as one and one-half in making adjustments. Nothing herein
shall be construed to permit the reduction of hours for the employees covered
by this section (a−12) below 8 hours per day for 6 days per week. The wages
for new positions shall be in conformity with the wages for positions of
similar kind, class, and hours of service where created.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for individual po-
sitions at busy crossings or other places requiring continuous alertness and
application, when agreed to between the management and a committee of
employees. For such excepted positions the foregoing paragraph shall not
apply."
The employees claim that the monthly rate should have been determined
by applying the provisions of section (a-12), Article V of the national agree-
ment of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers, to the hourly rate established in accordance with section 8.
Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad Labor
Board.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the carrier was justified
in establishing a monthly rate for the employee in question in ac-
cordance with section (a-12), Article V of the maintenance of way
agreement, but that such monthly rate should have been predicated
upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at the time such change
was made.
The employee in question shall be reimbursed to the extent that
he has suffered a wage loss account of the improper application for
the period from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is made.
DECISION NO. 900.-DOCKET 1061.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Order of Railway Expressmen v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of Messrs. Gray and Lawson, who are employed
at Lawrence, Mass., for overtime on account of sleeping in the office
after completion of their regular assignment.
Statement.-The employees in question, after the performance of
their regular assignment of duty, have been sleeping in the office of
the American Railway Express Co. at that point.
DECISIONS.
273
The employees state that these employees were required to spend
the night at the office at the point named after the expiration of
their regular eight-hour assignment to act as guards of the premises.
and perform certain janitor work. It is further stated that these
employees are subject to discipline or dismissal for absenting them-
selves unless arrangements for filling their places are made, subject
to the approval of the agent. When arrangements are made for em-
ployees to relieve them under such circumstances, they are required
to compensate them for the service.
The employees contend that inasmuch as the employees named are
required to be at the office during specified hours and are required to
perform janitor work and make arrangements to have their places
filled when they desire to lay off and compensate employees who re-
lieve them for the service rendered, they are entitled to pay at the
established overtime rate for all time required to be on duty after
completion of their regular assignment.
The carrier admits that these employees slept in the quarters pro-
vided for their use, but asserts that in accepting their positions they
fully understood that they were expected to avail themselves of the
sleeping quarters provided for them and contends that under the cir-
cumstances the claim for overtime rates or payment of any other
compensation for sleeping on the premises of the carrier is unjusti-
fied; furthermore, that the claim is not supported by any rule in any
agreement or by any other order or decision affecting the employees
involved.
Decision-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 901.-DOCKET 1182.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of Emerson Howells, clerk,
Minooka-Taylor, Pa., to exercise his seniority in connection with
reduction of force.
Decision. At the hearing before the Labor Board the representa-
tives of the employees and the carrier agreed to withdraw this dis-
pute from further consideration by the board.
It is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 902.-DOCKET 438.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Question.-Shall Decision No. 332, which provides for the restora
tion of a differential of 3 cents per hour for certain carpenter fore-
men and carpenters when performing certain classes of work, be
274
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
made retroactive to August 2, 1920, the date on which the payment
of the differential was discontinued by the carrier?
Decision.-Yes.
DECISION NO. 903.-DOCKET 1279.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question. Proper rate of pay for low-voltage signalmen and low-
voltage signal maintainers.
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection.
with this case shows that low-voltage signalmen and low-voltage
signal maintainers on the lines of the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System) were rated in accordance with section 1-A, Article II of
Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27 issued by the United
States Railroad Administration, which reads in part as follows:
SEC. 1-A. For carmen and second-class electrical workers who have had
four or more years' experience and who were on January 1, 1918, receiving less
than 45 cents per hour, establish a basic minimum rate of 45 cents per hour,
and to this minimum basic rate and all other hourly rates of 45 cents and
above, in effect as of January 1, 1918, add 13 cents per hour, establishing a
minimum rate of 58 cents per hour.
Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement No. 4 to General Order No.
27, referred to, reads in part as follows:
The classification of a composite mechanic shall be based upon the preponder-
ating class of work performed, and the rate of pay shall not be less than the
minimum hourly rate of highest rated craft represented in the crafts of which
he is the composite.
Upon receipt of the above interpretation the employees con-
tended that the low-voltage signalmen and the low-voltage signal
maintainers were composite mechanics in accordance with the above
interpretation and should have been paid as provided in section 1,
Article II of Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27-namely,
68 cents per hour instead of 58 cents per hour-in accordance with
section 1-A, Article II of Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27,
herein quoted. Being unable to reach an agreement, a joint sub-
mission was filed with the United States Railroad Administration
setting forth the positions of the respective parties.
On December 20, 1919, the director, division of operation, United
States Railroad Administration, addressed a communication to all
regional directors to the effect that the 4 cents per hour specified in
the so-called national agreement affecting the shop crafts should be
added to the rates of signal-department employees covered by Sup-
plement No. 4 to General Order No. 27, establishing rates of 62 cents
and 72 cents per hour, respectively.
On February 25, 1920, Supplement No. 28 to General Order No. 27
was issued, which reads as follows:
(a) Effective February 1, 1920, signalmen and signal maintainers covered
by the agreement between the Director General of Railroads in respect of
railroads in Federal operation and employees thereon represented by the Broth-
DECISIONS.
275
erhood Railroad Signalmen of America, dated January 22, 1920, who are now
classified and paid in accordance with section 5-A, Article I of Supplement No.
4 to General Order No. 27, shall be paid 68 cents per hour.
(b) This order is without prejudice in the matter of questions arising or
pending as to the proper classification of employees under existing wage orders.
Under the provisions of the above-quoted supplement the signal
department employees covered by section 5-A, Article I of Supple-
ment No. 4 to General Order No. 27, who were rated at 62 cents per
hour were increased to 68 cents per hour, effective February 1, 1920.
The rate of 68 cents per hour for this class of employees was the rate
they were receiving at the termination of Federal control and to
which the increase specified in Decision No. 2-namely, 13 cents
per hour—was added, establishing a rate of 81 cents per hour for low-
voltage signalmen and low-voltage signal maintainers.
On November 2, 1920, the decision of the Director General of
Railroads was received in connection with submission made by the
carrier and the employees on December 8, 1919, previously referred
to. The decision on the question submitted reads as follows:
Decision. The employees in question are properly classified as signal main-
tainers. They perform the duties of composite mechanics and shall be rated
and paid in accordance with Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement No. 4 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27 from the effective date of said supplement.
It was the employees' contention that the above decision provided
for the employees in question the rate of 85 cents per hour, and they
endeavored to have the carrier apply the decision in that manner.
The carrier did not concur in the views of the employees, taking
the position that the employees were a composite of low-voltage line-
men and signal maintainers, and that under their interpretation of
the director general's decision the employees were being properly
compensated.
Article IX of Decision No. 147, issued by the United States Rail-
road Labor Board, authorized a decrease of 8 cents per hour for all
signalmen and signal maintainers, establishing a rate of 73 cents
per hour for the employees involved in this dispute.
The carrier made no change in the rates of the employees after
receipt of the director general's decision, taking the position that
the decision sustained the rate then in effect. The employees ob-
jected to the carrier's interpretation of the director general's de-
cision and the matter was again handled with the United States
Railroad Administration. On September 26, 1921, E. M. Alvord,
assistant to the Director General of Railroads, addressed a joint
communication to the parties at interest, advising in part as follows:
The employees contend that they are composites of mechanics who were rated
at 68 cents per hour, while the carrier states that a check made immediately
upon receipt of the decision indicates that they are not composites of mechanics
who were rated at 68 cents, but possibly they are composites of the linemen's
craft rated at 58 cents per hour.
For your information I would advise that the decision does not specify what
crafts the employees in question are composites of. This is a question of fact
that must be developed between the carrier and employees before any adjust-
ment can be made.
On November 14, 1921, the carrier replied to Mr. Alvord's com-
munication, the second and third paragraphs of which read as fol-
lows:
276
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Pursuant to the suggestion contained in your letter, further conference has
been held with representatives of the employees interested in Southern Pacific
Decision No. 62, and it was agreed that these employees perform the work of
second-class electrical workers and low-voltage linemen.
Their recognition as composite low-voltage linemen, if approved by the
United States Railroad Administration, would have the effect of obligating
the railroad administration to the payment of some $25,000 in back pay for the
nine-month period from May 1, 1919, to February 1, 1920. On your approval
and specific authorization, this account will be adjusted accordingly.
On November 30, 1921, Mr. Alvord replied in part:
This will be your authority to apply the decision in accordance with para-
graphs 2 and 3 of your letter.
At the oral hearing the representatives of the employees indicated
that they were then handling the matter with the United States.
Railroad Administration in an effort to effect a settlement, as they
feel that the decision has been improperly applied.
Decision. (a) Based upon the evidence in this case, the Labor
Board decides that if difference of opinion exists as to the actual
work being performed by these employees, a proper joint investiga-
tion shall be made by the duly authorized representatives of the
carrier and the employees, and a rate of pay established accordingly.
(b) In regard to the application of Decision No. 2, the Labor
Board does not feel that the question is properly before it in that the
matter is still one of dispute between the employees and the United
States Railroad Administration.
If, after definite understanding or ruling from the United States
Railroad Administration, it is the desire of the employees to again
bring the matter to the attention of the Labor Board, this proced-
ure may be followed, after proper compliance with the provisions of
ne transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 904.-DOCKET 1017.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express.
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the application of increases pro-
vided in Decision No. 3 to position held by A. L. Meyer, on-hand
clerk, Fort Worth, Tex.
Statement. The position held by Mr. Meyer, on-hand clerk, Fort
Worth, was increased from $115 to $135 per month and the increase
of $32.64 granted employees in this service by Decision No. 3 was
applied to the rate of $115 per month.
The employees state that there was not enough difference between
the rates of pay of the position of on-hand clerk and other posi-
tions in the department, and that this condition constituted an un-
just inequality which made it necessary for the carrier to increase
the position of on-hand clerk $20 per month in order to secure and
retain the service of a competent employee. The employees further
state that the increase of $20 per month was granted February 25,
1920, effective March 1, 1920, and should not have been absorbed
through the application of Decision No. 3, but that said decision
DECISIONS.
277
should have been added to the rate in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1,
1920-namely, $135 per month.
The carrier states that Decision No. 3 provided for an increase
of $32.64 to the rate of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and
that the rate of pay actually in effect at that time was $115 per
month to which the increase in Decision No. 3 was applied. The
carrier contends that the increase of $20 per month was not made for
the purpose of adjusting an inequality, but was granted, as the em-
ployees admit, for the purpose of securing and retaining the serv-
ice of a competent employee.
It appears that the increase referred to was not granted for the
purpose of adjusting an inequality within the meaning and intent
of Decision No. 3, but the evidence is not clear as to whether or not
the increase of $20 per month was granted prior to 12.01 a. m., March
1, 1920.
Decision. The Labor Board remands this dispute to the em-
ployees and the carrier to determine whether or not the increase
was granted prior to March 1, 1920. If it was granted prior to 12.01
a. m., March 1, 1920, the increase prescribed by Decision No. 3 for
employees in the class of service in which Mr. Meyer is engaged shall
be added to the rate of $135 per month. If the increase was not
granted before 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, the increase granted by
Decision No. 3 shall be added to the rate of $115 per month.
DECISION NO. 905.-DOCKET 1019.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of George Pharazyn, extra employee, Philadel-
phia, Pa., for additional compensation accruing under the applica-
tion of Decision No. 3.
Statement.—Mr. Pharazyn is engaged in handling express ship-
ments at Philadelphia, and is considered by the carrier a casual
or part-time worker and not a bona-fide employee subject to the
orders, decisions, and rules of agreements affecting wages and work-
ing conditions of employees in express service. He worked eight
hours per day and was paid the same rate of pay as that paid to
employees who were paid semimonthly.
The employees state that Mr. Pharazyn is a bona-fide employee of
the express company and should not be considered a casual worker,
and contend that he is entitled to back pay that accrued to him be-
tween May 1 and August 16, 1920, the retroactive period of Deci-
sion No. 3.
The carrier states that Mr. Pharazyn worked only 19 days in May,
19 days in June, 18 days in July, and 8 days in August, and con-
tends that he is properly classified as a casual employee and that he
is not a bona-fide employee to whom the provisions of Decision No. 3
should apply.
It appears that Decision No. 3 was not applied to the rate of the
position held by Mr. Pharazyn from the effective date thereof, but on
278
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
August 16, 1920, when the decision was promulgated, the carrier
increased the rates of the positions held by extra or casual workers,
but did not make the increase retroactive to the effective date of said
decision. The evidence shows that Mr. Pharazyn worked eight hours
on various days in the period between May 1 and August 16, 1920.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that Mr. Pharazyn is entitled
to the increases set forth in Decision No. 3 for employees in his class
of service from the effective date of said decision, and that he shall
be paid the additional compensation which would have accrued to
him under the application of the increases in said decision during the
period May 1 to August 16, 1920.
DECISION NO. 906.-DOCKET 1038.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Harold E. Nussbaum,
Hazelton, Pa.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding the proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board,
the board decides that the request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 907.-DOCKET 1060.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Order of Railway Expressmen v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Claim of H. A. Olena and W. W. Ladd for overtime
for sleeping in the office after the completion of their regular assign-
ment.
Statement. The employees named were employed by the carrier
at Rouses Point, N. Y., and slept in the office from a period com-
mencing about April 20, 1920, and ending about September 14, 1920.
Claim was made by the employees for overtime on account of sleep-
ing in the office after completing their regular assignment.
The employees state that the employees in question were required
to spend the night in the office of the American Railway Express Co.
at Rouses Point, after the expiration of their regular assignment. It
is claimed that they were required to report at 11.30 p. m., to sign
for valuables to be delivered to morning trains, and to remain at the
office in charge of fires, lights, etc., until 6 a. m., the time their regular
tour of duty commenced.
The employees contend that inasmuch as the employees named
were required to return at 11 p. m. and sign for valuable packages,
they necessarily had to remain in the office and act as guard for same
and were not at liberty to absent themselves from the premises until
relieved the following day; therefore the employees affected are
entitled to compensation at the established overtime rate for the
time they were required to remain at the office after their regular
assignment was completed.
DECISIONS.
279
The carrier states that for many years it has been customary to
have employees at certain offices sleep in the office at night, for
which suitable and proper quarters were provided for them by the
carrier for the use and benefit and without charge of any kind to
the employees using them. It is admitted by the carrier that in thus
providing these sleeping facilities, it has been benefited in a measure
to the extent that premises in which employees were sleeping were
considered to be less likely to theft or other annoyances than would
otherwise be the case.
The carrier contends that employees accepting these positions in-
variably understood that such sleeping quarters were provided and
that in the acceptance of same it was fully understood that they were
expected to avail themselves of these sleeping quarters; that these
employees and employees generally have so availed themselves for
many years without protest or adverse comment of any kind. The
carrier further contends that notwithstanding the fact that these
employees accepted their positions with this understanding, when
protest was filed the carrier made other arrangements, and since
March 7, 1921, these employees have not been sleeping in the office.
The carrier denies that sleeping in the office under the circum-
stances stated can properly be recorded as overtime or other service
to be paid for at overtime rates; that the fact that these employees
slept in the office was in any way contrary to any rule, agreement,
order, or decision; that they are entitled to pay there for at over-
time rates or to any compensation whatever; or that any service
was required of them which is compensable under any rule of the
agreement or otherwise.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 908.-DOCKET 541.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the alleged violations of rule 66,
clerks' national agreement, mechanical department, Bloomington,
Ill.
Decision. This dispute having been withdrawn from further con-
sideration by the Labor Board, the case is removed from the docket.
and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 909.-DOCKET 1030.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of E. A. Green for refund of cash fare paid for
trip from San Antonio, Tex., to Dallas, Tex.
280
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. Mr. Green, formerly messenger on an express-mes-
senger run operated over the line of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Railroad with headquarters at San Antonio, made request on July
12, 1920, for transfer to Dallas. On July 17 the carrier granted his
request and arranged for the transfer and the bulletining of his run.
On August 11, 1920, Mr. Green requested railroad transportation
for himself, wife, son, and daughter from San Antonio to Dallas.
Request for this transportation was immediately made by the car-
rier and passes received, but Mr. Green had left the day previous;
hence, the passes did not arrive in time to be used by him. He paid
his fare amounting to $18.88 and made application to the express
company for a refund of same by the railroad, which was declined.
The employees contend that the transfer made by Mr. Green from
San Antonio to Dallas was made by the carrier, and that in accord-
ance with the provisions of rule 85 of the agreement between the em-
ployees and the carrier, effective February 15, 1920, he is entitled to
reimbursement of the railroad fare which he paid, amounting to
$18.88. Rule 85 of the agreement referred to reads as follows:
Employees transferred by direction of the management to positions which
necessitate a change of residence will receive free transportation for themselves,
dependent members of their families, and household goods, when it does not con-
flict with State or Federal laws.
The carrier states that the transfer made in this case was at Mr.
Green's request, that he applied for free transportation, and the car-
rier in turn made request for same upon the railroad. Mr. Green
made several inquiries for same and was advised to wait until it
came. Notwithstanding this he decided to proceed without it. The
transportation arrived the day after he left San Antonio. The car-
rier contends that under the rules and practices of the railroad, the
transportation having been issued in the usual time, there was no
ground upon which request for the refund of the fare could be made
upon the railroad, and, furthermore, there is nothing in the rules.
governing the conditions of employment of employees in this class
of service which requires the express company to ask for refund of
cash fares.
The evidence shows that since this case was submitted to the Labor
Board, the express company has made request upon the railroad over
which Mr. Green traveled on his trip from San Antonio to Dallas
for refund of the fare he was required to pay, and the following
reply was received:
Inasmuch as there does not appear to have been any delay in furnishing this
transportation and the urgency for making the trip is not apparent, it would
not be consistent, in accordance with our practice, to make the refund.
The evidence further shows that Mr. Green was transferring from
San Antonio to Dallas for personal reasons and that there was no
reason, so far as the carrier was concerned, why he could not have
waited for the transportation which was received by the express
company from the railroad the day after Mr. Green left San Antonio.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
281
DECISION NO. 910.-DOCKET 1630.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway.
Question.-Dispute regarding the inclusion of the telegraph office
at Houston, Tex., in the agreement between the carrier and employees
in telegraph service.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 911.-DOCKET 1692.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of C. E. Hames, clerk in the office of auditor of
revenue, for pay for time absent from duty in November, 1920, ac-
count of illness of his father.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 912.-DOCKET 1843.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question-Dispute regarding proper classification and rate of pay
of F. B. Walker and L. M. Johnson, janitor red caps, Barstow, Calif.
Decision. At the hearing before the Labor Board the parties to
this dispute agreed to withdraw same from further consideration by
the board. The case is therefore removed from the docket and the
file closed.
DECISION NO. 913.-DOCKET 1844.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper application of Decision No.
2 to position of watchman held by M. E. McCanna, San Francisco,
Calif.
Decision. This dispute is remanded to the employees and the
carrier for joint check in accordance with the understanding reached
at hearing conducted by the Labor Board.
282
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 914.-DOCKET 1845.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Claim of Messrs. Landsburg, Bannock, Carlson, and
Watkins, employed at San Francisco, Calif., for daily rates of pay.
Decision. The employees and the carrier have requested the
withdrawal of this dispute from further consideration by the Labor
Board. The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 915.-DOCKET 1846.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper rate of pay of clerk, W. L.
Doyle, San Francisco, Calif.
Decision. The employees and carrier have requested the with-
drawal of this dispute from further consideration by the Labor
Board. It is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 916.-DOCKET 8.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Pennsylvania System.
Question.-Dispute regarding the negotiation of rules for the
government of employees in telegraph service.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 917.-DOCKET 781.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding bulletining of positions of drivers,
Portland, Oreg.
Statement. In the bulletining of vacancies in positions of drivers
at Portland, it is not customary to show the location of the route
or otherwise specifically describe the vacancy. Rule 10 of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier, effective February 15,
1920, reads, in part, as follows:
DECISIONS.
283
Bulletin, Rule 10.-New positions or vacancies will be promptly bulletined
in the districts where they occur; bulletin to show location, title,
description of position and rate of pay.
(6
The employees state that in bulletining clerical positions the
specific position and the location thereof is shown-for example,
Way bill clerk, Union Depot." The employees contend that the
word "location as used in the rule partly quoted above was in-
tended to require the designation of a particular station, desk, or
route, and that for the purpose of enabling the employees in ve-
hicle service to know the exact location of the vacancy, each ve-
hicle or route should be numbered. The employees request that a
description of all drivers' positions be kept on file accessible to the
employees for their guidance in determining their choice of routes,
and to enable the oldest employee in the service to bid upon the
most desirable routes when vacancies occur.
The carrier states that the present method of bulletining drivers'
positions at Portland is in accordance with the rule of the agree-
ment between the employees and the carrier herein quoted in part,
and contends that it was never intended that this rule should re-
quire the numbering of each vehicle or route to enable the em-
ployees to determine the location of same, but that on the contrary
such a construction would be forced and unnatural and would de-
prive the carrier of one of the chief functions of management
namely, the delegation of work of employees.
Opinion. It appears that in some cities various types of vehicles
are used for which different rates of pay are maintained; in other
cities there are varying rates of pay for the same type of vehicle
according to certain local conditions. It also appears that in some
cities day and night service is maintained. In the opinion of the
Labor Board the rules of the agreement between the employees and
the carrier pertaining to seniority contemplate the establishment and
exercise thereof for the promotion or betterment of the employees.
The right of employees holding lower rated positions to bid upon
new positions or vacancies at higher rates of pay is now recognized.
The board is of the opinion that employees holding night positions
should be entitled to bid upon new positions or vacancies in day
service, but does not believe that the carrier should be required to
designate each driver's route by number or otherwise for the pur-
pose of posting it for bulletin in the manner requested by the em-
ployees.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that in bulletining new posi-
tions or vacancies in vehicle service the bulletin shall indicate
whether position is in day or night service; but in making assign-
ments to such positions, in accordance with the rules of the agree-
ment, the carrier shall not be required to assign thereto employees
in the same class of service at the same rate of pay, except that em-
ployees working nights may be assigned in accordance with their
seniority rights to day positions which may be bulletined.
20936°—23—19
284
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 918.-DOCKET 859.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the exercise of seniority rights of
Mary Seguin and Ruth Gardner.
Statement. The employees named above entered the service of
the carrier at National Docks, N. J., at the regular starting time
on March 1, 1920, and the pay of both employees commenced at
the same time.
The employees state that on June 27, 1921, when the force was
reduced in the office in which the employees in question were em-
ployed, Miss Gardner was permitted to displace Miss Seguin. The
employees contend that inasmuch as the pay of both employees
started at the same time their seniority is the same, and that under
the circumstances in this case one employee can not displace an-
other employee from a position, especially when, as it is claimed,
Miss Seguin was experienced in the work of her position, whereas
Miss Gardner had never worked on a similar position, making it
necessary for her to receive instructions regarding the duties
thereof.
The carrier states that while it is true that both of these em-
ployees entered the service on March 1, 1920, and that their pay
started at the same time, arrangements had been made for the em-
ployment of Miss Gardner two weeks in advance of the time she
started to work and two weeks in advance of the receipt of Miss
Seguin's application for the position. The carrier further states
that on the first seniority roster which was issued Miss Gardner
was shown ahead of Miss Seguin and no protest was made by anyone.
in regard to the position of these employees on the seniority roster.
The carrier denies the statement made by the employees that Miss
Seguin was experienced in the work and that Miss Gardner never
handled a similar position, but admits that when Miss Gardner took
over the work formerly handled by Miss Seguin it was necessary
to give her certain instructions to which another employee devoted
a portion of two days.
The carrier contends that both employees possessed equal qualifi-
cations for the position, and that in view of the fact that Miss
Gardner applied for employment some time before Miss Seguin, it
was proper to consider her the senior employee.
Decision.-Since the two employees involved in this dispute en-
tered the service on the same date and at the same time, and no
mutual understanding was had between the carrier and the em-
ployees, the Labor Board decides that the carrier was within its
rights in designating which employee should be considered the
senior, when it became necessary to do so.
The position of the carrier is therefore sustained.
DECISIONS.
285
DECISION NO. 919.-DOCKET 1063.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of H. H. Moss, train dis-
patcher, Little Rock, Ark.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, the
Labor Board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 920.-DOCKET 1399.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Question. Proper application of rule 13 to employees where, in
changing shifts, a period of lapse of service of 24 hours or over in-
tervenes.
Statement.-Evidence submitted, both oral and written, indicates
that H. F. Beidel and G. C. Jenkins, Hagerstown, held positions
as air-brake inspectors in Hagerstown yard, Mr. Beidel being en-
gaged on the second shift, 3 p. m. to 11 p. m., and Mr. Jenkins being
engaged on the third shift, 11 p. m. to 7 a. m.; that these positions
were abolished, effective Saturday, March 26, account depression in
transportation service; and, further, that these employees were then
assigned to service on Hagerstown car-repair track, starting such
service at 7 a. m., Monday, March 28, 1921.
It is shown that M. J. Moran, employed at Hillen, held a position
as carman on the first shift, 7 a. m. to 3.30 p. m.; this employee being
assigned to fill a temporary vacancy on the second shift, 8 p. m. to
4 a. m., for a period of about four days.
This temporary assignment was terminated on Saturday, March
19, 1921, and the employee reported for duty on his regular shift.
Monday, March 21.
The above-mentioned employees were not allowed overtime rates.
when their assignment was assumed on date last mentioned in each
case.
Employees' position.-The employees' position is quoted as fol-
lows:
Rule 13 of the shopmen's national agreement provides for overtime rate for
the first shift of each change, providing the employee has worked two or more
shifts on the shift on which he was employed. There are no specified week
days for which an employee would not be allowed overtime in changing shifts,
and we understand the rule to mean that employees will be allowed this rate
regardless of whether their change is made from Saturday to Monday or other-
wise. Sunday, under rule 6, is a punitive overtime day, and under rule 1 is
nct included in bulletined positions. These employees, therefore, were changed
to opposite shifts on Monday after finishing their night assignments on Satur-
days, and we contend that they are entitled to the time and one-half time
rate for the change under this rule.
286
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Carrier's position. The carrier's position is quoted as follows:
In consideration of the question at issue, the management has drawn its
conclusion that rule 13 of the national agreement with the shopmen would not
apply in a case where the change of shifts did not occur within a 24-hour period.
It appears to us fair and consistent that this rule was intended to insure em-
ployees, coming within the scope of the national agreement with the shopmen,
when their assignments were changed, the payment of punitive overtime for
ali time in excess of eight hours in any 24-hour period.
This, of course, would not be involved where an employee assumed his
assignment on a Monday, having terminated work on a different shift on a
Saturday, and it is, therefore, our position that rule 13 was not intended to
provide penalty payment for the cases involved.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the particular question
in dispute that the shifts to which the employees were transferred
were not maintained on Sundays, and that, therefore, the time
intervening between the changing of the shifts should not have
operated to deprive the employees of the overtime rate provided for
in rule 13, and that they should be reimbursed accordingly.
DECISION NO. 921.-DOCKET 1554.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Georgia Railroad.
Question. Has the management of the Georgia Railroad the
right under rule 32 of the national agreement to require foremen
of water-service department to perform work of regular mechanics
in making repairs to pumps at outlying points where no mechanics
are employed?
Decision. At the oral hearing conducted in connection with this
case both parties to the dispute advised that the matter had been
adjusted satisfactorily, and that it was not necessary for the Labor
Board to take further action in connection therewith. The docket
is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 922.-DOCKET 1596.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.
Question.-Seniority claim of E. F. Clark, boiler maker, St.
Joseph, Mo.
Statement.-At the oral hearing conducted by the Labor Board, it
was agreed between the representatives of the respective parties to
the dispute that the case should be referred back to the local com-
mittee and that the decision of said committee would be considered
final. The board is in receipt of advice that the committee has ren-
dered its decision and that it is therefore not necessary for the board
to take further action in the premises.
Decision. The docket in the case is closed.
DECISIONS.
287
DECISION NO. 923.-DOCKET 1604.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rule 32 of the shopmen's national agree-
ment, and claim of employees for a differential in rate of pay for
mechanics at Albany, Ala.
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice that this case
has been amicably settled and that no further action is desired on the
part of the board. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 924.-DOCKET 454.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question.-Shall signal maintainers, who have requested permis-
sion to leave their home stations or sections and whose request is
refused for any reason, be paid for time retroactive to March 1, 1920?
Decision.-Åt oral hearing conducted before the Labor Board it
was agreed between the interested parties that a further effort would
be made to adjust the dispute. The case is therefore closed without
prejudice to the right of either party to again submit the matter to
the Labor Board if an adjustment can not be reached.
DECISION NO. 925.-DOCKET 478.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Petition of Gulf Coast Lines for Rehearing on Docket 478, Decision No. 403.
Question.-Request for rehearing in connection with discharge
of H. M. Little, car inspector, De Quincy, La., which case was de-
cided by the Labor Board in its Decision No. 403.
Decision. The request for rehearing is denied.
DECISION NO. 926.-DOCKET 1492.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Shall Thomas Haley, who was formerly employed as
a painter at Proctor, Minn., and later discharged from the service,
be reinstated and paid for time lost?
288
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. There has been duly filed with the Labor Board a
submission from the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.
(Federated Shop Crafts), regarding the claim of Thomas Haley,
formerly employed as a painter at Proctor. This submission is in
ex-parte form, it being indicated by the employees that the carrier
failed to answer their communications. Upon receipt of the em-
ployees' position, a copy was forwarded to the carrier and was sub-
sequently traced for reply, but up to this date no information has
been received from them.
An oral hearing was conducted and both parties duly notified.
At said hearing only the representatives of the employees were
present, and they submitted testimony in defense of the employee's
claim that he had been unjustly dismissed. The Labor Board has
no evidence from the carrier to refute the statement made by the
employees, and therefore renders the following decision.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employee in question
shall be reinstated to his former position and paid for all time lost
less any amount that he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 927.-DOCKET 1562.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts),
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co.
V.
Question.-Claim of Oscar Gjutman, machinist, for reinstatement
to position he held prior to being injured, and claim for pay for
time lost since the date he applied for reemployment.
Statement. There has been duly filed with the Labor Board a sub-
mission from the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Fed-
erated Shop Crafts), regarding the claim of Mr. Gjutman, machin-
ist, formerly employed by the Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway
Co. at Proctor, Minn.
A copy of the employees' submission was forwarded to the carrier
and an opportunity extended to them to furnish their position in
connection with the claim that had been filed by the employees, but
to date the carrier has made no reply.
In accordance with the employees' request an oral hearing was
conducted and both parties to the dispute duly notified. The hear-
ing was conducted as scheduled, but only the representatives of the
employees were present, who submitted testimony in behalf of the
employees' claim. The evidence shows that Mr. Gjutman received
a severe injury while in the carrier's service which incapacitated him
for a considerable time; that he was compensated a certain amount
by the claim department, and was assured that he would be restored
to his old position, but that upon making application for it he was
denied reemployment, while men younger in the service were retained.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that Oscar Gjutman shall be restored to his former position with
seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost since Feb-
ruary 8, 1921, the date he applied for reemployment to the date he
is restored to the service, less any amount he may have earned in
other employment during this period.
DECISIONS.
289
DECISION NO. 928.-DOCKET 1597.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.-Dismissal of T. J. Willoughby and William Green,
carmen, at Hazard, Ky.
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice that this case
has been amicably settled and that no further action is desired on
the part of the board. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 929.-DOCKET 259.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Joseph Union Depot Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper application of the rules of
the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees to
employees engaged in handling baggage and mail, St. Joseph, Mo.
Statement. This case was presented to the Labor Board as a con-
troversy between the employees and the carrier regarding the appli-
cation of rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement to the positions.
in question. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the em-
ployees modified the request and asked that an hourly rate of pay
be established for these positions. It appears that the case has not
been handled in conference between the employees and the carrier
on the same basis as it was presented to the board, and, furthermore,
that the employees and the carrier have not made a check of the
duties of the positions involved to determine the extent to which the
service performed requires continuous application or is of an inter-
mittent character.
Decision. This dispute is remanded to the employees and the car-
rier for a conference upon the request of the employees presented at
the hearing before the Labor Board and for a joint check to deter-
mine the extent to which the service performed by the employees
involved requires continuous application or is intermittent in
character.
DECISION NO. 930.-DOCKET 718.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Gulf Coast Lines.
Question.-Dispute regarding the elimination of agents at Mis-
sion, Harlingen, Donna, Hull, Sam Fordyce, Mercedes, McAllen, and
San Benito, Tex., from agreement between carriers and employees
in telegraph service without giving the 30 days' notice as required
by agreement, or conference with employees.
290
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. The agents at the stations above named are included
in and subject to the rules of the agreement between employees in
telegraph service and the carrier, dated October 1, 1918. In April,
1921, the carrier classified the agents at the points named as super-
visory agents and made certain changes in their wages and working
conditions with the understanding that under the designation of
supervisory agents they would not be subject to the provisions of
the telegraphers' agreement.
The employees state that the agencies in question are included in
the agreement with the carrier dated October 1, 1918, and that said
agreement provides that it shall remain in effect until 30 days' notice
has been given by either party to the other requesting that a change
be made in same; and contend that 30 days' notice as required thereby
was not served upon the employees nor was conference held with
the employees prior to the elimination of the positions from the
agreement. The employees request that the rates of pay and work-
ing onditions of agents at the stations named, as established by the
agreement, be restored and the employees affected reimbursed for
monetary loss sustained.
The carrier states that the growth of business at the stations in
question justified the rearrangement of station forces, and that duties
and responsibilities of the former agents were changed sufficiently
to warrant designating them as supervisory agents. The carrier
contends that supervisory agents do not come within the scope of the
transportation act, 1920, or the jurisdiction of the Labor Board, and
that the telegraphers' committee had no right to attempt to represent
them.
The question presented to the Labor Board in this dispute is whether
or not the action of the carrier was in violation of the terms of the
agreement between the carrier and its employees in telegraph service.
Article 24 of the agreement in effect, dated October 1, 1918, reads
as follows:
This agreement shall be in effect until 30 days' notice has been given by
either party to the other requesting that a change be made in the same.
It appears that the supervisory agency at San Benito was estab-
lished in the year 1920 when a rearrangement of forces was made to
meet changed conditions at that point, and the carrier contends that
the general chairman of the telegraphers, who was notified at that
time, raised no objection to the change, and, furthermore, that in
conference with reference to this dispute, the general chairman stated
that his complaint was not intended to cover San Benito. There has
been no evidence introduced by the employees to indicate that excep-
tion was taken to the elimination of the agency at San Benito from
the agreement, and therefore the Labor Board has not considered in
this dispute the complaint of the employees with respect to the
elimination of this station.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under rule of the agree-
ment of October 1, 1918, herein quoted, the agents at the stations
named should not have been excluded from the provisions thereof
until 30 days' notice had been served upon the representatives of the
employees in telegraph service requesting that the change be made,
or until conference had been held with the employees' committee, or
until handled in the manner provided in the transportation act, 1920.
DECISIONS.
291
This decision does not undertake to pass upon whether or not these
agents are supervisory but merely that, in view of the fact they were
included in the agreement between the employees and the carrier,
they should not have been excluded therefrom unless or until the
provisions of the agreement and the transportation act, 1920, have
been complied with.
DECISION NO. 931.-DOCKET 910.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Maurice M. Furey, store-
man, Saratoga Springs, N. Y.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 932.-DOCKET 1006.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the application of the increase pro-
vided for in Decision No. 3 to employees classified as guards at
Ogden, Utah.
Statement.-At Ogden there are a number of employees at the
American Railway Express Co. classified as guards or custodians.
The employees state that the guards or custodians are employees
of the American Railway Express Co.; that they make application
for employment on the regular forms furnished by the carrier; that
they have photographs taken; that they give references; that they
are subject to the same investigation as other employees; that they
hold themselves in readiness for service or call; and that they are
paid on the regular pay day with other employees who are recog-
nized as such. The employees contend that these so-called guards
or custodians are bona-fide employees of the carrier and are entitled
to the increase specified for employees in their class of service in
section 4, Article II of Decision No. 3, and request that they be
reimbursed for the difference between the rate of pay they have
received since May 1, 1920, and the rate they would have received
under a proper application of Decision No. 3.
The carrier denies that these employees are regular and bona-fide
employees employed on a monthly basis and subject to the rates of
pay prescribed by the orders and decisions of the United States
Railroad Administration or the Labor Board. The carrier states
that it has been a practice of long standing to hire individuals to
perform guard service and pay them a flat rate to cover such service.
The carrier contends that the individuals referred to in this dis-
292
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
pute are engaged in other employment and that they follow in the
category of casually employed laborers who devote only a part of
their time from outside business or avocation. The carrier further
contends that their employment is incidental and intermittent, and
therefore they are properly and specifically excluded from Article
V of Supplement No. 19 to General Order No. 27, from the trans-
portation act, 1920, and from the decisions of the Labor Board, and
that they were also specifically excluded from the rules governing
hours of service and working conditions effective February 15, 1920.
It appears that these so-called guards or custodians have been
engaged in this same work for a period of from four to eight years,
and that statement filed with the Labor Board showing the number
of days worked indicates that they customarily perform from 15
to 20 days' service per month.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 3 shall
apply to the employees referred to herein from the effective date
thereof.
DECISION NO. 933.-DOCKET 1008.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Shall the position classified as chief clerk, regional
accounting department, Chattanooga, Tenn., be included within the
scope of the agreement between the employees and the carrier, ef-
fective February 15, 1920, and bulletined in accordance with the
provisions thereof?
Statement.-Just prior to March 11, 1920, R. H. Gamble was pro-
moted to the position of departmental chief clerk, regional account-
ing department at Chattanooga. The position was not bulletined.
Decision.-At the hearing held by the Labor Board it developed
that the carrier contends that the position in question was abolished
in August, 1921, but the employees contend that it has not been
abolished. The Labor Board can not render a decision on this case
until the employees and the carrier jointly determine whether or not
the position was abolished.
DECISION NO. 934.-DOCKET 1011.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of R. H. Ward for pay for time lost in the exer-
cise of his seniority rights in connection with the abolition of his
position.
Statement.-On November 7, 1920, the messenger run occupied
by Mr. Ward between Springfield, Mo., and Oklahoma City, Okla.,
DECISIONS.
293
was abolished. He lost one trip in exercising his seniority rights
over an employee junior to him in the service.
The employees state that Mr. Ward made a special trip to the
superintendent's office for the purpose of having an understanding
and being allowed to exercise seniority rights over employees younger
in the service; that the superintendent was not in the office and the
chief clerk did not have the authority to allow him to exercise his
seniority over junior employees. He was therefore compelled to
lose one trip which the employees state could have been averted.
The employees contend that inasmuch as Mr. Ward endeavored to
the full extent of his ability to adjust the matter, and found that no
one was authorized by the superintendent to act in the matter, he
should be paid for the loss in wages he was compelled to sustain.
The carrier contends that there is nothing in the rules governing
the working conditions of employees in the class of service in which
Mr. Ward is engaged which requires the carrier to pay employees for
the time lost in the exercise of their seniority rights, nor anything
requiring the carrier to make seniority changes instantaneously;
further, that this employee has no claim except a desire to recover
pay for a trip which he did not work, and the only occasion for this
loss of time was the employee's desire to exercise his seniority rights
to another position.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board indicates that
the employee named was available for service on the trip for which
claim is presented and that his loss in compensation was sustained
through no fault of his own. The Labor Board therefore decides
that R. H. Ward shall be reimbursed for the trip lost in the exercise
of seniority on the date in question.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 935.-DOCKET 1092.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Is J. F. Monahan, ticket clerk, San Francisco, Calif.,
entitled to an increase of 63 cents an hour under section 3, Article
II, of Decision No. 2, or an increase of 13 cents an hour under section
2. Article II of said decision?
Statement.-Mr. Monahan entered the service of the carrier on
May 27, 1920, as accountant at the ferry ticket office, San Francisco,
and was subsequently assigned to the position of ticket clerk, which
position he held until June 13, 1921. In applying Decision No. 2
he was given an increase of 63 cents per hour under section 3 of De-
cision No. 2 for clerks of less than one year's experience.
The employees state that prior to his employment with the carrier
Mr. Monahan was engaged for a period of three years in the per-
formance of clerical work in the accounting department of the Rhode
Island Traction Co., and that for a period of nine years prior to that
time he was employed as clerk in the accounting department and as
express messenger by the Adams Express Co. The employees con-
294
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tend that inasmuch as Mr. Monahan had been employed for a period
of more than one year in clerical work of a similar nature to the
clerical work performed by him for the carrier, he was entitled to
the increase prescribed in section 2, Article II of Decision No. 2 for
clerks of more than one year's experience.
The carrier states that information received from the Rhode
Island Traction Co. regarding Mr. Monahan's service indicates that
his work had to do with conductor's day cards or trip sheets, as they
are sometimes called, and particularly with adjustments with con-
ductors in connection with their shortage records.
The carrier contends that railroad-ticket selling is a separate and
distinct branch of work and that no railroad clerical work, or clerical
work in other industries, can be classed as "similar," and that there-
fore Mr. Monahan was only entitled to an increase of 6 cents per
hour under Decision No. 2 until he had one year's experience in ticket
selling.
Section 2, Article II, of Decision No. 2 reads as follows:
Clerks with an experience of one or more years in railroad clerical work, or
clerical work of a similar nature in other industries, or where their accumula-
tive experience in such clerical work is not less than one year
(add)
13 cents.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board shows that Mr.
Monahan did have more than one year's experience in clerical work
of a similar nature in an outside industry, and that he was therefore
entitled to the increase for clerks with an experience of one or more
years, in accordance with section 2, Article II of Decision No. 2.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 936.-DOCKET 1120.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rules 21 and 27, clerks' national agree-
ment of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees in connection with abol-
ishing position of car-service clerk, Geneva, N. Y.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 937.-DOCKET 1102.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of Leonard Deegan, train and engine crew
caller, Fairmont, W. Va., for 14 days' pay in lieu of vacation for the
year 1920.
DECISIONS.
295
Statement. The national agreement between the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees and the Director General of Railroads which
governs the working conditions of the employee in the class of
service in which the employee involved in this dispute is engaged,
does not contain any specific rule on the question of vacations.
However, under date of January 30, 1920, the director, division of
operation, United States Railroad Administration, issued the follow-
ing telegraphic instructions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the past practice
the employee involved in this dispute is not entitled to compensation
in lieu of vacation not granted in the year 1920.
DECISION NO. 938.-DOCKET 475-10-91.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St.
Louis Railway.
Question.-Dispute regarding negotiation of rules for the govern-
ment of train dispatchers.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 939.-DOCKET 1057.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Express Drivers, Chauffeurs, Conductors, and Helpers, Local No. 720
of Chicago Teamsters' Union v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding transfer of certain drivers in the
vehicle service from one stable to another within the same seniority
district, Chicago, Ill.
Statement. On or about June 3, 1921, J. J. Newman, Adler
Brown, Joseph Summers, and James Vance, drivers in the vehicle
service of the express company at Chicago, were transferred from the
Federal Street stable to the stable at Monroe and Seebar Streets,
thereby changing their routes and the stables from which they oper-
ated. There is no change in the duties or salaries of the positions,
and the stables named are in the same seniority district.
The employees state that the drivers in question were required to
make this transfer against their wishes and contrary to a well-rec-
ognized principle that employees shall not be required to transfer
from one position to another against their wishes. The employees
296
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
concede that when it becomes necessary for the good of the service to
transfer a position from one seniority district to another the carrier
has the right to do so, but contend that an employee may not be
transferred from one position to another against his wishes unless it
is found that he is not rendering satisfactory service on the position
from which the carrier desires to transfer him.
The carrier states that it is the practice at the present time to post
on Friday of each week the new or vacant positions in each depart-
ment, showing the garage or stable where the position is assigned,
the title and nature of the duties, and the weekly salary. The men
desiring these positions fill out form of application showing the par-
ticular position they desire. They are not limited to the selection
of one position, but if they desire they may signify their choice
of several positions so that in the event they are not successful in
securing the first selection they are given one of the others for which
they are qualified. On the Friday following the posting of the bul-
letin, the applications are reviewed and selections are made on the
basis of seniority, fitness, and ability; where fitness and ability are
sufficient, employees are assigned in accordance with their seniority
and the names of the successful applicants are posted on the bulletin.
All of the employees are grouped according to their rates of pay, and
the line of promotion is from wagon helper to driver and from driver
to conductor.
The carrier contends that the present practice with respect to bul-
letining of drivers' positions and the exercise of seniority in connec-
tion therewith is not in conflict with the rules governing the work-
ing conditions of the employees referred to and that there is nothing
in said rules which prohibits the transfer of drivers or other employ-
ees in vehicle service from one stable to another within the seniority
district in which they are employed.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the action of the carrier
in transferring the employees named, as herein described, was not
in conflict with the rules governing the working conditions of em-
ployees in vehicle service.
Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 940.-DOCKET 1085.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of F. R. Vincent, clerk, office of chief freight
claim agent, for back pay under the provisions of Decision No. 2.
Statement.-Section 1, Article XIII of Decision No. 2, reads as
follows:
The increases in wages and the rates hereby established shall be effective as
of May 1, 1920, and are to be paid according to the time served to all who
were then in the carriers' service and remained therein, or who have since
come into such service and remained therein.
Mr. Vincent was employed by the carrier on February 11, 1913,
and on May 1, 1920, he was working as a clerk in the office of the
DECISIONS.
297
auditor of freight accounts, in which position he continued until
June, 1920.
The employees state that on June 19, 1920, Mr. Vincent resigned
his position as clerk in the office of auditor of freight accounts for
the purpose of securing employment in the office of the chief freight
claim agent and resumed work in the latter office under date of
June 23, and that his resignation was necessary to conform to the
policy of the carrier. The employees further state that prior to
tendering his resignation Mr. Vincent requested that he be trans-
ferred to the office of the freight claim agent and his request was
denied; that in order to obtain employment in the office of the freight
claim agent it was necessary for him to resign; and that his resigna-
tion was filed not for the purpose of leaving the service, but in order
that he might remain in the service in another department. The
employees therefore contend that Mr. Vincent was in the service of
the carrier on May 1, 1920; that he remained in the service under
the conditions outlined above; and that he is entitled to receive back
pay for the amount of the increase due him under the application of
Decision No. 2.
The carrier states that Mr. Vincent was employed in the office of
the auditor of freight accounts and that on June 15, 1920, he advised
that officer that he understood there was a position open in the
freight claim office and requested a written expression of the will-
ingness of the auditor of freight accounts to his transferring to said
office. The carrier further states that Mr. Vincent was informed
that there was no objection to his applying for or transferring to a
position in any other department, and that it was not necessary to
furnish written statements because it was customary for employing
officials to secure such information direct. On June 17 Mr. Vincent
filed with the auditor of freight accounts his written resignation as
follows:
"
Kindly accept my resignation effective June 26, 1920, or sooner, if convenient.
This resignation was accepted by the auditor of freight accounts
June 19, 1920. The carrier contends that the resignation was not
required by the policy of the carrier, that several employees in the
office of the auditor of freight accounts have been transferred to the
office of the freight claim agent, and furthermore when Mr. Vincent
was asked if he had secured another position he replied that he had
not. The carrier contends that under the circumstances stated, and
in view of the fact that Mr. Vincent's resignation was filed and
accepted, the continuity of his service terminated on June 19, and
he is not entitled to back pay under the provisions of Decision No. 2.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that section 3, Interpretation
19 to Decision No. 2, covers the question in controversy and shall
govern in this dispute.
DECISION NO 941.-DOCKET 1089.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of J. G. Black, crew dispatcher, Roseburg, Oreg.,
for pay for two weeks' vacation taken in the year 1920.
298
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
•
Statement.--The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees does not contain any specific rule on the question of pay
for time lost account of sickness or vacation. However, under date
of January 30, 1920, the director, division of operation, United
States Railroad Administration, issued the following telegraphic
instructions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and
sick leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
before it that under the past practice the employee in question is
not entitled to pay for the two weeks' vacation taken in the year 1920.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 942.-DOCKET 1090.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Harry E. Kronig, clerk,
Los Angeles, Calif.
Decision.-Basing this decision on the evidence before it, includ-
ing proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 943.-DOCKET 1094.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of E. M. Grant, formerly
employed as clerk, car department, Houston, Tex.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 944.-DOCKET 1848.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of J. J. Mason et al. for pay for time worked on
July 20, 1921, in accordance with rule 50, national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees.
DECISIONS.
299
Decision. The parties at interest having agreed to withdraw this
case from further consideration by the Labor Board, this dispute is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 945.-DOCKET 1850.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of certain daily-rated employees, Traverse City,
Mich., for pay for Saturdays not worked between January 22 and
March 12, 1921.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute, and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 946.-DOCKET 971.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts),
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Y.
Question. (a) Should Chris Rauer, employed in the bridge and
building department in connection with the maintenance of water
service and other equipment, be classified and paid as a sheet-metal
worker?
(b) Has the committee_representing the Federated Shop Crafts
the right to represent Mr. Rauer in the handling of grievances, etc.?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence in connection with this
case shows that Mr. Rauer is classified and rated as a bridge carpenter
and works under the supervision of the maintenance of way depart-
ment performing certain pipe work in connection with water service
and other equipment.
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Rauer is performing
such work as installing new steam pipes, water and air lines in shops,
yards, and buildings, and making repairs to this class of work which
is covered by rule 126 of the shopmen's agreement.
The carrier does not deny that the employee in question is per-
forming pipe work, but contends that his work is in conjunction
with and under the direction of the water-service foreman and that
he is not a qualified sheet-metal worker. It is the further conten-
tion of the carrier that the Federated Shop Crafts have no juris-
diction in this case, claiming that the work performed by the em-
ployee in question has for years been under the maintenance of
way agreement, and further that pursuant to the issuance of De-
cision No. 119 by the Labor Board an agreement was consummated
between the carrier and the maintenance of way organization giving
that organization jurisdiction over the employees performing work
similar to that performed by Mr. Rauer. The management denies
that the work performed by Mr. Rauer is that of sheet-metal workers
as defined in rule 126 of the shopmen's agreement in that the agree-
ment specifies "in shop yards and buildings" and that Mr. Rauer
does not come within that provision of the rule.
20936°-23—20
300
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision.-(a) Yes. The evidence submitted clearly indicates
that Mr. Rauer is performing work classified as that of sheet-metal
workers and shall therefore be classified and rated accordingly. This
change in classification and rating to be effective July 1, 1921.
(b) Yes. The right of the Federated Shop Crafts to represent
craftsmen, irrespective of department or place employed, is clearly
established under the provisions of Title III of the transportation
act, 1920.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We do not agree with the foregoing decision which has been
adopted by the majority, and submit below our reasons for dissenting.
The evidence submitted in this case clearly show that Chris Rauer
was employed in the bridge and building department in connection
with the maintenance of water service and other equipment; and
that he was classified and paid as a bridge carpenter and worked
under the supervision of the maintenance of way department, having
served in this capacity for several years.
Rule 125 of the shop crafts' national agreement, which was in
effect at the time this dispute arose, reads as follows:
Any man who has served an apprenticeship, or has had four or more years'
experience at the various branches of the trade, who is qualified and capable
of doing sheet-metal work or pipe work as applied to buildings, machinery,
locomotives, cars, etc., whether it be tin, sheet iron, or sheet copper, and capable
of bending, fitting, and brazing of pipe, shall constitute a sheet-metal worker.
Further attention is directed to that portion of rule 126 of the
shop crafts' national agreement, which was in effect at the time this,
dispute arose, reading:
Sheet-metal morkers shall include tinners, coppersmiths, and pipe fitters
employed in shop yards and buildings and on passenger coaches and engines
of all kinds,
An analysis of the shop crafts' national agreement will indicate
that in the special rules governing the machinists', boiler makers',
blacksmiths', and electrical workers' classification, no reference is
made to service performed in shop yards and buildings; hence it
must be assumed that it was the intention of those promulgating
these rules that there should be a difference in the limitation as to the
scope of the sheet-metal work due to the characteristics of the
branches of service in which sheet-metal work is performed, while it
was recognized that no limitation should be placed upon the other
crafts hereinbefore mentioned, as the characteristics of the different
departments in which the service of said crafts is performed did not
change the character of service that may be performed by these
excepted crafts.
One entirely familiar with the maintenance of way service will
readily agree that the character of the service necessary in connection
with the maintenance of water-service equipment and in the per-
formance of tinning and plumber's work in the maintenance of
way department is not comparable with the service of pipe fitters,
coppersmiths, tinners, and sheet-metal workers employed in and
around shops and shop yards primarily in connection with the
maintenance and repair of rolling stock.
The service last mentioned, as is stated under the rule, providing
for qualifications of sheet-metal workers, requires the service of a
DECISIONS.
301
competent mechanic of the sheet-metal trade, while the service per-
formed in the maintenance of way department, such as that per-
formed by the employee involved in this dispute, does not require
the qualifications as provided for a sheet-metal worker in the mainte-
nance of equipment department, nor does it require the services of
one who is an expert mechanic of that trade. This has been clearly
demonstrated by experience.
The signers of this dissent can not but feel that in view of the
line of demarcation that has been so strongly adhered to in the past
respecting maintenance of way and maintenance of equipment de-
partments, it was ever contemplated that the service of employees
who have been commonly known in the past as bridge and building
mechanics would at any time be considered service coming within
the classification of the work of the shop trades, except perhaps in
some isolated cases where exceptional skill is required.
If this principle is carried out to its final conclusion, it would
ultimately result in practically all mechanics in the maintenance of
way service being classified and considered as coming within the
classification provided for the shop trades. In this connection, we
will use as an illustration the water-service department. In the
laying of water lines and performing incidental service in connec-
tion therewith, there must of necessity be performed such work as
soldering, leading, bending, fitting, cutting, threading, connecting
and disconnecting water pipes; however, because of the fact that
such employees do perform this work in addition to other work nec-
essary in connection therewith they are not properly entitled to the
classification of sheet-metal workers, nor is it believed that such was
ever contemplated. Such a construction if strictly adhered to would
have the tendency of changing the classification and rating of many
employees of the maintenance of way department, who in the course
of their regular duties perform certain work enumerated in rule 126
of the so-called national agreement.
Prior to the period of Government control of railroads there was
a recognized and definite line of demarcation as between mechanics
of the shop trades and mechanics of the maintenance of way depart-
ment; this line of demarcation having grown up through years of
experience clearly dictated that the service of employees in the two
departments was not comparable. Only in rare instances were
employees of the maintenance of way department classified and paid
as shop mechanics, and then only in cases where exceptional skill
was required for the service in the maintenance of way department.
We do not contend that the Labor Board should adhere strictly
to the principles in vogue prior to Government control, as expe-
rience during and since Government control has demonstrated the
desirability for changing certain of these practices; however, it is
not felt that experience has warranted the changing of the classifi-
cation of maintenance of way mechanics because of the fact that
they may be performing, to a certain degree, service which is com-
parable to that specified as coming within the scope of the so-called
shop crafts, as the dissimilarity of the service of the two depart-
ments warrants the maintenance, at least to a considerable degree,
of the department division recognized in the past.
D
The evidence submitted in this case clearly shows that the em-
ployee in question is performing service which has been recognized
302
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
as that coming within the jurisdiction of the maintenance of way
department and which has in the past been performed by employees
of that department. The repairs and maintenance of steam pipes
and steam heating equipment in stations and other buildings, and
the repairs, installation, and maintenance of water lines, air lines,
and sanitary equipment, which is representative of the service
performed by this employee, was never, except perhaps in a few
isolated instances, classified as and paid the same rate as sheet-
metal workers of the shop crafts.
It has been recognized that the employees engaged in certain of
the skilled sheet-metal work and upon whose proper performance
of service depends the necessary functioning of intricate parts of
locomotives, cars, and machinery, must of necessity be qualified
sheet-metal workers for the efficient and proper performance of
such service; it was also recognized that employees engaged in tin-
ning work in the maintenance of equipment department where arti-
cles such as oil cans, stovepipes, downspouts, gutters, water coolers,
and other tin and galvanized work, etc., is made to specifications, must
of necessity be qualified and skilled in that line of work. This ap-
plies equally to other tinners', pipefitters', and coppersmiths' work in
the maintenance of equipment department.
It is not felt that the above work is at all comparable to service
in the maintenance of way department and experience has clearly
demonstrated to the railroads that there is marked difference in the
qualifications necessary for the service such as is performed by the
émployees involved in this question and a pipefitter in the main-
tenance of equipment department. A qualified sheet-metal worker
should be able to lay out, build, and repair all work pertaining to
his branch of the trade, which qualifications this employee appar-
ently does not possess, nor is it required in the class of service he is
performing.
With further regard for the particular question decided in the
foregoing decision, an analysis of the service performed by this
employee clearly indicates that he is performing work which has
for years been recognized as that of maintenance of way mechanics,
and while some of the operations performed by him may be
operations listed in rule 126 of the shop crafts' agreement, the com-
plete assignment of this man is not comparable to the service enu-
merated in rule 126. Regardless of any decisions that may have
been rendered by or under the authority of the United States Rail-
road Administration, the Labor Board, as expressed in the last
paragraph of the various rules recently promulgated, does not ac-
cept such interpretations or decisions as representing its views in
connection with said rules; therefore, the question as to the action
of the United States Railroad Administration in connection with
this and similar matters has been disregarded by the undersigned
and this opinion based on what is felt is a just and reasonable con-
dition.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER.
:
DECISIONS.
303
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The decision arrived at by the majority is justified by the facts,
if the work performed is to be the guide rather than a pay-roll classi-
fication, which may or may not mean anything. -
One of the greatest injustices formerly so prevalent in railroad
employment, and yet existing to a limited degree, is that of improper
classification and the fixing of wage rates and working conditions
on the basis of this improper classification, rather than on the basis
of the work which is performed. It was because of a lack of reason-
ably accurate information that the Labor Board at the very outset
of its activities found it imperative to promptly proceed with the
stupendous task of promulgating rules for reporting information
en railroad employees, together with a classification and index of
steam railroad occupations.
Contrary to the generally accepted opinion, the information
required by and furnished to the Interstate Commerce Commission
by the carriers was not intended for wage-adjustment purposes,
but was intended to show certain divisions in the operating costs,
and the data gathered for this purpose, while meeting the require-
ments of the Interstate Commerce Commission, were wholly inade-
quate and generally misleading, if used as a basis of computing or
arriving at facts relating directly to wage rates and working con-
ditions of the railroad occupations.
Any attempt to establish the qualifications and classifications of
railroad occupations on the basis of departmental divisions and sub-
divisions thereof is wholly unsound, unwarranted, and indefensible
from any point of view if employees are to be treated fairly, and
just and reasonable rates of pay and working rules are to be
established.
References made in the dissenting opinion as to the scope of the
rules applicable to the other crafts mentioned are irrelevant, as the
board, after most careful consideration and being in possession of
all the facts, issued a number of decisions, including Decision No.
222 and its addenda.
Attention is directed to section 3 of the general instructions con-
tained in Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, which reads:
The formulation of a preamble or caption to agreements or contracts is here-
by remanded to the carriers and their employees, severally, and in connection
therewith the parties are referred to Decision No. 205, issued by the Labor
Board.
That portion of Decision No. 205 referred to reads:
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the work of the six shop crafts
and the conditions under which it is performed are so similar in their main
characteristics as to make it practicable and economical to treat said crafts
as constituting such an organization or class of employees as is contemplated
in the transportation act, 1920, and in Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board,
for the purpose in question, and that said six shop crafts may negotiate and
enter into said agreement jointly through the Federated Shop Crafts, if they
so elect, provided said system federation represents a majority of each craft
or class.
*
*
*
It is understood that this agreement shall apply to those who perform the
work specified in this agreement in the maintenance of equipment, maintenance
of way, signal maintenance, telegraph maintenance, and all other departments of
these companies wherein work covered by this agreement is performed.
304
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The above clearly shows that the Labor Board in promulgating
these decisions recognized that employees performing work enumer-
ated in Decision No. 222 and its addenda properly came within the
scope of said rules, irrespective of the department in which em-
ployed.
Considerable emphasis has been placed upon the noncomparability
of the service performed by mechanics in the respective departments.
The dissenting opinion is based largely upon general activities in the
respective departments, and is not confined to the service performed
by the employee in question.
The service performed by the particular employee involved in this
dispute is definitely_covered_by the shopmen's national agreement
and by Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, which is an admitted
fact.
Some emphasis has been placed upon the language contained in
rule 126, shop crafts' national agreement, reading:
* * in shop yards and buildings and on passenger coaches and engines
of all kinds,
If this language was subject to difference of opinion as to its mean-
ing, rule 126 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 was changed to
read:
kinds;
* in shops, yards, buildings, on passenger coaches and engines of all
*
and removed any possibility of misinterpretation.
The facts in this case do not support the conclusions arrived at in
the dissenting opinion.
DECISION NO. 947.-DOCKET 998.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question. (a) Shall Emery Jones, employed in the bridge and
building department, be classified and rated as a sheet-metal worker?
(b) Has the committee representing the Federated Shop Crafts
the right to represent Emery Jones in the handling of grievances, etc.?
Statement. Written and oral evidence in connection with this case
shows that Mr. Jones is classified and rated as a bridge carpenter
and works under the supervision of the maintenance of way depart-
ment, performing tinners' work; that under the provisions of Supple-
ment No. 4 to General Order No. 27, promulgated by the United
States Railroad Administration, this employee was classified and
rated as a sheet-metal worker, which classification and rating re-
mained in effect up to and including April 15, 1920, when the rate
was reduced to that of bridge carpenter.
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Jones is performing
the work of tinsmith on shop buildings and in shop yards, and should
therefore be classified and rated in accordance with rule 126 of the
shop crafts' agreement.
The carrier concedes that the employee in question performed
certain tinner's work, but contends that the tinner's work he per-
forms is in connection with buildings maintained by the maintenance
DECISIONS.
305
of way department, and that he performs in addition to the tinner's
work such other work of a mechanic in the maintenance of way de-
partment that may be assigned to him from day to day.
The carrier further contends that the class of work Mr. Jones is
performing has always been under the maintenance of way depart-
ment, and further that pursuant to the issuance of Decision No.
119 by the Labor Board an agreement was consummated between
the carrier and the maintenance of way organization giving that
organization jurisdiction over employees performing work similar
to that performed by Mr. Jones, and therefore does not consider that
the shop crafts have any jurisdiction in the handling of this case.
Decision.-(a) Yes. The evidence submitted indicates that Emery
Jones is performing work classified as that of sheet-metal worker
and shall therefore be classified and rated accordingly. This change
in classification and rating to be effective July 1, 1921.
(b) Yes. The right of the Federated Shop Crafts to represent
craftsmen, irrespective of department or place employed, is clearly
established under the provisions of Title III of the transportation
act, 1920.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We do not agree with the foregoing decision which has been
adopted by the majority, and submit below our reasons for dis-
senting.
The evidence submitted in this case clearly shows that Emery
Jones was employed in the bridge and building department, perform-
ing work such as repairs and inspection of downspouts, gutters,
stoves, and furnaces, and work of like character; that while he was, in
accordance with rulings of the United States Railroad Administra-
tion, classified and paid as a sheet-metal worker up to April 15, 1920,
he was under the supervision of the bridge and building department.
Rule 125 of the shop crafts' national agreement, which was in ef-
fect at the time this dispute arose, reads as follows:
Any man who has served an apprenticeship, or has had four or more years'
experience at the various branches of the trade, who is qualified and capable
of doing sheet-metal work or pipe work as applied to buildings, machinery, loco-
motives, cars, etc., whether it be tin, sheet iron, or sheet copper, and capable
of bending, fitting, and brazing of pipe, shall constitute a sheet-metal worker.
Further attention is directed to that portion of rule 126 of the
shop crafts' national agreement, which was in effect at the time
this dispute arose, reading:
Sheet-metal workers shall include tinners, coppersmiths, and pipe fitters
employed in shop yards and buildings and on passenger coaches and engines
of all kinds,
An analysis of the shop crafts' national agreement will indicate
that in the special rules governing the machinists', boiler makers',
blacksmiths', and electrical workers classification, no reference is
made to service performed in shop yards and buildings; hence it
must be assumed that it was the intention of those promulgating
these rules that there should be a difference in the limitation as to
the scope of the sheet-metal work due to the characteristics of the
branches of service in which sheet-metal work is performed, while it
was recognized that no limitation should be placed upon the other
306
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
crafts hereinbefore mentioned, as the characteristics of the different
departments in which the service of said crafts is performed did not
change the character of service that may be performed by these ex-
cepted crafts.
One entirely familiar with maintenance of way service will readily
agree that the character of the service necessary in connection with
the maintenance of water service equipment and in the performance
of tinning and plumber's work in the maintenance of way depart-
ment is not comparable with the service of pipe fitters, copper-
smiths, tinners, and sheet-metal workers employed in and around
shops and shop yards primarily in connection with the mainte-
nance and repair of rolling stock.
The service last mentioned, as is stated under the rule, providing
for qualifications of sheet-metal workers, requires the service of a
competent mechanic of the sheet-metal trade, while the service per-
formed in the maintenance of way department, such as that per-
formed by the employee involved in this dispute, does not require.
the qualifications as provided for a sheet-metal worker in the main-
tenance of equipment department, nor does it require the services
of one who is an expert mechanic of that trade. This has been
clearly demonstrated by experience.
The signers of this dissent can not but feel that in view of the line
of demarcation that has been so strongly adhered to in the past
respecting maintenance of way and maintenance of equipment de-
partments, it was ever contemplated that the service of employees
who have been commonly known in the past as bridge and building
mechanics would at any time be considered service coming within the
classification of the work of the shop trades, except perhaps in some
isolated cases where exceptional skill is required
If this principle is carried out to its final conclusion, it would ulti-
mately result in practically all mechanics in the maintenance of way
service being classified and considered as coming within the classi-
fication provided for the shop trades. In this connection, we will
use as in illustration the water-service department: In the laying of
water lines and performing incidental service in connection there-
with, there must of necessity be performed work such as soldering,
leading, bending, fitting, cutting, threading, connecting, and discon-
necting water pipes; however, because of the fact that such em-
ployees do perform this work in addition to other work necessary in
connection therewith they are not properly entitled to the classifi-
cation of sheet-metal worker, nor is it believed that such was ever
contemplated. Such a construction if strictly adhered to would have
the tendency of changing the classification and rating of many em-
ployees of the maintenance of way department, who in the course of
their regular duties perform certain work enumerated in rule 126 of
the so-called national agreement.
Prior to the period of Government control of railroads there was
a definite and recognized line of demarcation as between mechanics
of the shop trades and mechanics of the maintenance of way depart-
ment; this line of demarcation having grown up through years of
experience clearly dictated that the services of the employees in the
two departments was not comparable. Only in rare instances were
employees of the maintenance of way department classified and paid
DECISIONS.
307
as shop mechanics, and then only in cases where exceptional skill was
required for the service in the maintenance of way department.
We do not contend that the Labor Board should adhere strictly to
the principles in vogue prior to Government control, as experience
during and since Government control has demonstrated the desirabil-
ity for changing certain of these practices; however, it is not felt that
experience has warranted the changing of the classification of main-
tenance of way mechanics because of the fact that they may be per-
forming, to a certain degree, service which is comparable to that
specified as coming within the scope of the so-called shop crafts, as
the dissimilarity of the service of the two departments warrants the
maintenance, at least to a considerable degree, of the departmental
division recognized in the past.
The evidence submitted in this case clearly shows that the em-
ployee in question is performing service which has been recognized
as that coming within the jurisdiction of the maintenance of way
department and which has in the past been performed by employees
of that department. The repairs, maintenance, and inspection of
downspouts, gutters, stoves, and furnaces, and service of like char-
acter which is performed by the employee in question and upon
which service the claim for classification as a sheet-metal worker
is based was never, except perhaps in a few isolated instances, classi-
fied as and paid the same rate as tinners or sheet-metal workers
employed at shops and who have been considered as members of the
shop trades.
It has been recognized that the employees engaged in skilled
sheet-metal work and upon whose proper performance of service
depends the necessary functioning of certain of the intricate parts
of locomotives, cars, and machinery, must of necessity be qualified
sheet-metal workers for the efficient and proper performance of
such service; it was also recognized that employees engaged in tin-
ning work in the maintenance of equipment department where ar-
ticles such as oil cans, stovepipes, downspouts, gutters, water cool-
ers, and other tin and galvanized work, etc., is made to specifica-
tions, must of necessity be qualified and skilled in that line of work.
This applies equally to other tinners', pipefitters', and coppersmiths'
work in the maintenance of equipment department.
It is not felt that the above work is at all comparable to service
in the maintenance of way department, and experience has clearly
demonstrated to the railroads that there is marked difference in the
qualifications necessary for the service such as is performed by the
employee involved in this question and a pipefitter in the mainte-
nance of equipment department. A qualified sheet-metal. worker
should be able to lay out, build, and repair all work pertaining to
his branch of the trade, which qualifications this employee appar-
ently does not possess, nor is it required in the class of service he is
performing.
With further regard for the particular question decided in the
foregoing decision, an analysis of the service performed by this
employee clearly indicates that he is performing work which has
for years been recognized as that of maintenance of way mechanics,
and while some of the operations performed by him may be opera-
tions listed in rule 126 of the shop crafts' agreement, the complete
308
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
assignment of this man is not comparable to the service enumerated
in rule 126. Regardless of any decisions that may have been ren-
dered by or under the authority of the United States Railroad
Administration, the Labor Board, as expressed in the last para-
graph of the various rules recently promulgated, does not accept
such interpretations or decisions as representing its views in con-
nection with said rules; therefore, the question as to the action of
the United States Railroad Administration in connection with this
and similar matters has been disregarded by the undersigned and
this opinion based on what is felt is a just and reasonable condition.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The decision arrived at by the majority is justified by the facts, if
the work performed is to be the guide rather than a pay-roll classifi-
cation, which may or may not mean anything.
One of the greatest injustices formerly so prevalent in railroad
employment, and yet existing to a limited degree, is that of improper
classification and the fixing of wage rates and working conditions on
the basis of this improper classification, rather than on the basis of
the work which is performed. It was because of a lack of reasonably
accurate information that the Labor Board at the very outset of its
activities found it imperative to promptly proceed with the stu-
pendous task of promulgating rules for reporting information on
railroad employees, together with a classification and index of steam
railroad occupations.
Contrary to the generally accepted opinion, the information re-
quired by and furnished to the Interstate Commerce Commission by
the carriers was not intended for wage-adjustment purposes, but
was intended to show certain divisions in the operating costs, and the
data gathered for this purpose, while meeting the requirements of
the Interstate Commerce Commission, was wholly inadequate and
generally misleading, if used as a basis of computing or arriving at
facts relating directly to wage rates and working conditions of the
railroad occupations.
Any attempt to establish the qualifications and classifications of
railroad occupations on the basis of departmental divisions and sub-
divisions thereof is wholly unsound, unwarranted, and indefensible
from any point of view if employees are to be treated fairly, and just
and reasonable rates of pay and working rules are to be established.
References made in the dissenting opinion as to the scope of the
rules applicable to the other crafts mentioned are irrelevant, as the
board, after most careful consideration and being in possession of
all the facts, issued a number of decisions, including Decision No. 222
and its addenda.
Attention is directed to section 3 of the general instructions con-
tained in Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, which reads:
The formulation of a preamble or caption to agreements or contracts is
hereby remanded to the carriers and their employees, severally, and in connec-
tion therewith the parties are referred to Decision No. 205, issued by the
Labor Board.
DECISIONS.
309
=
That portion of Decision No. 205 referred to reads:
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the work of the six shop crafts and
the conditions under which it is performed are so similar in their main charac-
teristics as to make it practicable and economical to treat said crafts as con-
stituting such an organization or class of employees as is contemplated in the
transportation act, 1920, and in Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board, for the
purpose in question, and that said six shop crafts may negotiate and enter into
said agreement jointly through the Federated Shop Crafts, if they so elect,
provided said system federation represents a majority of each craft or class.
*
It is understood that this agreement shall apply to those who perform the
work specified in this agreement in the maintenance of equipment, maintenance
of way, signal maintenance, telegraph maintenance, and all other departments
of these companies wherein work covered by this agreement is performed.
The above clearly shows that the Labor Board in promulgating these
decisions recognized that employees performing work enumerated in
Decision No. 222 and its addenda properly came within the scope
of said rules, irrespective of the department in which employed.
Considerable emphasis has been placed upon the noncomparability
of the service performed by mechanics in the respective departments.
The dissenting opinion is based largely upon general activities in
the respective departments, and is not confined to the service per-
formed by the employee in question.
The service performed by the particular employee involved in
this dispute is definitely covered by the shopmen's national agreement
and by Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, which is an admitted
fact.
Some emphasis has been placed upon the language contained in
rule 126, shop crafts' national agreement, reading:
* in shop yards and buildings and on passenger coaches and engines
of all kinds,
*
If this language was subject to difference of opinion as to its
meaning, rule 126 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 was
changed to read:
kinds,
in shops, yards, buildings, on passenger coaches and engines of all
and removed any possibility of misinterpretation.
The facts in this case do not support the conclusions arrived at in
the dissenting opinion.
DECISION NO. 948.-DOCKET 1152.
Chicago, Ill., April 28, 1922.
Petition of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees for Rehearing on Docket 1152, Decision
No. 821.
Question. This decision is upon the application of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees for rehearing on Docket No. 1152, Decision
No. 821.
Decision.-The Labor Board, after due consideration of the mo-
tion of the employees named for a rehearing of the dispute herein,
overrules said motion and declines to reopen said case.
310
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 949.-DOCKET 1153.
Chicago, Ill., April 28, 1922.
Petition of Southeastern Express Co. for Rehearing on Docket 1153, Decision
No. 822.
Question. This decision is upon the application of the Southeast-
ern Express Co. for rehearing on Docket No. 1153, Decision No. 822.
Decision.-The Labor Board, after due consideration of the mo-
tion of the carrier named for a rehearing of the dispute herein, over-
rules said motion and declines to reopen said case.
DECISION NO. 950.-DOCKET 687.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Petition of Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana for Rehearing on
Docket 687, Decision No. 476.
Question.-Application of the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana for rehearing in Docket 687, Decision No. 476.
Decision.-The Labor Board, after due consideration of the mo-
tion of the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana for a
rehearing of the dispute herein referred to, overrules said motion
and declines to reopen said case.
DECISION NO. 951.-DOCKET 1300–107–A.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago & North Western Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding application of carrier to reduce
rates of pay of train dispatchers.
Decision.-The employees and carrier have requested the with-
drawal from further consideration by the Labor Board of the ques-
tion in dispute. The case is therefore removed from the docket and
the file closed.
DECISION NO. 952.-DOCKET 1082.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Dispute regarding the proper application of Decisions
Nos. 2 and 147 to employees in the mail room of the carrier, Cleve-
land, Ohio.
Statement. The duties of certain employees in the mail room of
the carrier named at Cleveland, consist of receiving and dis-
tributing incoming and outgoing railroad mail. This mail is re-
ceived by the employees either in packages or mail pouches from in-
coming trains, or delivered to them for outgoing trains by mail
DECISIONS.
311
messengers from the various local departments and offices located at
that point. They reassort all of the mail with the exception of a
few packages in order that they may be placed in the proper pouches
for train or local city delivery. They sign and are responsible for
registered mail, the keeping of records pertaining to handling of
correspondence in connection therewith, and also prepare certain
requisitions and statements.
These employees were granted an increase of 10 cents per hour
under section 5, Article II of Decision No. 2, and a decrease of 10
cents per hour under section 5, Article II of Decision No. 147.
The carrier states that while these employees sign and are re-
sponsible for registered mail, keeping certain records pertaining
thereto, handling a small amount of correspondence, making a few
requisitions, etc., this work consumes considerably less than 50 per
cent of their time, consequently they do not come within the defini-
tion of a clerk, but are "employees engaged in * * * gathering
and distributing mail," as referred to in section 5, Article II of
Decisions Nos. 2 and 147.
**
*
*
The employees contend that the words "employees engaged in
gathering and distributing mail," as referred to in section
5, Article II of Decisions Nos. 2 and 147, refer only to such em-
ployees as are employed for the purpose of gathering mail from
the different departments for mailing and reassorting and distribut-
ing to the various departments to which they may be assigned. Em-
ployees further contend that these employees should be classified as
clerks and Decisions Nos. 2 and 147 applied in accordance with that
classification.
Decision. The evidence shows that the employees referred to
herein, engaged in handling mail at Cleveland, Ohio, are not em-
ployees engaged in gathering and distributing mail within the mean-
ing of section 5, Article II of Decisions Nos. 2 and 147; neither does
the evidence show that they are clerks. The Labor Board decides
that the rates of pay of these employees shall be adjusted analogi-
cally under Article XII of Decision No. 2 in accordance with sec-
tion 4, Article II of Decisions Nos. 2 and 147.
DECISION NO. 953.-DOCKET 1083.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper application of Article
II, Decision No. 2, to employees classified as station helpers.
Statement. There are employed at several stations of the carrier
named certain employees classified as station helpers. In the appli-
cation of Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27 they were in-
creased, under Article VI, as positions "not otherwise provided for.”
When the clerks' national agreement went into effect they were paid
a daily rate in accordance with rule 56, and when Decision No. 2 was
issued they were increased 83 cents an hour under section 9 of Arti-
cle II of said decision.
312
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The duties of these employees are not uniform at the various sta-
tions nor are they similar at the same station throughout the year,
but vary somewhat according to the season. At two of the stations
their entire time is devoted to the receiving, delivering, checking,
and unloading of freight and handling bills of lading, delivery slips,
etc., and other related work. At other stations the employees' time
is divided between work of this nature and cleaning and sweeping
stations and cars, handling baggage and mail, maintaining seal
records, etc.
The employees contend that these positions are composite positions
and should be classified in accordance with the preponderance of
their duties and should be granted the increase specified for such
classes in Decision No. 2. The employees further contend that
these positions are analogous to those of clerk, freight handler, or
baggageman, and that the action of the carrier in applying the in-
crease of 83 cents per hour, under section 9, Article II of Decision
No. 2, is not consistent with the training and skill required, the de-
gree of responsibility, or other relevant circumstances of their em-
ployment.
The carrier states that all of the stations involved in this dispute
are comparatively small, that when Decision No. 2 was issued no
specific reference was made to positions of this class, and therefore
Article XII of said decision was applied analogically. The carrier
further states that while a considerable portion of the time of these
employees is spent handling freight, it is felt that the positions are
not properly comparable with truckers and freight handlers at large
freight stations or transfer points where hourly rates are paid, con-
tinuous application in one class of work is generally required, and the
employment is to some extent irregular.
The carrier contends that the classification of these positions as
clerks is not justified; and that, taking into consideration the varied
character of their duties, the intermittent nature of the service re-
quired, and the regularity of employment, it is felt that the increase
specified in section 9, Article II of Decision No. 2, was just and
reasonable.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the employees referred
to herein are not clerks, freight handlers, or baggagemen as referred
to in sections 2, 7, and 4, respectively, of Article II, Decision No. 2,
and that the increase granted by the carrier under said decision is
just and reasonable for the work performed.
Claim of employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 954.-DOCKET 1088.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Request for reinstatement of M. H. Rose, car clerk,
Hillsboro, Oreg.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISIONS.
313
DECISION NO. 955.-DOCKET 1108.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of yard clerks on Cincinnati Terminal division,
Cincinnati, Ohio, for pay in lieu of annual vacation, year 1920.
Statement.-On October 1, 1916, the following instructions with
reference to granting annual vacations with pay were issued by the
carrier:
Yard clerks who have been in the service two years or more as yard clerks
and who are required to be on duty every day in the year and from whose pay
a deduction is made where they lose a day or two on account of sickness or
otherwise may be allowed two weeks' vacation annually without loss of pay.
The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees does not contain any provision with respect to pay for time
lost on account of sickness or vacations, but under date of January
30, 1920, the director, division of operation, issued the following in-
structions to the regional directors:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations and
sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point, but
it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick leave
would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal managers.
In the year 1920, 28 yard clerks on the Cincinnati Terminal di-
vision were denied a vacation of two weeks with pay and claim
was made for two weeks' compensation in lieu thereof. This claim
was denied by the carrier.
The employees contend that under the instructions of the carrier,
issued October 1, 1916, the yard clerks, whose claims are involved
in this dispute, are entitled to two weeks' vacation with pay, and that
not having been granted such vacations in the year 1920 they are
entitled, under the existing practice, to two weeks' compensation in
lieu thereof.
The carrier states that the instructions of October 1, 1916, pro-
vided that the vacation privilege was granted upon the condition
that employees were required to be on duty every day in the year.
At the time these instructions were issued yard clerks were working
12 hours per day every day in the month at a monthly rate based
on 12 hours per day. The carrier further states that they continued
this arrangement until the effective date of Supplement No. 7 to
General Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administra-
tion, which established an eight-hour day. When they were placed
on an eight-hour day, the carrier continued the vacations with pay
in effect in accordance with the language of Supplement No. 7, which
provides that past practices should be continued.
The carrier contends that when the clerks' national agreement
became effective, January 1, 1920, all yard clerks were placed on a
daily basis, with the result that those working every day in the
month received an increase of 163 per cent in their wages on ac-
count of receiving the same compensation for six days that they
314
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
had previously received for seven days. In accordance with the
provisions of rule 67 of the clerks' national agreement the car-
rier employed in the Cincinnati Terminal a relief clerk for the
purpose of affording yard clerks one day off in seven, as contem-
plated by that rule, but this resulted in considerable dissatisfaction
on the part of the yard clerks involved, who expressed a desire to
continue working seven days per week in order to get the benefit
of the increased earnings. This they were permitted to do. It is
claimed that since the employees involved in this dispute were not
required to work every day in the year the carrier was not obliged
to allow them an annual vacation of two weeks with pay.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 956.-DOCKET 1111.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-(a) Is rule 49 of the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees applicable to position of station helper at
Sevier, Mo.?
(b) Should said position have been increased 12 cents an hour
under section 7, Article II, of Decision No. 2?
Statement. The tour of duty of the position in question is from
7 a. m. to 4 p. m. The duties thereof consist of the performance of
miscellaneous work such as cleaning and sweeping, taking care of
fires, handling mail to and from post office, notifying consignees of
the arrival of freight, assisting in loading and unloading freight,
handling baggage, carrying messages, and performing odd jobs.
The position was increased 5 cents per hour under section 6, Article
II, of Decision No. 2. The position was abolished November 22,
1921.
The employees contend that the majority of the work consists of
handling freight in the warehouse, and that the position should
have been increased 12 cents per hour in accordance with section 7,
Article II, of Decision No. 2.
The carrier contends that the service performed by the employees
holding the position was of an intermittent character and did not
require continuous application; therefore it was properly classified
and paid on the basis established by rule 49 of the clerks' national
agreement. The carrier also contends that the position was properly
increased 5 cents per hour under section 6, Article II of Decision
No. 2.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
submitted:
(a) That the position referred to herein at Bevier, Mo., did not
require continuous application, and therefore it was properly paid
in accordance with rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
DECISIONS.
315
(b) That the position was not that of freight handler or trucker
referred to in section 12, Article II of Decision No. 2, and there-
fore not entitled to an increase of 12 cents per hour under that
section.
Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 957.-DOCKET 1183.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. R. Moll, clerk, super-
intendent's office, Springfield, Mo.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the board, the Labor
Board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 958.-DOCKET 1223.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of rule 49 of the clerks' national agree-
ment to train announcers, gatemen, and certain other employees,
Union Station, Cleveland, Ohio.
Decision. This dispute is remanded to the employees and the
carrier in accordance with understanding at hearing conducted by
the Labor Board to be handled on the basis provided in Decision
No. 632.
DECISION NO. 959.-DOCKET 1266.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of W. B. Montague, formerly
employed at Lewiston, Mont.
Decision. This case is remanded to the employees and the carrier
for joint investigation in accordance with understanding at hearing
conducted by the Labor Board. If a settlement of the dispute can
not be reached as a result of this investigation, a further joint sub-
mission should be made to the board.
With this understanding the case is removed from the docket and
the file closed.
20936°—23————21.
316
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 960.-DOCKET 1468.
Chicago, Ill.. May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of clerical employees at certain freight stations,
San Francisco, Calif., for pay for Admission Day, September 9, 1921,
on which day they were notified not to work.
Statement.-Admission Day, September 9, 1921, was proclaimed a
holiday by the Governor of the State of California. On September
8, 1921, notices were posted in two freight stations in San Francisco.
that the offices and sheds of those stations would be closed on
Admission Day, September 9, except for the handling of perishable
shipments. Pursuant to said notices the stations were closed and
employees who were not required to handle perishable shipments were
laid off and suffered deduction from their pay.
Rule 66 of the National agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees reads, in part, as follows:
* Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the reduction of days
for employees covered by this rule (66) below six per week, excepting that this
number may be reduced in a week in which holidays occur by the number of
such holidays.
The employees contend that Admission Day is not a holiday within
the meaning of the term as used in rule 66, while the carrier contends
that the word "holiday" as used in said decision is not confined to
the seven holidays referred to in rule 64 of the agreement.
Rule 64 of the clerks' national agreement designated the following
holidays, which, in addition to Sundays, are to be treated as holidays
and paid for as such: New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Dec-
oration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and
Christmas.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the language of
rule 66, above quoted, the holidays designated in rule 64 are the
only holidays of which either the employees or the carrier may take
advantage, unless other holidays are mutually agreed upon. The
Labor Board believes that the carrier would have been well within its
rights in seeking the employees' concurrence to treat Admission Day
as a holiday. However, in lieu of any such agreement the Labor
Board decides that under the rule above quoted the daily rated em-
ployees involved in this dispute are entitled to pay for Admission
Day, September 9, 1921.
DECISION NO. 961.-DOCKET 475-10-82.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding negotiation of rules for the govern-
ment of train dispatchers.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having requested the with-
drawal of same from further consideration by the Labor Board,
the case is removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
317
DECISION NO. 962.-DOCKET 475-10-144.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway
Co.; Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding negotiation of rules for the gov-
ernment of working conditions of train dispatchers.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having requested the with-
drawal of same from further consideration by the Labor Board,
the case is removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 963.-DOCKET 1613.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding right of the carrier to put into ef-
fect, over the protest of the employees and without decision of the
Labor Board, a set of rules governing working conditions of clerical
and station employees, in lieu of rules contained in an agreement
between the carrier and the employees dated March 30, 1920.
Statement. The hours of service and working conditions of cleri-
cal and station service employees of the carrier named were gov-
erned by an agreement between the carrier and the employees rep-
resented by the system board of adjustment, dated March 30, 1920,
and effective January 1, 1920.
On June 4, 1921, the carrier issued the following notice:
To employees concerned:
The railroad company has decided to abrogate on July 5, 1921, the schedule
of "hours of service and working conditions governing employees herein
(therein) named (clerks and others)," which was signed at Chicago by the
representatives of the respective parties on March 30, 1920, and such formal
notice as contemplated in rule 85 thereof has this date been given to the chair-
men whose names appear as subscribers thereto.
On July 5, 1921, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the railroad company
contemplates publishing just and reasonable rules to govern the working con-
ditions of such employees as may be necessary by reason of the aforementioned
decision.
On July 6, 1921, a schedule of hours of service and working condi-
tions for clerical and station employees was promulgated.
The employees state that a majority of the employees in clerical
and station service of the carrier are now and have been for some
time members of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees; that the general
chairman of that organization has been authorized by a majority of
the employees designated as clerks and others to represent them in
negotiations with the carrier pertaining to rules and working condi-
tions; and that the rules promulgated by the carrier on July 6, 1921,
were not rules agreed upon by the said carrier and the committee
of the employees, or promulgated in accordance with the provisions
of the transportation act, 1920.
318
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees also state that upon receipt of the notice of June 4
abrogating the agreement, the general chairman of the system board
of adjustment wrote the carrier in behalf of clerks and others ex-
pressing a willingness to meet with the carrier's representatives to
conduct negotiations upon rules and working conditions. The em-
ployees state that on June 30 their committee met the representatives
of the carrier and were required to produce evidence of their author-
ity to represent employees in clerical and station service. It is
claimed they thereupon submitted to the carrier a list containing the
signatures of a substantial majority of the employees in clerical and
station service, who had authorized the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
to represent them in the negotiation of an agreement. It is further
stated that conferences continued until July 5, on which date the
carrier advised the committee that the conference was terminated, as
well as the agreement signed on March 30, 1920, and that the carrier
would consider some of the suggestions proposed by the committee
and incorporate them into the schedule which it intended to publish.
The employees claim that on July 6 they endeavored to get the car-
rier to reconsider its position and continue negotiations until some
kind of an agreement was reached, but were advised that there was
nothing to reconsider as the management did not propose to have a
signed agreement, but intended to publish a schedule which did not
require any signatures to make it enforceable.
The employees contend that the promulgation of rules governing
working conditions of clerical employees on July 6 over the protest
of the employees was contrary to the spirit and intent of the trans-
portation act, 1920, and the orders of the Labor Board. In the origi-
nal submission to the Labor Board, the employees requested that the
rules of the clerks' national agreement be restored, but at hearing
conducted by the board, this request was amended to the restoration.
of rules of the agreement dated March 30, 1920, pending conferences
with the representatives of the employees or until changed in the
manner provided in the transportation act, 1920.
The carrier states that it has never had any contractual relations
with the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, that said organization
has not the right to legislate or make agreements for all or even a
majority of the employees for whom it has assumed that right, and
that said organization's alleged right has heretofore been challenged
by the employees concerned and the duly accredited representatives
of other groups of the same classes of employees who negotiated the
schedule of March 30, 1920.
The carrier further states that the only complaint entered in be-
half of the employees was in apprehension that the announcement
of the carrier regarding its adoption of just and reasonable rules
would not be realized as of July 5, in spite of the reassurance given
by the management that the interests of the employees would in
nowise be jeopardized and that conferences would be had at an
opportune time. The carrier contends that at the conferences com-
mencing June 30, 1921, each rule of the then existing schedule and
certain changes therein were considered and discussed, that the em-
ployee's committee informed the conference that it was prohibited
DECISIONS.
319
from consenting to any changes in existing rules, except changes in
the form of additional concessions from the carrier, and that the
employees proposed a number of entirely new and additional rules
designated to create working conditions that had never obtained
and which, if adopted, would have resulted in economic waste.
The carrier contends that the committee of employees refused to
approve or subscribe to a continuation of the rules that had been in
effect since January 1, 1920, in the form that the management was
willing to approve; hence, in order to comply with the promise ex-
tended to the employees in its formal notice of June 4, 1921, the
carrier published on July 6 a schedule of hours of service and work-
ing conditions which it considered just and reasonable. The carrier
further contends that since the publication of the schedule of rules
under date of July 6 there has been no indication on the part of
any of the employees affected that the rules incorporated therein
are unjust and unreasonable; therefore, a dispute within the mean-
ing of the transportation act, 1920, does not exist between the carrier
and its employees of the classes herein named.
Opinion. The Labor Board has heretofore decided and ordered
as one of the rules governing its procedure that the law under which
this board was created and organized makes it the duty of both
carriers and their employees and subordinate officials having differ-
ences and disputes to have and hold conferences to consider, and, if
possible, decide such disputes in conference, and where such disputes
are not decided in such conference to refer them to the Labor Board
to hear and decide. The carrier does not deny that the rules promul-
gated under date of July 6, 1920, were not rules agreed to in con-
ference between the carrier and representatives of employees in
clerical and station service in lieu of those contained in the agree-
ment of March 30, 1920.
Decision.-Inasmuch as there was a dispute between the repre-
sentatives of the employees and the carrier at the conclusion of the
conference on July 5, 1921, the carrier was not within its rights in
placing into effect on July 6, 1921, a set of rules in lieu of the agree-
ment of March 30, 1920, until the question in dispute had been
referred to and decided by the Railroad Labor Board.
The Labor Board therefore decides that the agreement of March
30, 1920, is in full force and effect until changed by agreement with
the employees or in the manner provided in the transportation act,
1920.
DECISION NO. 964.-DOCKET 1093.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding application of seniority rights of
E. W. Liston, superintendent's office, Los Angeles, Calif.
Statement. Mr. Liston was employed as a clerk in the super-
intendent's office, Los Angeles, April 19, 1920. In November,
1920, the position which he occupied was abolished, and he was
denied the right to exercise his seniority to a position held by a
320
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
junior employee in that office. Subsequently he was assigned to a
temporary position in the time-keeping bureau. The latter position
was abolished on February 11, 1921, but Mr. Liston was not per-
mitted to exercise his seniority rights in accordance with rule 27 of
the clerks' national agreement until February 16, 1921.
The employees state that when Mr. Liston was denied the right
to exercise his seniority rights over junior employees in the super-
intendent's office in November, 1920, the matter was taken up with
the carrier, and before it could be adjusted a temporary position in
the time-keeping bureau was created and Mr. Liston permitted to
occupy that position; that on account of this temporary position
carrying a higher rate of pay than the position which he was denied
the right to occupy by displacement, the clerks' committee agreed
with the representatives of the carrier that if instructions were issued
to permit Mr. Liston to exercise his seniority rights in accordance
with rule 27 of the clerks' national agreement when the temporary
position was abolished the employees would waive claim for payment
of two days' pay lost by Mr. Liston in the month of November, 1920.
The employees further state that they called the carrier's attention
to the fact that Mr. Liston would soon be out of employment again
on account of the temporary work in the time-keeping bureau near-
ing completion, but, nevertheless, when the work was completed on
February 11 and the temporary position held by Mr. Liston abol-
ished he was not permitted to exercise his seniority rights over
junior employees until February 16, resulting in a loss of four days'
compensation.
The employees contend that Mr. Liston had the requisite fitness
and ability to qualify for position held by employees junior to him
in the service, and that under the provisions of rule 27 of the clerks'
national agreement he should have been permitted to exercise his
seniority rights thereto on February 11, the date his position was
abolished. It is therefore requested that he be reimbursed for the
wage loss sustained on February 11, 12, 14, and 15, the 13th being
Sunday, through failure of the carrier to permit him to exercise
his seniority rights, as provided in rule 27.
Rule 27 of the clerks' agreement reads as follows:
Employees whose positions are abolished may exercise their seniority rights
over junior employees. Other employees affected may exercise their seniority
in the same manner.
The carrier states that in the office in question certain time-keeping
statements were being prepared and Mr. Liston was employed as an
extra clerk in connection with this work. In the same office there
were other extra clerks especially employed to prepare statements.
in connection with adjusting accounts with the Government. It is
claimed that these were two distinctly different classes of work and
that Mr. Liston was experienced in timekeeping work, while the
other extra clerks were experienced in the work of compiling the
special statements with which they had become familiar. When the
extra timekeeping work was completed, the position held by Mr.
Liston was abolished, and owing to the necessity of hurrying the
special accounting work to a completion and his lack of familiarity
with that work it was considered inopportune to assign him to it.
Furthermore, it was anticipated that there would shortly be a va-
DECISIONS.
321
cancy in a position in the timekeeping bureau with which work Mr.
Liston was familiar, and he was therefore denied the right to exer-
cise his seniority in November, 1920, with result that he lost two
days' pay.
The carrier states that the employees' committee filed claim for
the two days' compensation lost in November and the claim was
denied. It was appealed to the general manager, and at the con-
ference held with the employees' committee on February 10 the
employees claimed that Mr. Liston was competent to fill the position
to which he desired to exercise displacement rights. This, it is
claimed, was not conceded by the supervising officer, but in view of
the employees' contention it was agreed to permit Mr. Liston to dis-
place into the position desired when his assignment in the time-
keeping bureau terminated, but with the understanding that no com-
pensation would be allowed for the time lost as a result of the super-
intendent denying him that right.
The carrier contends that at said conference no specific reference
was made by either party as to the exact amount of time claimed
that would be thus waived, that the time claimed for the several
days referred to in February had not yet been lost, and that the
employees accepted the carrier's proposition because of the higher
rate of pay which Mr. Liston was receiving on the temporary time-
keeping position. The carrier claims that they understood this
agreement with the employees to cover all time lost as a result of
the circumstances, whereas the employees apparently understood it
to cover only the two days' pay lost in November. The carrier fur-
ther states that, the employees having accepted their proposition, in-
structions were issued to the superintendent, through the assistant
general manager, to permit Mr. Liston to exercise his seniority rights
in the superintendent's office. The letter was mailed on Friday,
February 11, received by the assistant general manager on Saturday,
February 12, presumably after the office had closed for the day, and
on Monday, the 14th, the instructions were transmitted to the super-
intendent. The carrier states that in its opinion the period, Feb-
ruary 11 to 15, should come within the understanding reached in
conference that claim for time lost would be waived, especially since
the carrier agreed to educate Mr. Liston for the position he desired,
with resultant expense and delay to the work.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the provisions of
rule 27, herein quoted, E. W. Liston should have been permitted to
exercise his seniority rights to position to which such rights en-
titled him when his position was abolished on February 11, 1921, and
he shall therefore be reimbursed for the wage loss sustained on Feb-
ruary 11, 12, 14, and 15, 1921.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 965.-DOCKET 1175.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Miss Hazelle M. Guyer.
Statement.-Miss Guyer was employed by the carrier in the year
322
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
1917. She requested and was granted a leave of absence on account
of ill-health in December, 1920. At the expiration thereof, in March,
1921, she requested an extension of three months. This extension
was not granted. Miss Guyer thereupon sought to return to the
service but failed to pass the physical examination required under
the carrier's rules. She was informed that she would be considered
out of the service with the understanding that she could return with
her seniority rights unimpaired at such time as her physical condi-
tion improved sufficiently to enable her to pass the required physical
examination.
The employees contend that Miss Guyer was wrongfully dropped
from the service of the carrier at the expiration of her leave of
absence in March, 1921, and that she should not have been required
to pass a physical examination, and furthermore that examinations
made by doctors other than the company physicians have shown
that she is in good health and physically fit to perform the duties
of her position.
The carrier contends that they have rules pertaining to the physical
condition of employees which are provided for the protection of
both the carrier and the employees, and that these rules require that
employees who are granted leave of absence on account of sickness
must pass a satisfactory physical examination before being per-
mitted to return to the service.
Decision. The evidence before the board shows that at the expi-
ration of her leave of absence in March, 1921, Hazelle M. Guyer
made application for an extension thereof on account of the condi-
tion of her health and that she was unable to pass the examination
as to physical condition required by the carrier's rules. Claim of
employees for reinstatement is therefore denied.
However, if upon receipt of this decision Miss Guyer still desires
to return to the service, and her physical condition has improved
sufficiently to enable her to pass the required examination, she should
be permitted to return to the service with her seniority rights un-
impaired.
DECISION NO. 966.-DOCKET 1176.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway
Co. and Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of train dispatchers for vacation with pay for
the year 1921.
Decision.-The employees having requested that this dispute be
withdrawn from further consideration by the Labor Board and the
carrier having concurred therein, the board grants request for with-
drawal. The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISIONS.
323
DECISION NO. 967.-DOCKET 1180.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. St. Louis Southwestern Rail-
way Co.
Question.--Request for reinstatement of L. R. Sexton, train dis-
patcher, Pine Bluff, Ark., with pay for time lost.
Statement.-On or about September 27, 1920, L. R. Sexton, train
dispatcher, Pine Bluff, was dismissed from the service for alleged
responsibility in connection with failure to issue a slow order on the
night of September 13-14, 1920, and which failure is said to have
resulted in the derailment of sleeping car in train No. 4 at or near
milepost 325 of the said carrier.
The employees disclaim responsibility on the part of Train Dis-
patcher Sexton for failure to issue slow order in question, as well as
for the derailment of train No. 4. The employees state that about
8 p. m., September 13, 1920, there was filed at the telegraph office at
Camden, Ark., a message directing the issuance of a slow order re-
quiring all trains to reduce speed to 10 miles per hour three to five
poles south of milepost 325; that this message was not transmitted
to the relay office at Pine Bluff, until 10.35 p. m., and that it laid
in the latter office until 11.45 p. m., when it was delivered to the
night chief train dispatcher, who indicated time of receipt on the
face of the message. The employees state that it is claimed this
message was then placed before second-trick Dispatcher Sexton,
or third-trick Dispatcher Roland at transfer time by night chief
train dispatcher with the remark, "Here is a slow order"; that it
could not possibly have been placed before Dispatcher Sexton until
at least a few minutes after 11.45 p. m., and that the record shows
Mr. Sexton put out an order to train No. 4 at 11.51 p. m., and cer-
tainly would have added this slow order to train No. 4 if same had
been brought to his attention.
The carrier states that while Dispatcher Sexton was on duty on
the second trick at Pine Bluff, on September 13, 1920, the night
chief train dispatcher laid on the edge of his train sheet a message
requiring the issuance of a slow order restricting the speed of trains
over some known bad track, that it was the duty of Train Dispatcher
Sexton to act instantly for the purpose of protecting the lives of pas-
sengers and the property of the carrier, and that he did not do this.
The carrier contends that Mr. Sexton was rightfully dismissed,
that he was granted proper hearing as required by the rules, that
there are no rules in effect which authorize the handling of this case
by the American Train Dispatchers' Association or the appeal
thereof to the Labor Board, and that the transportation act, 1920,
does not confer any jurisdiction on the Labor Board to hear and
decide this dispute.
Opinion. The evidence shows that a message requiring the plac-
ing of a slow order between the points referred to herein was filed at
Camden, at about 8 p. m. and that it was not transmitted to the
night chief train dispatcher until 11.45 p. m. It is further shown
that although the carrier states that the night chief train dispatcher
claims that he placed this message before Train Dispatcher Sexton at
about 11.45 p. m., that Mr. Sexton has consistently denied having
324
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
seen it, and the night chief train dispatcher has not definitely stated
that he placed the message before Train Dispatcher Sexton. In re-
sponse to the direct question as to the dispatcher on duty at the time,
the night chief train dispatcher stated that he was unable to say, as it
was about transfer time, and he did not observe who was sitting at
the desk.
The Labor Board has given due consideration to the statements
made by the carrier in connection with its jurisdiction and decides
that it has jurisdiction in this dispute.
Decision. The Labor Board has given full consideration to all of
the written and oral evidence before it in this dispute and decides
that there has been no evidence produced to show conclusively that
this slow order was delivered to Train Dispatcher Sexton prior to
his going off duty. The board therefore decides that Train Dis-
patcher Sexton shall be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired
and reimbursed for the wage loss sustained since the date of his dis-
missal, less any amount earned in other employment since that date.
DECISION NO. 968.-DOCKET 1184.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Mrs. M. E. Watson,
matron, King Street Station, Seattle, Wash.
Decision. Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the board, the Labor
Board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 969.-DOCKET 1893.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacifie
System).
Question.-Dispute regarding changing pay of chief train dis-
patcher and assistant chief train dispatcher to monthly basis, with-
out extra compensation for work performed on rest days.
Decision.-This dispute is remanded to the employees and the
carrier for conference and further consideration in accordance with
section 1 of general instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 970-DOCKET 1154.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics v. Kansas
City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.
Question.-Protest of organization against position held by A.
G. Harper being reclassified from roundhouse foreman to master
mechanic, and against wage reduction effective July 1, 1921.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
325
DECISION NO. 971.-DOCKET 1491.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Question-Shall the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co. pay to
its employees covered by the shop crafts' national agreement one
hour at the close of each week for checking in and out, in accord-
ance with rule 60 of the shop crafts' national agreement?
Statement. The evidence submitted shows that the Denver &
Salt Lake Railroad Co. operated under Federal control and was.
therefore covered by the so-called national agreement of the Fed-
erated Shop Crafts, rule 60 of which reads as follows:
When employees are required to check in and out on their own time, they
will be paid one hour extra at the close of each week, regardless of the
number of hours worked during the week.
It is shown that this rule was applied as written until June 1,
1921, at which time the carrier discontinued the practice.
This carrier is listed as a party to Decision No. 119, but up to
the date of the submission it had not negotiated an agreement in
lieu of the national agreement, which was continued in effect by
that portion of Addendum No. 2, which reads as follows:
In lieu of any other rules not agreed to in the conferences held under
Decision No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the
United States Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such
time as such rules are considered and decided by the Labor Board.
The Labor Board has extended to the carrier the privilege of
presenting evidence in connection with its position, but has received
no information.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the carrier has not com-
plied with the meaning and intent of Decision No. 119 and Adden-
dum No. 2 thereto in discontinuing the allowance of one hour per
week, and shall therefore restore this practice until the matter has
been handled in accordance with said Decision No. 119 and Ad-
dendum No. 2 thereto; further, that the employees shall be reim-
bursed to the extent they have suffered a wage loss account of this
change.
DECISION NO. 972.-DOCKET 1493.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), V.
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Question.-Alleged violation of rule 27 of the national agreement
of the Federated Shop Crafts.
Statement. There has been duly filed with the Labor Board an
ex-parte submission from the Federated Shop Crafts indicating that
on or about February 4, 1921, the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
commenced a reduction in force by laying off its carmen, and that it
326
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
continued reducing the force until April 15, when a total of 45 car-
men had been laid off, leaving 14 carmen in the service.
It is further shown that on February 27, 1921, the carrier hired 6
new men in the car department; that on February 28, 2 more new
men were hired in the car department; that on May 26, 3 additional
new men were placed at work in the car department; and that this
total of 11 new men were classified as carmen helpers and rated at
62 cents per hour.
It is the employees' claim that instead of performing helpers' work
as classified in rule 156 of the shop crafts' national agreement, these
men were required to perform regular carmen's work. It is further
claimed by the employees that the laying off of the regular carmen
by the carrier and the hiring of these men as helpers is a discrimina-
tion against 11 carmen who were laid off in the force reduction.
The employees therefore contend that such action on the part of the
carrier is a direct violation of rule 27 of the national agreement, and
that the 11 carmen holding seniority over the men who were em-
ployed as helpers are entitled to reinstatement to their former posi-
tions with full pay for all time lost; further, that the 11 employees
classified as carmen helpers should be compensated for the difference
between 62 cents and 80 cents per hour because of the fact that they
had been required to perform carmen's work as specified in rule 154
of the shop crafts' agreement.
Although communications have been addressed to the carrier re-
questing its position, and an oral hearing has been conducted, the
Labor Board has received no evidence from the carrier in refutation
of the employees' claim, and accordingly renders the following
decision:
Decision. (a) The Labor Board decides upon the evidence sub-
mitted that the carrier violated rule 27 of the national agreement in
employing new men in preference to those who had been laid off
in a reduction in force and who held seniority, and that therefore
the 11 men holding seniority shall be reinstated to their former posi-
tions with full seniority rights and paid for all time lost less any
amount they may have earned in other employment.
(b) The Labor Board decides that if the 11 men who were classi-
fied as carmen helpers were required to perform work classified under
rule 154, they shall be compensated for the difference between the
rate of helpers and the rate of carmen for all time so served.
DECISION NO. 973.-DOCKET 1500.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Question.-Shall the rates of pay for crossing watchmen as estab-
lished by the United States Railroad Administration and the in-
creases granted by the Railroad Labor Board in Decision No. 2 apply
to the Pere Marquette Railway Co.?
Decision. The parties to this dispute have mutually agreed to
withdraw same from consideration by the Labor Board. The docket
is therefore closed.
DECISIONS.
327
DECISION NO. 974.-DOCKET 1558.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the principle contained in Decision No. 1827 of
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2 be applied to Denver, Colo.,
and Casper, Wyo., where the same condition exists relative to the
rate of pay of boiler washers?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that prior to the period of Federal control of
railroads the rates of pay for helpers in the shop crafts employed
on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad at Western Avenue,
Chicago, Denver, Colo., and Casper, Wyo., were a few cents per
hour in excess of the rates paid helpers elsewhere on the system;
that throughout the period of Federal control and up to the present
time the differential in rates for helpers at these points obtained.
It is shown that when the national shop agreement became effec-
tive-rule 81 of which classified boiler washing as boiler-maker
helpers' work-the men who were then employed on boiler washing
were retained on the job at all points, but their hourly rates, were
less than that of boiler-maker helpers' rates, were changed and they
were given seniority as boiler-maker helpers. The carrier refused
however to change their pay-roll classification from that of boiler
washer or boiler-washer helpers to that of boiler-maker helpers.
It is shown that a difference of opinion existed between the repre-
sentatives of the employees and the representatives of the carrier as
to the proper rate that should be applied to boiler washers at
Western Avenue, Chicago, and upon failure to reach an agreement
on this question the matter was submitted to Railway Board of
Adjustment No. 2 for decision. On September 11, 1920, a decision
was rendered by Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2 which pro-
vided that the minimum rate paid boiler-maker helpers at Western
Avenue should be applied to boiler washers. The decision so ren-
dered was applied by the carrier to the boiler washers at Western
Avenue, Chicago.
It is the contention of the employees that in discussing this matter
prior to the submission to the Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2
it was understood that the decision rendered by the Railway Board
of Adjustment would be made applicable also to Denver, Colo., and
Casper, Wyo. The carrier does not agree that this was the under-
standing when the case was submitted to the United States Railroad
Administration, and that the decision had no reference to or con-
nection with any other point; further, that the decision so rendered
was patently in error, and that under the instructions of the Federal
managers as to recognition and application of decisions of boards
of adjustment, it was optional to apply any such decisions at other
points.
The carrier takes the position that it was justified in paying the
boiler washers at Denver and Casper a lower rate than is paid other
boiler-maker helpers.
328
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that inasmuch as boiler wash-
ers were considered boiler-maker helpers under rule 81 of the Fed-
erated Shop Crafts' national agreement and under rule 81 of Ad-
dendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, these men are entitled to the
minimum rate applicable to boiler-maker helpers at the point em-
ployed. This decision shall be effective May 1, 1922.
DECISION NO. 975.-DOCKET 1598.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of George Bohnsack, tunnel watchman, Dead-
wood, S. Dak., for adjustment in rate of pay under the provisions
of section 5, Article III of Decision No. 2, issued by the United
States Railroad Labor Board, such adjustment to be effective Decem-
ber 1, 1920, the date upon which the rate was changed to a monthly
basis.
Decision. Both parties to the dispute have agreed to withdraw
this case from consideration by the Labor Board. The board's file
in connection with the dispute is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 976.-DOCKET 1675.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Should apprentices, who complete their period of ap-
prenticeship at a time when a reduction in forces is in effect and
while mechanics who have been laid off account of such reduction in
forces are still available for employment, be retained in the service
as mechanics.
Statement.-Rule 42, Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, reads
in part as follows:
If an apprentice is retained in the service upon completing the apprentice-
ship, his seniority rights as a mechanic will date from the time of completion
of apprenticeship.
Decision. No. The language of rule 42, Addendum No. 6 to
Decision No. 222, specifically provides that the seniority of a me-
chanic will date from the time of completion of apprenticeship;
therefore, the seniority of a mechanic shall be the determining factor
in deciding the men who shall be retained in the service under force
reduction.
The board therefore decides that if this practice has not been fol-
lowed the employees holding seniority as mechanics and who have
been held out of the service on this account shall be returned to the
service, but without monetary consideration for time lost.
DECISIONS.
329
DECISION NO. 977.-DOCKET 1879.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Is Decision No. 2, issued by the United States Railroad
Labor Board under date of July 20, 1920, applicable to section and
extra gang laborers who are employed on the line operated by the
Great Northern Railway Co, located wholly within the Dominion of
Canada?
Decision-No. The Labor Board has no authority to establish
rates of pay or working conditions for employees engaged exclusively
in work outside of the territorial limits of the United States of
America.
DECISION NO. 978.-DOCKET 1627.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Protest of the Federated Shop Crafts against refusal
of the carrier to meet them for the purpose of discussing rules and
working conditions.
Statement. The Labor Board is in receipt of considerable evi-
dence in the form of oral testimony and exhibits from the Federated
Shop Crafts purporting to show that they represent a majority of
the employees in the mechanical crafts on the Toledo, St. Louis &
Western Railroad and that they have used every reasonable effort
to secure a conference with representatives of the carrier for the pur-
pose of negotiating rules and working conditions in conformity with
the procedure outlined in Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board, but
that they have been unable to secure such conference or recognition
from the carrier.
The carrier takes the position that there is no dispute between
the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co. and its shop employees;
that the only dissatisfaction among its men has been created by out-
side influence; and that it is at all times ready and prepared to dis-
cuss through its various departments any grievances or differences
with committees of its own men.
Decision-The Labor Board directs that the carrier shall confer
with representatives of the shop crafts and that if said representa-
tives can produce authorization that they represent a majority of
the shop crafts on that property, a conference shall be conducted for
the purpose of negotiating rules and working conditions affecting
such employees in conformity with Decision No. 119 of the Labor
Board.
330
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 979.-DOCKET 1670.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Question.-Has the carrier the right to deduct from the monthly
rate of a section foreman time lost on Armistice Day, November 11,
1921, on which date his gang was not working.
Decision.-(a) If a foreman is compensated on a monthly basis
for all service rendered, not including the excepted service provided
in section (h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of the
regular working hours or days assigned for the general force, it is
clearly the intent of section (h) of Article V, above quoted, that such
foreman should receive not less than the monthly rate so established
provided he was ready and available to perform the service required.
(b) If a foreman is compensated on a monthly basis and paid over-
time for work performed after eight hours and all work performed
on Sundays and holidays, no valid claim can be made for the time
lost under the provisions of section (h), Article V, of the agreement
then in effect.
DECISION NO. 980.-DOCKET 1880.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Union Pacific System.
Question.-The question submitted to the Labor Board was in
regard to the adoption of two rules-namely, section 3 of Article V,
covering split tricks, and section 31 of Article V, covering special
service.
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of advice that the ques-
tions in dispute have been settled in conference. The docket is
therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 981.-DOCKET 1084.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding right of G. B. Walrath, former
trainmaster, to displace train dispatchers in the dispatchers' office,
St. Lawrence division, Watertown, N. Y.
Statement. On or about March 16, 1921, Mr. Walrath, train-
master, St. Lawrence division, Watertown, was permitted to take
a position of train dispatcher in the dispatching office at that
point. Mr. Walrath was first employed by the carrier as a tele-
graph operator at Philadelphia, N. Y., in May, 1890. He was ap-
pointed dispatcher at Watertown, November 5, 1900, and remained
in that position until May, 1901. He served as operator at Oswego,
N. Y., from May, 1901, until April, 1902, when he returned to
Watertown as dispatcher. In June, 1902, he was appointed dis-
DECISIONS.
331
patcher at Oswego, and continued in that position until September,
1906, when he was appointed to the position of dispatcher at Rich-
land, N. Y. From June to August, 1908, he served as chief dis-
patcher at Richland, and from August to November, 1908, as train
dispatcher at that point.
In September, 1908, the territory embracing the dispatching
offices at Watertown, Oswego, and Richland was divided into two
separate divisions-the St. Lawrence division, with headquarters at
Watertown, and the Ontario division, with headquarters at Oswego.
The dispatching office at Richland was included in the Ontario divi-
sion territory.
From November, 1908, to September, 1913, Mr. Walrath was
employed as chief dispatcher on the Ontario division. He was then
appointed assistant trainmaster and subsequently appointed train-
master at Watertown on the St. Lawrence division where he re-
mained until March 16, 1921, when his position of trainmaster was
abolished.
The employees state that when the two divisions were established
in 1908, Mr. Walrath was a train dispatcher on the Ontario division,
that he elected to continue in the dispatching service on that division
until September, 1913, when he was appointed assistant trainmaster
on the St. Lawrence division. The employees further state that
Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board continued in effect the regula-
tions of the United States Railroad Administration pertaining to
seniority of train dispatchers, that said regulations established the
principle of division seniority, and furthermore that division senior-
ity for train dispatchers is now in effect on said carrier.
The employees contend that by electing to remain in the service
of the carrier on the Ontario division in 1908, Mr. Walrath for-
feited his seniority rights as a train dispatcher on the St. Lawrence
division, and that the action of the carrier in permitting him to
displace a dispatcher in the dispatching office of the St. Lawrence
division was improper. It is therefore requested that the carrier be
directed to remove Mr. Walrath from position he holds in the dis-
patching office of the St. Lawrence division, restore the train dis-
patchers affected by his assignment to position in said office to their
proper positions, and reimburse them for the monetary loss sus-
tained.
The carrier states that in September, 1908, when the two divisions
referred to herein were created, the train dispatchers in the offices
affected were not permitted to choose between the two divisions, as
stated by the employees, and that in the absence of definite seniority
regulations affecting train dispatchers prior to July 1, 1921, the car-
rier considered such transfer entirely proper. The carrier further
states that the regulations of the Railroad Administration, referred
to by the employees, classified train dispatchers as division officials,
and that it has always been the practice to transfer division officers
from one division to another when the requirements of the service
made such change desirable.
The carrier therefore contends that its action in permitting Mr.
Walrath to displace a dispatcher junior in the service at Watertown,
where he had served as train dispatcher on two previous occasions,
was entirely reasonable and proper.
20936°-23——22
332
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion. The employees concede that Mr. Walrath is entitled to
seniority as a train dispatcher from November 5, 1900, but contend
that by reason of his electing to continue in the carrier's service on
the Ontario division in 1908, when the two divisions were created,
as herein described, seniority from that date accrued to him on the
Ontario division, and that he forfeited the right to exercise seniority
on the St. Lawrence division. While it is not shown that Mr. Wal-
rath had the opportunity to elect whether or not he would remain
on the Ontario division in 1908, in the opinion of the Labor Board
it is reasonable to believe that his continuance in the service on that
division until 1913 established the existence of a preference, and, in
any event, it established his rights on the Ontario division.
The carrier admits that train dispatchers who were employed
prior to 1908 in the dispatching offices located on what are now
designated as the St. Lawrence and Ontario division, were not, at
the time this dispute arose, accorded the right to exercise seniority
on both of said divisions. Furthermore, it is not denied by the
carrier that train dispatchers on the St. Lawrence division are not
now permitted to exercise seniority rights to positions in the dis-
patching offices on the Ontario division, or vice versa. The carrier
has shown where several transfers of dispatchers between the two
divisions have heretofore occurred, but since these transfers were
made prior to September, 1908, when the dispatching offices were
located on the same division, this evidence is not material.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that G. B. Walrath, having
established seniority rights as a dispatcher on the Ontario division,
should not have been permitted to displace train dispatchers in the
dispatching office of the St. Lawrence division at Watertown, N. Y.
when his position of trainmaster was abolished in March, 1921, and
that the dispatchers affected by said displacement shall therefore
be restored to their former positions and reimbursed for wage loss
sustained, less any amount earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 982.-DOCKET 850.
Chicago, Ill., May 9, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Question.-Are the contracts which the Indiana Harbor Belt Rail-
road Co. has let for the operation of its railway shops in violation
of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and rule decisions
of the Railroad Labor Board, and do said contracts remove from
under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Labor Board the employees
who, under said contractor, are performing shop work for the
carrier?
Statement of facts-History of contracts.-The stock of the In-
diana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. is owned by four carriers, as follows:
New York Central Railroad Co., 30 per cent; Michigan Central Rail-
road Co., 30 per cent; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.,
20 per cent; and Chicago & North Western Railway Co., 20 per cent.
January 1, 1921, the carrier posted a notice that its car-repair
shop at Burnham would be shut down January 19, 1921, and on
DECISIONS.
333
January 17, 1921, the carrier posted another notice, stating that the
Burnham Car Repair Co. would take charge of the work at that
point. The parties entered into a contract January 29, 1921, cover-
ing the carrier's car-repair work at Burnham and West Hammond.
July 1, 1921, the parties entered into a new contract for Burnham
and West Hammond, identical with the first, except that the per-
centage for compensation of contractor was reduced from 12 per cent.
to 5 per cent.
On January 19, 17 men were laid off by the carrier.
About January 20, 1921, the Burnham Car Repair Co. took over
the car-repair work of the carrier at its rip track at Calumet Park.
On January 28, 1921, the Burnham Car Repair Co. was chartered
under the laws of the State of Illinois.
On March 1, 1921, a notice was posted by the carrier at the Michi-
gan Avenue yards at East Chicago, Ind., stating that, "effective five
days from date, this company will no longer operate this repair
track." July 1, 1921, the carrier entered into a contract with said
Burnham Car Repair Co. for the operation of its car shops at Michi-
gan Avenue, Ind.
On March 4, 1921, another notice was posted at the Michigan Ave-
nue yards, headed "Burnham Car Repair Co., Michigan Avenue re-
pair yards; John W. Jaranowski, president; Charles O. McCoy,
treasurer," stating that, "effective Monday, March 7, this repair
facility will be taken over by the Burnham Car Repair Co.," and
signed "Burnham Car Repair Co., John W. Jaranowski.
27
March 30, 1921, application was made by the Burnham Car Repair
Co. to the secretary of state of Indiana for a license to operate as a
foreign corporation in Indiana, which license was granted April 2,
1921.
March 7, 1921, 21 employees at Michigan Avenue yards were dis-
charged, leaving only 2, who left in a few days.
About March 23, 1921, the Burnham Car Repair Co. extended its
operations to include the Blue Island car shops of the carrier.
On the 1st day of July, 1921, the carrier and said Burnham Car
Repair Co. entered into another contract covering the Blue Island
shops, identical with that of March 23, except that the percentage
of compensation to the contractor was changed from 12 per cent to
5 per cent.
On April 2, 1921, the carrier contracted to said Burnham Car Re-
pair Co. its car-repair work at West Gibson, Ind.
About March 29, 1921, a notice was posted by the carrier at Nor-
paul car-repair yards to the effect that the carrier would discontinue
the operation of the yards on April 2.
Subsequently said yards were operated by J. H. Van Name, who
was prior thereto an employee of the company. He operated these
yards only a few weeks and then returned to the employ of the car-
rier. His contract contained a clause providing for its termination
by either party on 10 days' notice.
Under date of September 16, 1921, the carrier entered into an agree-
ment with the Burnham Car Repair Co. by which said company con-
tracted to do all the carrier's car-repair work at Blue Island, Michi-
gan Avenue, West Gibson, Gibson Transfer, Calumet Park, Norpaul,
and Argo.
334
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
.
This contract evidently superseded all the above-mentioned prior
car-repair contracts between said parties, and contained a number of
new provisions, but in its main features is the same as its predeces-
sors. It covers all the car-repair work on said railroad.
It is in the words and figures following:
Copies for
GH
O G
GCW & M
WH McG
W M McM
EM W
RJA
Please sign receipt
and return to me.
W. M. O'Brien,
Auditor.
IH BRR Co.
No. 1472
BURNHAM CAR REPAIR CO.
Car Repairs
Blue Island, Michigan Ave., W. Gibson, Gibson
Transfer, Calumet Park, Norpaul, and Argo
SEPTEMBER 16, 1921.
This agreement, made this 16th day of September, 1921, by and between the
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, hereinafter called the " railroad," and
Burnham Car Repair Co., hereinafter called the car company."
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth,
the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. The car company agrees to make repairs at Blue Island, Ill., Michigan
Avenue, Ind., West Gibson, Ind., Gibson Transfer (L. C. L.), Ind., Calumet Park,
Ill., Norpaul, Ill., and Argo, Ill., in accordance with instructions of the railroad's
foreman, such cars as the railroad may desire to have repaired. The car com-
pany agrees to make any repairs that the railroad may require it to make in
its various yards, and agrees further to furnish such men for wrecking service
as the railroad may call for. The railroad's foreman shall designate the work
to be done by the car company on each car, and no repairs shall be made except
as authorized by the railroad's foreman. All repairs shall be made in a manner
satisfactory to the foreman of the railroad. Upon completion of repairs as
ordered, the railroad foreman shall certify therefore as to quality, quantities,
sizes and weights of materials used in said repairs. The railroad foreman shaii
have no authority to change this agreement, waive any of its provisions or per-
mit any act or practice inconsistent therewith.
2. Tools, shop machinery, equipment and supplies necessary to carry on the
repair work for the railroad shall be furnished by the railroad.
3. The car company may use the shops, machinery and equipment of the
railroad located at Blue Island. Ill., Michigan Avenue, Ind., West Gibson, Ind.,
Gibson Transfer (L. C. L.), Ind., Calumet Park, Ill., Norpaul, Ill., and Argo, Ill.,
in making such repairs for the railroad and in making repairs for others, but
repairs of the railroad shall at all times be given preference.
4. The railroad will maintain and own the material stock. It being under-
stood that material on hand at Blue Island, Ill., Michigan Avenue, Ind., West
Gibson, Ind., Gibson Transfer (L. C. L.), Ind., Calumet Park, Ill., Norpaul, Ill.,
and Argo, Ill., will be subject to supervision and inspection by the railroad
storekeeper. As additional material is required requisitions will be made by the
car company on a form to be prescribed and furnished by the railroad, such
requisitions to be approved by the railroad master car builder. Monthly dis-
bursement statement of material used will be prepared from the stock books
as instructed by the master car builder.
5. Repair cards covering shall be made by the car company in accordance with
A. R. A. rules which among other things provides for a separate and individual
card for each car repaired. Such repair cards for cars on which the repairs
are completed shall be forwarded daily to the railroad master car builder at
Gibson, Ind.
6. All scrap and reclaimed material other than lumber shall be separately
listed on the bill for the car from which obtained and except as the railroad's
representative shall designate it for use in these repairs, shall be returned by
the car company to the railroad loaded on cars and shipped as directed by the
railroad master car builder. The railroad may require the car company to
DECISIONS.
335
use salvage lumber in making certain repairs: namely, sound sills for splicing
and second sheathing for roofs and patching, as may be directed by the railroad
inspector.
7. Applied labor charged shall be in accordance with approved schedule of
piecework rates of pay as effective January 1, 1921, which is attached and made
a part hereof, and such additional schedules as may be hereafter approved
by the railroad and accepted in writing by the car company, such schedules
finally approved and accepted in writing to become a part of this contract.
8. The car company shall pay for all labor and supervision furnished by it
in performing work for the railroad hereunder. As compensation for the
work performed for the railroad hereunder, the railroad shall pay to the car
company the actual cost of all labor engage in performing work for the rail-
road. plus 5 per cent of the actual cost of said labor. The car company shall
keep accurate account of all such expenditures and shall keep and furnish such
other records, reports, and accounts as the railroad may require. The railroad
shall have access at all reasonable times to the reports, records, and accounts
of the car company for the purpose of determining the accuracy of its charges.
The car company shall promptly, after the close of each calendar month, render,
in the form prescribed by the master car builder of the railroad, a bill for
the work on all cars completed and accepted by the railroad foreman during
said month, and if correct, the railroad shall pay said bills within 30 days
after the receipt of the same. The compensation as hereinbefore provided
shall be accepted by the car company in full payment for work performed for
the railroad under this contract.
9 The men in the employ of the car company will be required to familiarize
themselves with the operating rules of the railroad in so far as pertaining to
locking of switches, blue flag, and light protection and safety rules generally
that are now in effect or that may hereafter become effective of which due and
timely notice will be given.
10. The railroad company shall indemnify and save harmless the car company
from any and all claim or claims for injury to or death of persons in any way
arising or growing out of the car repair work performed by said car company for
the railroad hereunder, whether such injury or death shall be due to the negli-
gence of the car company or otherwise. If any suit be commenced against the
car company separately or against the railroad and car company jointly upon
any claim or claims in respect to which the railroad company has herein agreed
to indemnify and save harmless the said car company, then the railroad com-
pany shall upon notice of the pendency of such suit assume the defense of
such suit and save the said car company harmless from all loss and from all
cost by reason thereof.
11. The car company shall not be charged for the use of the railroad's tools,
shops, machinery, equipment, or other facilities of the railroad while making
repairs for the railroad, but the car company shall pay the railroad for the
use of said tools, shops, machinery and equipment or other facilities of the
railroad while making repairs for others than the railroad, amounts to be
agreed upon by the railroad and the car company. If, at any time, the parties
hereto are unable to agree upon amounts to be charged the car company for
the use of the tools, shops, machinery, and equipment or other facilities of the
railroad, said amount shall be determined by three arbitrators, one to be chosen
by the railroad, one by the car company, and one by the two so chosen.
If
the arbitrators chosen by the parties hereto are unable to agree upon the third
arbitrator, then the third arbitrator shall be appointed by any judge of a court
of record in Cook County, Ill.
12. The car company shall furnish in form satisfactory to the railroad a
bond for an amount of $15,000 conditioned for the faithful performance by the
car company of this agreement, and indemnifying the railroad against any
liens on account of work performed by the car company.
13. This agreement may be terminated by either party hereto by giving 60
days' written notice to the other party.
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD Co.,
By GEORGE HANNAEUR,
BURNHAM CAR REPAIR Co.,
By JOHN W. JARANOWSKI.
Dispute arising from contracts. Following the action of the
carrier in contracting the car-repair work at Burnham, the griev-
ance committee of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America,
336
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
representing the carmen employees, held a conference January 21,
1921, with the master car builder of the carrier. At this conference
the action of the carrier in discharging its employees and contracting
its shop work at Burnham was discussed, and the minutes of the
conference, signed by both parties, contain this statement:
It was explained to the committee that this action was brought about by
contract having been executed as between this company and the Burnham
Car Repair Co., which contract specifies that they are to take over and operate
this shop and facility.
As the other contracts hereinbefore referred to followed in rapid
sequence, many communications were addressed to the carrier by the
representatives of the various classes of employees concerned, ask-
ing for conferences in which to consider the grievances of the em-
ployees arising from their discharge and from the arbitrary setting
up by the carrier of new wages and working conditions by virtue of
said contracts.
The carrier declined to hold any further conference with the rep-
resentatives of the employees on the ground that it no longer had a
car department, that the shop employees were the employees of the
contractor and not of the carrier, and that said employees were not
subject to the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
Pursuant to the dispute which arose in the one conference held as
aforesaid, and to the various refusals of the carrier to hold further
conferences, the employees through their system federation filed two
ex-parte disputes with the Railroad Labor Board, involving the
questions herein considered. Operations under these contracts gen-
erated several incidental disputes, but they are all dependent on the
one main question.
Opinion. The employees contend:
(1) That the contracts involved herein are not in good faith, but
are mere subterfuges, designed to evade the provisions of the trans-
portation act and the decisions of the Railroad Labor Board; and
(2) That, even if the contracts are in good faith, they are in viola-
tion of the transportation act and in conflict with the decisions of
the Railroad Labor Board.
The board is of the opinion that the employees failed to substan-
tiate their contention that the contracts are actually fraudulent, and
that they are mere subterfuges contrived to evade the transportation
act. Obviously they do evade the act, but the carrier contends that
it is a lawful evasion.
This contract system is not an innovation_recently born of the
desire to circumvent the transportation act. It existed long before
the transportation act was ever dreamed of. In fact, it was prac-
ticed as far back as 1855 on the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balti-
more Railroad and it is pertinent to note that the actual operation
of the trains on this road was let by contract.
This leads up to the remaining and principal issue in this case—
namely, had the carrier the right to enter into such contracts as
takes this class of employees from under the application of the
transportation act and the jurisdiction of the Railroad Labor Board?
No more important dispute has ever come before the Labor Board
for adjudication. It goes to the vitals of the transportation act.
If the carrier can legally do the thing which has been done under
DECISIONS.
337
these contracts, then the entire transportation act can be nullified and
the will of the Congress of the United States set at naught. If
one class of employees can thus be taken from under the applica-
tion of the act, there is no sound reason why each and every railroad
employee in the United States can not be given like treatment. One
class of employment lends itself as readily to this method as another.
Contracts have been recently entered into by various carriers, pur-
porting to turn over to so-called independent contractors the work
of the following classes of employees.
(1) The six shop crafts, (2) the maintenance of way employees,
3) certain employees embraced in the clerks' organization, (4) the
firemen and oilers, (5) the hostlers, embraced in the engine service,
and (6) the signal department employees.
It is intimated by the carrier that, perhaps, the actual operation
of the trains could not be let to an independent contractor, because
that would be a violation of the carrier's charter; that it would not
be permitted to transfer the very power for the exercise of which it
had been created, unless it delegated it to another common carrier.
This is not a clear distinction, for the carrier in such a case would
still be answerable to the public for the performance of its functions
as a common carrier, and would not have contracted away this respon-
sibility. It would merely have changed its method of paying its
transportation employees, as it has its shop employees in the case
under consideration.
The object of the transportation act was to prevent interruption
to traffic, growing out of disputes between carriers and their em-
ployees. Such controversies had for years periodically harassed
the public, blocked commerce, stagnated business, destroyed prop-
erty values, and visited great inconvenience and suffering upon mil-
lions of people. At a time when our country was in no condition to
undergo further repetitions of such unfortunate experiences and
when they were possible on a much larger scale than ever before,
Congress endeavored to provide a method for the adjustment of rail-
way labor troubles. In the transportation act, 1920, the Government
enjoins upon all carriers, and their officers, employees, and agents,
the duty to "exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available
means to avoid any interruption to the operation of any carrier,
growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees or
subordinate officials thereof." Elaborate provisions are made in
this act for conferences between the parties for the settlement of
disputes and, in the event of a failure to agree, for the hearing and
decision of them by adjustment boards and by the Railroad Labor
Board.
When Congress in this act speaks of railroad employees it un-
doubtedly contemplates those engaged in the customary work directly
contributory to the operation of the railroads. It is absurd to say
that carriers and their employees would not be permitted to inter-
rupt commerce by labor controversies unless the operation of the
roads was turned over to contractors, in which event the so-called
contractors and the railway workers might engage in industrial
warfare ad libitum.
In other words, Congress did not say to the carriers, " you must not
precipitate trouble by the adoption of arbitrary measures with your
338
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
employees, but you may delegate to a contractor the power to violate
and annul all your agreements, and if it happens to result in an
interruption to traffic, the public will be deprived of such protection
as the transportation act could give." As a matter of fact, that is
practically the sole effect of the contracts involved in this case.
A strike by the employees of a contractor or contractor-agent of
a carrier would as effectually result in an interruption to traffic as it
the men were the direct employees of the carrier.
To the outside observer, and so far as the public is concerned, the
car-repair department of this carrier has undergone no real change.
The carrier's own shops along its own lines are maintaining the car-
rier's car equipment exactly as they did before these contracts were
made. Very largely, the carrier's same foremen and inspectors are
in charge and its same careful supervision is being exercised. The
carrier is furnishing all the necessary material from its own stores
and supply houses as it did before. The employees of the contractor
are riding the carrier's shop train gratis from their homes to their
work just as they did before, except that no passes are issued to them
for fear of violating the law. When a wreck occurs anywhere on the
carrier's property the employees of the contractor go out and look
after it. The employees of the contractor are required to famil-
iarize themselves with the operating rules of the railroad per-
taining to safety. The carrier is carrying accident insurance on the
contractor's employees. The carrier's tools, machinery, and equip-
ment are all being used in the operation, and the contractor had none
of his own. The contractor has no leasehold on the plant or shops
of the carrier. The carrier says it is free to do any of its work any-
where else, as it sees fit. On 60 days' notice, either party can termi-
nate the contract. The contractor does not even have any control
over the wages paid the employees. The contract contains the car-
rier's ready-made piecework schedule, which the contractor must use.
There need be no misunderstanding of this situation. The con-
tractor performs only one useful function in this operation-he is the
medium or channel through which the piecework system was sub-
stituted for the lawfully established wage scale. The contractor's
compensation for this is 5 per cent of the amount of the pay roll,
and the rate of pay is carefully limited by the piecework provisions
in the contract. The contractor takes absolutely no risk.
The carrier was a party to Decisions Nos. 2 and 147 of the Rail-
road Labor Board, fixing wages for this class of employees. The
carrier put into effect both of these decisions.
In the able brief of the carrier's counsel, several decisions of Fed-
eral courts are cited which construe contracts more or less similar
to those involved herein and which define and construe the relation-
ship of the railroad company, the contractor, and those who work for
the contractor.
These cases involve the question of the railroad company's liabil-
ity for injuries incurred by the contractor's employees, usually under
the Federal employers' liability act.
None of these cases are in point here, because a different principle
and a different statute are involved. The principle involved in all
those cases is the duty and responsibility of the employer to the em-
ployee. The Federal employers' liability act has for its purpose the
compensation of employees injured in the service of the employer.
DECISIONS.
339
That statute affected only the private relations between the em-
ployer and the employee. Naturally, it sought no purpose and con-
tained no provision that could be construed as a denial of the carrier's
right to contract its work and relieve itself of liability for injury to
employees and others.
On the other hand, the transportation act was not enacted prima-
rily for the protection of the rights of either carrier or employee,
except in so far as such protection was involved in the paramount
purpose of the act; that is, to insure to the public, as far as possible,
efficient and uninterrupted railway transportation by protecting the
people from the loss and suffering incident to the interruption to traffic
growing out of controversies between the carriers and the employees
who do their work. This act is the congressional assertion of a public
right.
It may seem immaterial to the public what method or arrangement
the carrier adopts to secure the performance of the work essential to
its operation. But it is immensely important to the public that this
work be carried on in a peaceful and orderly manner. It may seem
immaterial to the public for the carrier to contract any of its work.
But it is important if by such contract the carrier seeks to remove its
employees from under the application of a law which the people
have enacted for the purpose of maintaining industrial peace on the
railways. There is a public interest in the carrier's methods greater
than may appear on the surface. The contracts herein involved vio-
late the spirit and purpose of the transportation act, and in effect
set aside the wage decisions of the Railroad Labor Board to which
the carrier was a party and which the carrier put into effect.
To all intents and purposes, the contractor's operations constitute
a department of the carrier, with a piecework system which has been
forced upon the men by the discharge of some and the dread of dis-
charge and unemployment of others, and which has never been sub-
mitted to the Railroad Labor Board in the form of a dispute, as a
compliance with the statute requires. The contractor is, in effect,
merely an agent of the carrier.
The board can understand how the carrier reached the conclusion
that it had the right to make such contracts, because somewhat similar
ones had been made through a long course of years; but those prece-
dents have been robbed of their potency by the enactment of the
transportation act, which the courts of the country, without excep-
tion so far, have declared to be constitutional.
Decision. The Railroad Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the various contracts entered into between the Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad Co. and the Burnham Car Repair Co. for the
operation of its railway shops, and particularly the one bearing date
of September 16, 1921, are in violation of the transportation act,
1920, in so far as they purport or are constructed by the carrier to
remove said employees from the application of said act, and that
those provisions of the contracts affecting the wages and working
rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and
147 of the Railroad Labor Board.
(2) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Railroad Labor Board and subject to the applica-
tion of the transportation act, 1920, and Decision No. 147.
340
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
This decision rests upon the facts of this particular case, and the
decision of each of the other contract cases pending before the Labor
Board will rest upon its own facts and the general principles herein
declared.
DECISION NO. 983.-DOCKET 1099.
Chicago, Ill., May 15, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Question.-Request that nontelegraph agency at Ellinger, Tex., be
classified as telegraph agency and that the employee holding position
be reimbursed for difference between the rate of pay he has received
and the rate of pay claimed for the position under classification re-
quested by employees, retroactive to March 1, 1920.
Statement. The agency at Ellinger, Tex., is classified and paid
as a nontelegraph agency.
The employees state that a check of the business handled over the
telephone by the agent at this station developed that during the period
April 5, 1919, to February 28, 1921, there was handled an average of
73 railroad telegrams and 36 commercial telegrams per month. The
employees contend that the agent handles matters of record over the
telephone and that he should be classified as agent-telegrapher and
that the employee holding the position from March 1, 1920, be re-
imbursed for the difference in the wages he has received and the
wages he would have received under the classification claimed by
the employees.
The carrier states that Ellinger, Tex., is a small nontelegraph
station located on the LaGrange branch of the Houston operating
division, on which branch the service is taken care of by a mixed
train which makes a round trip daily. The carrier states that there
is a short-distance telephone from Ellinger to Glidden, Tex., which
the agent at Ellinger uses to place orders with the operator for cars
and for transmission of his daily yard report. This it is claimed
involves about six or eight telephone calls per day and avoids the
necessity of transmitting the information by mail as is done at other
nontelegraph agencies. The rate of pay at this station on January
1, 1918, was $60 per month and it was classified under Addendum
No. 2 to Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27 of the United
States Railroad Administration as a nontelegraph agency.
The carrier further states that the agent is not required to use
the telephone in connection with train movements; that, in fact,
there are no wires for this purpose in the station; and that the
telegraph company has made arrangements with the agent to handle
the telegraph business by telephone with their office at Columbus,
Tex., for which the agent is allowed a commission.
The carrier contends that during the month of June, 1921, negoti-
ations were conducted with the general committee representing teleg-
DECISIONS.
341
raphers, agents, and other employees coming under the provisions.
of Supplement No. 13; that an agreement was reached, effective
July 1, 1921, upon all questions except overtime and rates of pay;
and that for the purpose of proper application of said agreement
with respect to the designation of telephone operators and agent-
telephoners, the following understanding was reached and accepted
by the employees:
The terms telephone operator" and agent-telephoner apply only to
employees receiving and handling train orders. It is understood that this
definition will not apply to an exclusive telephone operator who may be
regularly assigned to displace a telegrapher and receive messages, orders,
etc., over the telephone, which are now being received and handled by teleg-
raphers.
The carrier further contends that the agent at Ellinger, Tex.,
performs service similar to that performed at other nontelegraph
agencies; that the use of the telephone for other than train-order
business does not change the classification of the agent from non-
telegraph agent to agent-telegrapher or telephoner; and that in
view of the facts surrounding this case and the agreement effective
July 1, 1921, classifying this agency along with other nontelegraph -
agencies, and the agreement providing that the terms "telephone
operator" and "agent-telephoner" would apply only to employecs
receiving and handling train orders, there is no basis for this claim.
However, the employees claim that the purpose of the memorandum
of understanding pertaining to agreement of July 1, 1921, was to
preclude claims for classification of yard clerks and ticket sellers,
etc., as telephone operators, and was not considered as having any
reference to stations on the line handling messages and train orders.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
in this dispute that the request of the employees for change in the
classification of the agency at Ellinger, Tex., to agent-telegrapher,
retroactive to March 1, 1920, is denied.
DECISION NO. 984.-DOCKET 1109.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-(a) Is rule 49 of the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees applicable to baggage and parcel room em-
ployees of the carrier named at Lincoln, Nebr.?
(b) Shall the employees referred to herein be decreased 6 cents
per hour under section 7 of Article II, Decision No. 147?
Statement. The employees designated as baggagemaster, cashiers,
night agent, day mail foremen, night mail sorters, night mail fore-
men, day mail sorters, head checkmen, day checkers, night checkers,
mail truckmen, and baggage truckmen were classified under rule 49
of the clerks' national agreement and paid a monthly rate to cover all
services rendered.
342
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees state that the employees named were, in September,
1918, working a 10-hour assignment and receiving a monthly rate
to cover all services rendered; that on April 24, 1920, the employees
were placed on a daily basis in accordance with rule 66, retroactive
to January 1, 1921; that on October 1, 1920, they were placed on a
monthly rate under rule 49; and that on July 1, 1921, they were re-
duced 10 cents per hour under section 4 of Article II, Decision No.
147.
The employees contend that Lincoln, Nebr., is the largest station.
on the system where baggage and mail is handled; that the service
is not intermittent; that continuous application is required; and
furthermore that the carrier has placed under rule 49 some positions
of a clerical nature.
The employees also contend that the employees engaged in han-
dling baggage and mail are on a parity with freight handlers and
that they should be paid on an hourly basis and reduced 6 cents per
hour under section 7, Article II of Decision No. 147, instead of 10
cents per hour under section 4, Article II of said decision.
The carrier states that the employees in question have a regular
reporting time and are relieved from duty at a designated hour, but
they are not actually working during the entire period of their as-
signments; that their service is intermittent and does not require
continuous application, and therefore they are properly classified and
paid on the basis established by rule 49 of the clerks' national
agreement.
The carrier contends that the baggagemaster and night agent are
foremen who supervise subforemen, and therefore they do not come
under the provisions of the clerks' national agreement; that the mail
foremen, mail sorters, and checkers are baggage and parcel room
employees, and the checking and sorting is merely incidental to this
work, and that there is no clerical work connected with those posi-
tions. The carrier also contends that the work performed by these
employees is not analogous to that of employees designated as freight
handlers, or truckers, and that they were properly decreased 10 cents
per hour in accordance with section 4 of Article II, Decision No. 147.
Since this dispute was submitted to the Labor Board the employees
have conceded that the positions of baggage-master and night agent
are not subject to the clerks' national agreement, and the carrier has
conceded that the positions of cashier, head checkman, day checker,
and night checker are not subject to rule 49 of said agreement.
Decision.-The Labor Board has given consideration to the evi-
dence before it and decides:
(a) That the positions classified as day mail foreman and night
mail foreman shall be paid under rule 66 of the clerks' national
agreement, and that the positions of sorters and mail and baggage
truckmen are properly classified and paid in accordance with rule
49 of said agreement.
(b) That the employees referred to herein are not freight handlers
or employees similarly engaged as referred to in section 7 of Article
II, Decision No. 147.
DECISIONS.
343
DECISION NO. 985.-DOCKET 1162.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding demotion of R. Morris from posi-
tion of ticket clerk at Bismarck, N. Dak.
Statement.-On September 29, 1920, Mr. Morris was relieved from
the position of ticket clerk at Bismarck, and then permitted to exer-
cise his seniority to a position in the freight office at that point.
The carrier states that this action was taken on account of the
failure of Mr. Morris to handle his work efficiently and observe cer-
tain rules pertaining to courtesy and attention to the public, whereas
the employees contend that the evidence presented does not indi-
cate any lack of efficiency or disinclination on the part of the em-
ployee to cooperate in the handling of the carrier's business.
Both parties to the dispute have submitted a considerable amount
of evidence in support of their respective positions in regard to the
fitness of Mr. Morris for the position of ticket clerk, all of which
has been given due consideration.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
presented that the position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 986.-DOCKET 1164.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding bulletining of position of traveling
agent, Pasco, Wash.
Statement.-It has been the practice of the carrier for several
years to appoint a traveling agent on the Simcoe branch of the Pasco
division for a period of from 60 to 90 days during the fall shipping
season. During the month of August, 1920, this position was assigned
to a brakeman in the carrier's service. It was not bulletined to any
class of employees.
The employees state that the principal duties of the position con-
sist of inspecting loaded cars, sealing cars, signing bills of lading,
inspecting refrigerator cars to ascertain amount of ice on hand, de-
termine when cars are ready for movement and deposit bills with
proper agents, and keep a check of the cars, showing when received
and departed. The employees state that on August 19, 1920, a letter
was addressed to the division superintendent calling attention to the
fact that the position had not been bulletined and requesting that it be
bulletined in accordance with rule 6 of the clerks' national agreement.
This request was declined. On September 5, 1920, an employec
covered by the clerks' national agreement made written application
for the position but his application was denied. The agreement be-
tween the carrier and the employees in clerical and station service
contains the following rule:
344
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The railroad will promote employees covered by this agreement to the position
of agent and excepted positions as far as practicable and in line with the good
of the service.
The employees contend that the duties of the position are largely
of a clerical character for which the employee subject to the clerks'
rules who made application therefor was qualified, and that under
the rule above quoted and in view of the fact that no such rule is
contained in the trainmen's agreement, the employees covered by the
clerks' national agreement should have preference over the latter
class in filling this position.
The carrier states that the duties of this position consist of the
handling of car orders, making on-hand car reports, car-service re-
ports, supervising filling of car orders, receipting for bills of lading,
compiling switch lists for various stations, outlining the work to be
done by train crews, investigating ice requirements and keeping ice
records of perishable shipments, keeping records for demurrage pur-
poses, inspecting all cars loaded on the branch at nonagency stations,
and give general supervision over nonagency stations to insure proper
service and to maintain cordial relations between the carrier and its
patrons.
The carrier further states that the employee holding the position
of traveling agent is one "assigned to road service where special
training, experience, and fitness are necessary" within the meaning
of that language in the clerks' national agreement, and that the
clerks' organization has no jurisdiction over said position; that the
employee assigned to the position in the year 1920 had in previous
years occupied the position, performed the work satisfactorily, and
from his previous experience was known to be fully qualified to per-
form the duties thereof.
Decision-Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 987.-DOCKET 1179.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the discontinuance of weekly rest
day for chief train dispatchers.
Statement.-The carrier contends that chief and assistant chief
dispatchers are officials, excluded from the provisions of the trans-
portation act, 1920, and the jurisdiction of the Labor Board by
the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations.
Decision.-The Labor Board remands this dispute to the carrier
and employees for conference on the question of jurisdiction in
accordance with section 1 of general instructions, Decision No. 721.
DECISION NO. 988.-DOCKET 1163.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question-Shall the position of assistant supply-train store-
keeper be included within the scope of the agreement between the
DECISIONS.
345
carrier and the employees in clerical and station service and be
subject to the rules thereof?
Statement. The carrier recently instituted the practice of oper-
ating three supply-car trains, one each of these trains being assigned
to a grand district comprising a varying number of divisions. Prior
to the establishment of this practice a supply car was operated over
each division in charge of supply-train storekeeper who filled from
the car, en route on local trains, requisitions for oil, tools, and the
lighter supplies. In establishing the supply-train operation in ad-
dition to the operation of the supply car previously used, the serv-
ice was extended to include all kinds of material and supplies used
in track and bridge and building maintenance, and, in addition,
cars were added to pick up scrap.
These supply-car trains consist of from 15 to 25 cars, and in order
to properly handle the additional service an assistant supply-train
storekeeper was appointed to the position. The supply-car train is
accompanied over the respective divisions by the division store-
keeper, and, when they can so arrange, by the roadmaster and the
supervisor of bridge and building, as well as the supply-train store-
keeper, assistant supply-train storekeeper, and other employees nec-
essary to the operation of the supply train over the district.
?
The carrier contends that the assistant supply-train storekeepers
are excepted from the agreement of the clerks' organization, and are
not within the jurisdiction of said organization. The carrier states
that it is necessary that the employee assigned to the position of
assistant supply-train storekeeper have special training, experience,
and fitness in order to avoid errors in the selection of supplies and
material in the filling of the various requisitions, and in order to
expedite the movement of the train over the territory to which the
employee is assigned; that the successful operation of a supply
train depends on the accurate assembling and loading of the neces-
sary material and supplies required to meet the requirements of the
trip; and that it is essential that the assistant supply-train store-
keeper be able to expedite with the least possible delay the delivery
of the correct items at the point of requirement.
The employees contend that the assistant supply-train storekeeper
is nothing more than a storeroom helper or laborer assisting the
supply-train storekeeper in the delivery of tools, supplies, and mate-
rial, and in loading the supply car at various storerooms; that the
position does not call for any special training or fitness, but that, on
the contrary, any storeroom laborer who can read should be able to
fill the position without the least detriment to the operation of trains.
It appears that the supply train referred to is accompanied over the
respective divisions by the division storekeeper and, when it can be
arranged, by the roadmaster or the supervisor of bridges and build-
ings; that the supply-train storekeeper is subject to the authority of
these officials while on the supply train; and that the assistant supply-
train storekeeper reports to and assists the supply-train storekeeper.
The position of supply-train storekeeper is not involved in this
dispute. as the employees concede that that position is not within the
scope of the agreement.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
submitted that the position of assistant supply-train storekeeper is
346
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
within the scope of the agreement between the carrier and employees
in clerical service and shall be subject to the rules thereof.
DECISION NO. 989.-DOCKET 1178.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding exercise of seniority rights of F. X.
Adams, train dispatcher, in connection with abolition of dispatching
office at Vancouver, Wash.
Statement.—On or about April 18, 1921, the dispatching office of
the carrier at Vancouver, Wash., was consolidated with the dispatch-
ing office at Portland, Oreg. The positions held by the train dis-
patchers at Vancouver were abolished, and Mr. Adams, whose sen-
iority dated from November 5, 1917, lost his regular assignment.
He thereupon made application to be permitted to exercise his sen-
iority rights to one of three positions held by junior dispatchers in
the carrier's service. He was assigned to a permanent position at
Spokane, Wash., on June 1, 1921.
The carrier states that when this change was made one of the posi-
tions held by an employee with less seniority was that of assistant
chief dispatcher at Portland, and the other two were those held by
junior dispatchers at Spokane. The carrier contends that the rules
pertaining to seniority for train dispatchers are not applicable to
chief or assistant chief dispatchers, as they are considered officials,
and therefore Mr. Adams was not permitted to exercise his seniority
to position of assistant chief dispatcher at Portland.
The carrier contends that one-half of the expense of the Spokane
office is paid by another carrier, and that that carrier is entitled to
one-half of the force. It is claimed the superintendent of that office
objected to taking care of more than one of the dispatchers who were
relieved when the Vancouver and Portland offices were consolidated,
and Dispatcher Nelson, whose position at Vancouver had also been
abolished, had signified his intention of taking a permanent position
at Spokane as soon as his physical condition would permit. The
carrier contends that therefore there was nothing to offer Mr. Adams,
but when Dispatcher Nelson advised that he was unable to accept the
position in the Spokane office it was offered to Dispatcher Adams, with
the understanding that it would be temporary and subject to Dis-
patcher Nelson later deciding to go to Spokane and exercise his sen-
iority rights in that office. It is claimed that Dispatcher Adams de-
clined to accept the position in the Spokane office under these condi-
tions, and stated that he would prefer to remain at Portland and
work extra in that office. At a later date Dispatcher Nelson decided
that he would not go to Spokane, and Dispatcher Adams was then
offered and accepted a position, which he has since held. The carrier
contends that it was not necessary for Dispatcher Adams to have
been out of work or to have lost any time whatever, as had he ac-
cepted the position at Spokane when it was first offered him as a tem-
DECISIONS.
347
A
porary position, he would have been able to remain at that point per-
manently.
The employees state that when the dispatching office at Van-
couver was abolished there were three employees in the dispatch-
ing service of the carrier with less seniority than Mr. Adams-
namely, the assistant chief dispatcher at Portland and two trick
dispatchers at Spokane. The employees contend that the position
of assistant chief dispatcher is not excepted from the provisions.
of the transportation act, 1920, by the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission's regulations, and that the position bearing that title at
Portland is subject to the rules pertaining to seniority of train
dispatchers promulgated by the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration and assumed by the Labor Board as the basis for the appli-
cation of Decision No. 2. The employees further contend that the
Spokane dispatching office is considered a part of the Spokane,
Portland & Seattle Railroad Company and that every dispatcher
who is now employed in the Spokane office is an employee of said
carrier, as the dispatchers who held seniority rights with the other
carrier involved have since left the service or have been eliminated
in the various changes heretofore made in the Spokane office.
The employees deny that Dispatcher Adams was given an oppor-
tunity to go to the Spokane office as claimed by the carrier; and
request that Dispatcher Adams be reimbursed for the wage loss
sustained through failure of the carrier to grant him the right to
exercise his seniority rights to positions held by employees with
less seniority. At hearing conducted by the Labor Board the car-
rier was not represented and there is no denial of the employees'
statements as to the status of the dispatchers in the Spokane office
as set forth in said hearing.
Decision. The evidence shows that when the position held by
F. X. Adams in the dispatching office at Vancouver, Wash., was
abolished on April 18, 1921, there were dispatchers with less sen-
iority retained in the service and that the failure of the carrier
to place Mr. Adams in a permanent position was the result of a
disagreement between superintendents of the carrier as to the ratio
of displaced dispatchers to be taken care of by each superintend-
ent. The Labor Board therefore decides that Train Dispatcher
Adams should have been permitted to exercise his seniority rights
to position held by train dispatchers with less seniority when his
position was abolished, and that he should be reimbursed for the
wage loss sustained from April 18 to June 1, 1921.
DECISION NO. 990.-DOCKET 236.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Rate of pay for carpenters of the bridge and building
department, who were assigned temporarily to certain work in the
locomotive department.
20936-23-23
348
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board having received no reply to its com-
munication of May 14, 1921, in which it was suggested that further
conferences be held in connection with this dispute, the file in this
case is closed.
DECISION NO. 991.-DOCKET 1385.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Abolition of position of coal-chute operator, La Veta,
Colo.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in this case
shows that for some time prior to February 24, 1921, W. J. Lennox
was employed at La Veta, Colo., as coal-chute operator. On January
1, 1920, the rate of the position was $120 per month, which rate was
increased on May 1, 1920, to $150.60 in accordance with Decision No.
2 issued by the Labor Board. On February 24, 1921, the position
of coal-chute operator was abolished and the work assigned to shop
laborers. The coaling station in question is a balanced bucket me-
chanical station.
Statements were filed by the management purporting to show the
time the employee in question was engaged on the various classes
of work, which statement shows that considerably less than 50 per
cent of the employee's time was engaged in hoisting coal and sand,
the preponderating amount of his time being consumed in wiping
engines, cleaning roundhouse, and cleaning lamps in roundhouse.
This statement covers the period April, May, and June, 1921.
It is shown that when the position of coal-chute operator was in
effect that position was considered in the nature of a supervisory
one, the laborers reporting to the coal-chute operator, but that since
the abolition of the position of coal-chute operator the laborers are
required to report to and receive instructions from the roundhouse
foreman.
The employees contend that more than 50 per cent of Mr. Lennox's
time was engaged in hoisting coal and sand, and that in accordance
with section (p) of Article V, maintenance of way agreement, then
in effect, he should have been rated as coal-chute operator. They
submit in evidence statement prepared by the employee involved,
purporting to show the distribution of his time to the various classes
of work performed.
The carrier contends that the falling off in the work at La Veta
justified their action in abolishing the position of coal-chute opera-
tor at that point, and that in view of the alleged fact that this man
did not perform 50 per cent or more of his time as coal-chute opera-
tor, but that a majority of his time was consumed in roundhouse
laborers' work, that they were justified in paying the laborers' rate
for all service rendered, which it is claimed is in accordance with
section (p) of Article V, maintenance of way agreement, then in
effect.
Decision. The evidence submitted does not indicate that the serv-
ice performed by W. J. Lennox subsequent to February 24, 1921,
DECISIONS.
349
was such as to warrant, in accordance with the rule referred to, the
classification and rating as coal-chute operator. The claim of the
employees is therefore denied.
In the event that the business at the point in question increases to
such an extent as to warrant the service of an employee as coal-chute
operator, the rate applying to that position shall be paid for such
service.
DECISION NO. 992.-DOCKET 1453.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Union Pacific System.
Question. Claim of certain signal department employees for time
out of service when positions were abolished in making reduction
in force.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence shows that in March, 1921,
the carrier abolished certain positions in the signal department for
the purpose of reducing expenses. It is shown that the work form-
erly performed by six men whose positions were abolished was
performed by assistant signal supervisors.
Of the six employees involved in this reduction in forces, three
exercised their seniority rights in accordance with the agreement,
and three-namely, Messrs. West, Hatten, and Steward, who were
employed as batterymen-refused to displace signal maintainers
with the least seniority rights, they taking the position that the
assignment of work previously performed by them to assist signal
supervisors was contrary to the meaning and intent of the agree-
ment. The three employees named herein remained out of service
pending the outcome of conferences conducted with representatives
of the management. Numerous conferences were held, it being
finally agreed that the six positions would be reestablished, and the
employees were accordingly returned to their old positions. Messrs.
West, Hatten, and Steward are making claim for the time they were
out of service.
The evidence shows that the arrangement complained of by the
employees was put into effect March 4, 1921; on March 17 the com-
mittee called upon the signal supervisor for the purpose of discuss-
ing the matter; on March 18 the committee called upon the engineer
maintenance of way to discuss the situation; and on March 19 the
committee called on the general superintendent, at which time it was
requested that the men be restored to their former positions. It is
the statement of the representatives of the employees that it was
agreed by them that if the employees were restored to their positions.
immediately, there would be no claim for back pay. The evidence
further shows that on March 24 the positions were ordered restored.
Decision.-Based upon the statement of representatives of em-
ployees as shown in the preceding paragraph, and in view of the
fact that the positions were ordered restored five days following the
last conference, the claim for back pay is denied.
350
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 993.—DOCKET 1555.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of section a-5 of Article V, maintenance
of way national agreement promulgated by the United States Rail-
road Administration.
Statement.-Section a-5 of Article V, maintenance of way na-
tional agreement, reads as follows:
Sunday work full-day period.-(a-5) Except as otherwise provided in these
rules time worked on Sundays and the following holidays: New Year's.
Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanks-
giving, and Christmas, shall be paid for at the pro-rata hourly rate when the
entire number of hours constituting the regular week-day assignment are
worked.
It is the claim of the employees that prior to the effective date of
the so-called national agreement-namely, December 16, 1919-time
and one-half was paid by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
to its maintenance of way employees for Sunday and holiday serv-
ice for many years prior to the period of Federal control of rail-
roads, and that therefore such practice should be continued in
accordance with the above section of the national agreement.
The carrier contends that the practice of paying time and one-half
for Sunday and holiday service has never been in effect on the
Louisville & Nashville Railroad for maintenance of way employees.
The carrier does state, however, that in case of emergency, such as
wrecks, washouts, etc., extra amounts in the way of additional hours
were allowed at times to some of the force on account of laboring
under severe or abnormal conditions.
Considerable testimony was submitted by both sides, verbally and
in writing, upon which the following decision is based.
Decision. The board decides that there is nothing in the evidence
submitted to show that it was the practice on the Louisville & Nash-
ville Railroad to pay time and one-half for Sunday and holiday
service to maintenance of way employees, except to a limited number
of employees under exceptional conditions and that was not a
general practice.
The claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 994.-DOCKET 1556.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Question.-Application of Decision No. 2 to mechanics and help-
ers in the water-service department of the Central Vermont Rail-
way Co.
Štatement.—Written and oral evidence presented in this case in-
dicates that there are employed in the engineering department of the
Central Vermont Railway Co. six water-service men whose duties
DECISIONS.
351
are to maintain the engine water supply and heating plants and do
the plumbing at such stations as are so equipped. It is shown that
these men were classified under Supplement No. 4 to General Order
No. 27 and paid the rate provided therein-namely, 68 cents per
hour for mechanics and 45 cents per hour for helpers. Rule 43 of
the national agreement providing an increase of 4 cents per hour
was also applied to the employees in question.
In the application of the increase provided in Decision No. 2 the
carrier took the position that the 4 cents per hour applied, effective
May 1, 1919, was in error, and it therefore deducted 4 cents from
the increase specified in Decision No. 2, allowing the employees.
under that decision a 9-cent per hour increase, and establishing
rates of 81 cents per hour for mechanics and 58 cents per hour for
helpers.
The employees contend that the 13 cents per hour provided in
Decision No. 2 should have been added to the rates then in effect,
and that the employees should be compensated for the 4 cents per
hour that it is alleged was erroneously deducted from them. The
carrier contends that the proper rate for the men in question is 53
cents per hour under Supplement No. 8 to General Order No. 27,
plus 15 cents per hour granted maintenance of way employees under
Decision No. 2, minus the decrease specified in Decision No. 147-
namely, 10 cents per hour-making a rate of 58 cents per hour.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that if the employees in
question are performing work specified in rule 126 of Addendum
No. 6 to Decision No. 222, they shall be classified and rated as sheet-
metal workers and sheet-metal worker helpers; further, that if the
men were performing work as specified in rule 126 of the shop
crafts' national agreement when the increase of 9 cents per hour
herein referred to was applied, they shall be compensated for the
difference between 9 cents and 13 cents per hour for the period.
that the 9-cent per hour increase has been applied.
If a difference of opinion exists as to the actual work being per-
formed by these employees, the Labor Board decides that proper
joint investigation shall be made by the duly authorized representa-
tives of the carrier and the employees, and rate of pay established
accordingly.
DECISION NO. 995.-DOCKET 1563.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.; Chicago, Rock
Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Question. (a) Shall W. D. Wood, classified as coal-chute fore-
man at Liberal, Kans., be permitted to perform work in connection
with the coal chute and also the pumping station at that point?
(b) If so, should he receive extra compensation for performing
the two different classes of service?
Decision.-Based upon the particular facts surrounding this case
the Labor Board decides the two questions as follows: (a) yes;
(b) no.
352
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 996.-DOCKET 1595.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Washington Terminal Co.
Question.—Rate of pay for mechanic assigned temporarily to fill
the place of a monthly-rated foreman.
Statement. The regular assignment of an assistant roundhouse
foreman was 339 days per annum, or 28.25 days per month; the
monthly salary in effect subsequent to the issuance of Decision No. 2
was $241.52, or $8.55 per day.
Decision. Under the rule governing, the mechanic will receive not
less than the rate of the foreman; but if the hours of the assignment
multiplied by the mechanic's hourly rate for total hours on duty
produces a greater sum than the foreman's daily rate, the mechanic
is to be paid the greater amount thus produced.
DECISION NO. 997.-DOCKET 1603.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Proper classification and rate of pay for employees in
the telegraph and telephone department now classified as division
linemen.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence submitted in connection
with this case indicates that there is a disagreement as to the actual
work being performed by the employees in question-the employees
claim that division linemen are performing work specified in rule
140 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, while the carrier claims
that the duties incumbent upon these positions are those of linemen
as specified in rule 141 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222.
Considerable evidence was furnished by the parties to this dispute
in support of their respective positions, but from the evidence sub-
mitted the Labor Board is unable to determine definitely the actual
work being performed by the division linemen on this property and
therefore renders the following decision:
Decision.-Based upon the evidence in this case, the Labor Board
decides that the employees classified as and performing the work of
linemen as per rule 141 shall be compensated as linemen; employees
classified as linemen and required to perform work as per rules 140
and 141 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 are composite work-
men and shall be paid the rate applicable to employees performing
work specified in rule 140.
If a difference of opinion exists as to the actual work being per-
formed by these employees, the Labor Board decides that proper joint
investigation shall be made by the duly authorized representatives
of the carrier and the employees and a rate of pay established in ac-
cordance with the preceding paragraph of this decision.
DECISIONS.
353
DECISION NO. 998.-DOCKET 1611.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts);
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees; United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers; American Federation of Railroad
Workers v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.; Lake Erie & Eastern
Railroad Co.
Question.-Representation in agreement negotiations.
Statement.-Disputes have been duly filed between the above-
named organizations and the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
and the Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co. as to the right of these
organizations to negotiate rules and working conditions for the
classes of employees that they respectively assume to represent.
The organizations and the carriers, parties to this dispute, were also
parties to dispute resulting in the issuance of Decision No. 119 and
were accordingly listed in that decision.
It is shown that pursuant to the issuance of Decision No. 119 the
management of the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. and the
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co. circulated among its employees a
ballot containing the names of some of the organizations parties to
this dispute, but omitted reference to the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers. It is
shown that the employees protested against the form of ballot that
had been distributed by the management. A second ballot was cir-
culated by the management including, in addition to the organiza-
tions mentioned in the first ballot, the United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and the
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America. The tabulation of
the second ballot resulted from the fact that in certain classes no
majority was received. Upon this basis the management circulated
a third ballot, this being similar to the second ballot except that the
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America was omitted because
the second ballot indicated clearly that said organization represented
a majority of the employees in the signal department.
On each of the three ballots that were circulated a provision was
made for representatives by unaffiliated committees, which the em-
ployees claim was confusing and should not have appeared on the
ballot as, according to their claim, unaffiliated representation does
not constitute an organization as contemplated in principle 15, Ex-
hibit B of Decision No. 119. The employees also objected to the loca-
tion of this item on the ballot, which was the first item appearing
thereon.
It is stated by representatives of the employees and not denied
by the management that no effort was made by the management to
conduct a conference with representatives of the interested organ-
izations prior to the time these ballots were circulated, and that said.
organizations had no voice in the procedure followed in connection
with the formulation and distribution of said ballots. It is, how-
ever, shown that representatives of the interested organizations
were extended and they accepted an opportunity to be present when
354
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the third ballot was counted and tabulated. The result of the third
ballot was as follows:
Classes in which no organization received a majority—
Shop-craft employees:
Machinists.
Blacksmiths.
Electrical workers.
Maintenance of way department employees:
Common laborers.
Masons and helpers.
Miscellaneous employees:
Stationary engineers.
Stationary firemen.
The following organizations received majorities of the votes cast
for the classes of employees and crafts named thereunder-
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees:
Clerks.
American Federation of Labor:
Sheet-metal workers, apprentices, and helpers.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America:
Signalmen.
American Federation of Railroad Workers.
Boilermakers, apprentices, and helpers.
Carmen.
Coach cleaners.
Gang foremen.
Maintenance of way department pumpers.
Maintenance of way department carpenters.
Water-service repair men and helpers.
Locomotive-crane operators.
On August 13, 1921, the Labor Board addressed a communication
to the management and the interested organizations calling atten-
tion to Decision No. 218, to which the management replied that it
was averse to taking another ballot, as they did not feel that another
ballot would make any change in the relative strength of the dif-
ferent organizations.
An oral hearing was conducted by the Labor Board at which time
representatives of the management and all interested organizations
were present. In the course of said hearing it developed that the
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America was definitely recog-
nized as representing the signal department employees on that prop-
erty. This eliminated that organization from further consideration
in connection with this case.
In regard to the representation of clerical and station forces, it
developed that the American Federation of Railroad Workers was
willing and did accede to the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees the right
to represent this class of employees based upon the groupings of
such employees as decided upon by the Labor Board in connection
with case involving the clerical and station employees on the Penn-
sylvania railroad.
It was further agreed in the course of said hearing that the man-
agement and the clerical forces were willing to negotiate on the basis
of Decision No. 630, the matter with reference to chief clerks, travel-
ing agents, etc., to be ironed out in conference. This action auto-
matically eliminated the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
DECISIONS.
355
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees from fur-
ther consideration in connection with this dispute.
The American Federation of Railroad Workers takes the position.
that it has no dispute with the carrier relative to the taking of an-
other ballot, it being their contention that the result of the ballot as
taken by the management represented the wishes of the men and
should therefore govern. They do, however, accede to the clerks'
organization to represent certain employees that had previously
voted for the American Federation of Railroad Workers for the
reason as above stated.
The maintenance of way organization is opposed to the manner
in which the carrier has separated the various classes of maintenance
of way employees and shop laborers-taking the position that there
should be only one grouping of the classes of employees they assume
to represent.
Decision. In view of the fact that it was agreed between repre-
sentatives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees and representa-
tives of the carrier that negotiations would be entered into, the
Labor Board will take no further action with respect to that
organization.
In regard to the submission from the Railway Employees' De-
partment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), it is the decision of
the board that separate ballots shall be taken to determine definitely
the wishes of the shop crafts, such ballots to be in conformity with
that outlined in Decision No. 218 and addendum thereto, the result
of which shall be considered final in regard to the right to negotiate
an agreement.
The Labor Board further decides that separate ballots shall be
taken to ascertain definitely the wishes of the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers,
this ballot to be in line with the procedure outlined in Decision No.
218 and its addendum, specifying thereon the following:
Those who desire to be represented by the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers mark an
X in this square---

Those who desire to be represented by the American Federation of
Railroad Workers mark an X in this square--
Those who desire to be represented by individuals or by any other
organization write the name of such individual or organization here
and mark an X in this square_-_-
(1) Employees in the maintenance of way department (not in-
cluding supervisory forces above the rank of foremen), shop and
roundhouse laborers (including their gang leaders), transfer and
turntable operators, engine watchmen, pumpers, highway crossing
watchmen, and all other employees performing work properly rec-
ognized as work belonging to and coming under the jurisdiction of
the maintenance of way department, except as provided in decisions
of the United States Railroad Labor Board on disputes submitted
under Decision No. 119 for other crafts or classes.
356
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(2) Stationary and hoisting engineers, stationary firemen, boiler-
room water tenders, engineroom oilers or grease-cup fillers, flue
blowers and borers, fire knockers and cinder-pit men, and fire build-
ers and coal passers.
DECISION NO. 999.-DOCKET 1649.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers v. Louisville & Nashville
Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of Decision No. 2 to roundhouse laborers
at Russellville, Bowling Green, Owensboro, and other points.
Decision. (a) Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2, shall be
applied to laborers employed in and around shops and roundhouses
who were classified and paid in accordance with paragraph (a),
Article V of Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, issued by
the United States Railroad Administration.
(b) Section 6, Article III of Decision No. 2, shall be applied to
laborers employed in and around shops and roundhouses who were
classified and paid in accordance with paragraph (b), Article V of
Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, issued by the United
States Railroad Administration.
DECISION NO. 1000.-DOCKET 1662.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics v. Bessemer
& Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Does W. H. Rice, assistant foreman, whose position of
supervisor was discontinued, hold seniority rights as a mechanic?
Decision.-It having been agreed by both parties to this dispute
that the case be withdrawn, the docket is accordingly closed.
DECISION NO. 1001.-DOCKET 1663.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Philadelphia & Reading Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Demotion of Elmer Ritter to position of boiler-maker
helper, Reading locomotive shops, in a reduction of forces.
Statement.-At the oral hearing conducted in connection with this
dispute, representatives of the respective parties agreed to conduct
a further test for the purpose of determining the qualifications for
Mr. Ritter and the employee who was retained as a boiler maker-this
for the purpose of determining whether or not the demotion of the
employee in question was justified.
DECISIONS.
357
•
Decision. The case is therefore removed from the docket of the
Labor Board without prejudice to the right of either party to again
submit the case to the Board should there be a disagreement after
the above test is conducted.
DECISION NO. 1002.-DOCKET 1708.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Railroad Co.
Question.-Are employees represented by the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers en-
titled to an agreement governing working conditions in accordance
with Decision No. 119?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case does not indicate that employees directly interested
in this dispute have handled the matter with the carrier in accordance
with the procedure outlined in section 301 of the transportation act,
1920, nor in accordance with the meaning and intent of Decision
No. 119.
An oral hearing was conducted in connection with this case, at
which time the carrier stated that it had never received a request
from its own employees for a conference, nor had it ever received
a petition from anyone, including the names of the employees of that
property, indicating that it was their desire to be represented in con-
ference for the purposes of promulgating rules and working condi-
tions pursuant to the issuance of Decision No. 119.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that unless and until the em-
ployees directly involved handle the matter as contemplated in
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, and in accordance with
the procedure outlined in Decision No. 119, it can not assume juris-
diction in the case.
DECISION NO. 1003.-DOCKET 1842.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co..
Question.-Was the Illinois Terminal Railroad Co. within its
rights when it arbitrarily reduced the wages of trackmen from 481
cents per hour to 40 cents per hour, effective February 5, 1921, and
ordered them to work 10 hours per day for straight time?
Decision.-No.
DECISION NO. 1004.-DOCKET 1874.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Question.-Proper allowance of time for wrecking crews after the
first 24 hours from time called, under the provisions of rule 10 of the
national agreement of the Federated Shop Crafts.
358
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. It has been agreed by both parties to this dispute that
the case be withdrawn. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1005.-DOCKET 1875.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question.-Should C. E. Gage, division lineman, be reinstated
with full seniority rights and paid for all time lost?
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice that parties
to this dispute have reached a mutual understanding relative to the
disposal of this case and that no further action on the part of the
board is desired. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1006.-DOCKET 1948.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Ways Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-Classification and rate of pay of track employees in
the terminal yards at Omaha and Lincoln, Nebr.
Decision. It has been agreed by the parties to this dispute that
the case be withdrawn. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1007.-DOCKET 1949.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of M. L. Stevenson for reinstatement to position
of crossing flagman at Tipton Street, Laporte, Ind.
Statement. The agreed statement of facts submitted in connec-
tion with this dispute indicates that on June 16, 1919, J. R. Hatfield
entered the service of the carrier as freight-house laborer at Laporte,
Ind.; further, that on July 12, 1919, M. L. Stevenson entered
the service of the railroad as freight-house laborer at Laporte, Ind.
It is shown that when the force in the freight house was reduced
on October 18, 1920, these men were both laid off. There being a
vacancy as crossing flagman at Tipton Street, Laporte, Mr. Hatfield
was given the position, he being chosen on account of his greater
seniority in the service.
On December 15, 1920, Mr. Hatfield made verbal request for a
60-day leave of absence, which was granted him by the agent, ver-
bally, and Mr. Stevenson was temporarily assigned to the position
DECISIONS.
359
with a definite understanding on his part that the position was
temporary and that Mr. Hatfield would resume work on his return.
At about the expiration of the 60 days, Mr. Hatfield wrote the
agent at Laporte requesting a 30-day extension of his leave of ab-
sence, which letter was not answered owing to the fact that Mr. Hat-
field returned to Laporte and made verbal request for the 30-day
leave which was granted verbally.
At the expiration of this 30-day leave, he asked for further time,
which was granted; Mr. Hatfield finally resumed work on April 15,
1921, thereby displacing Mr. Stevenson, who had been filling the
position.
The employees take the position that Mr. Hatfield did not receive
a written leave of absence, and contend that Mr. Kingsley, the sta-
tion agent, exceeded his authority in granting verbal leave as out-
lined; further, that Mr. Stevenson should be reinstated to the posi-
tion at Laporte and paid for the difference in pay from April 15,
1921, to November 15, 1921, the time of his displacement, less any
amount he may have earned at other employment.
The carrier claims that Mr. Hatfield was granted a bona fide leave
of absence and that the position taken by the employees in regard to
written leave is a technical one, and therefore contends that he was
entitled to return to his former position.
Decision. The claim for reinstatement of M. L. Stevenson is
denied.
DECISION NO. 1008.-DOCKET 1224.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Louisiana Southern Railway.
Question.-Regarding rules and working conditions applicable to
shop employees on the Louisiana Southern Railway, represented by
the following organizations:
International Association of Machinists.
International Association of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
and Helpers of America.
International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers.
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America.
Statement. Under date of June 30, 1921, W. G. Choate, general
manager of the Gulf Coast Lines, submitted to this board in ex parte
form a set of rules which it was recommended be made applicable
to employees on the Louisiana Southern Railway. The Federated
Shop Crafts refused to enter into a joint submission with the man-
agement, taking the position that the Louisiana Southern Railway
was a part of the Gulf Coast Lines and should be considered in sub-
mission covering the Gulf Coast Lines, which the management took
the position that a separate set of rules should be made applicable
to the Louisiana Southern Railway, which latter position has been
sustained by the Labor Board in its Decision No. 833.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the rules as submitted
by W. G. Choate, general manager of the Gulf Coast Lines, with
360
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
his letter dated June 30, shall, as requested, be made applicable to
the shop employees on that property.
This decision shall be made effective April 15, 1922.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We dissent from the foregoing decision in Docket 1224 for reasons,
as follows:
The Labor Board decided in Decision No. 833 on March 29, 1922,
that the Louisiana Southern Railway was not a part of the Gulf
Coast Lines, and that it should be covered by a separate agreement.
That information having been furnished the representatives of the
carrier and the employees, the board should permit them to enter
negotiations on a different basis than was attempted in 1921, at
which time the employees were contending that the Louisiana South-
ern Railway should have rules the same as those on the Gulf Coast
Lines, and which the board did not approve. Furthermore, the
board is not warranted in the action it takes in promulgating the
rules mentioned in the decision, as the question is not properly before
the board for decision, nor can it be until conferences are held or
sought and denied.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER,
SUPPORTING OPINION.
In support of its conclusions, the majority acted upon the facts as
set out below.
The records show that under date of June 30, 1921, the carrier
submitted the following as a dispute:
Mr. C. P. CARRITHERS,
HOUSTON, TEX., June 30, 1921.
Secretary United States Railroad Labor Board,
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: I attach hereto 16 copies of ex-parte submission covering rules and
working conditions for all employees on the Louisiana Southern Railway, as
called for under the terms of Decision No. 119.
Please place in line for decision.
Yours very truly,
W. G. CHOATE.
Under date of July 11, 1921, the carrier addressed the board as
follows:
Mr. C. P. CARRITHERS,
HOUSTON, TEX., July 11, 1921.
Secretary United States Railroad Labor Board,
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: In line with my letter of June 30 forwarding you ex-parte sub-
mission of the Louisiana Southern Railway Co. covering rules and working
conditions for employees on that line:
Committee has not furnished the company with copy of their submission.
Will you please arrange to have same furnished.
Yours very truly,
W. G. CHOATE.
Under date of August 16, 1921, the following letter was trans-
mitted to the carrier:
DECISIONS.
361
CHICAGO, ILL, August 16, 1921.
Mr. W. G. CHOATE,
General Manager, Louisiana Southern Railway,
Houston, Tex.
DEAR SIR: I have your letter of July 11, referring to your submission of
June 30 covering rules and working conditions for all employees on the Louisi-
ana Southern Railway, in which you request a copy of the employees' sub-
mission.
For your information, will state that I have no record of the employees in
any class of service on the Louisiana Southern Railway having filed a sub-
mission with respect to changing of rules to govern working conditions.
In this connection, I would be pleased to be advised whether the committees
representing employees in various classes of service were the regularly con-
stituted committees of certain labor organizations or whether the committees
represented unorganized employees; also, please advise name of any organiza-
tions properly representing the above classes of employees in the event the
employees are organized and conferred as representatives of organizations.
Very truly yours,
C. P. CARRITHERS, Secretary.
Under date of August 22, 1921, the carrier replied as follows:
HOUSTON, TEX., August 22, 1921.
Mr. C. P. CARRITHERS,
Secretary, United States Railroad Labor Board,
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: I have your letter of August 16, file MC-101-X-177, with reference
to submission made to your honorable body under date of June 30, 1921, cov-
ering change of rules and working conditions for all employees on the Louisiana
Southern Railway, and for your information will advise that I do not know
whether or not the men as listed below are members of any organization or
that they are to be represented by any organization.
The management, on June 30, met these employees in conference, they having
been selected by their fellow workmen as their authorized representatives and
their names are as follows: Charles Howard, carmen; J. W. Burdge, machinists;
Peter Dussor, blacksmiths; Joseph H. McGhan, boilermakers; A. Lester, con-
ductors; John Barkley, engineers; Albert Thiel, firemen.
Letters addressed to these men at New Orleans, La., care of F. E. Prewett,
general superintendent, will reach them.
The Louisiana Southern Railway is a small suburban road out of New
Orleans and should be properly classified as a short-line road.
We have three conductors, four engineers, four firemen, one blacksmith, one
machinist, one boilermaker, five carmen, one machinist helper, one apprentice,
one boilermaker helper, and one blacksmith helper.
It is the contention of the management that this short-line railroad should be
so classified and rates of pay and working conditions changed to those in
effect December, 1917. Under the present operation the revenue derived from
the service on this line will approximate $3,500 under cost of operation and
has since January 1. 1921—this condition making it imperative that immediate
action be taken by the United States Railroad Labor Board to furnish the
necessary relief in order that the road may exist.
Anything you may do toward securing an early hearing will be highly appre-
ciated.
Yours very truly,
cc-Messrs. Charles Howard, representing carmen;
J. W. Burdge, representing machinists;
Peter Dussor, representing blacksmiths;
Joseph H. McGhan, representing boilermakers;
A. Lester, representing conductors;
John Barkley, representing engineers.
Albert Thiel, representing firemen ;
W. G. CHOATE.
Lousiana Southern Railway, New Orleans, La.
362
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
After some additional correspondence, the Labor Board, under
date of September 21, 1921, addressed the following letter to repre-
sentatives of the employees:
CHICAGO, ILL., September 21, 1921.
Messrs. CHARLES HOWARD, J. W. BURDGE, PETER DUSSOR, JOSEPH H. McGHAN, A.
LESTER, JOHN BARKLEY, ALBERT THIEL, New Orleans, La.
GENTLEMEN: Please be referred to communication addressed to the Labor
Board under date of August 22, by W. G. Choate, general manager, Louisiana
Southern Railway, copy of which communication was apparently forwarded
to each of you.
The above letter stated that on June 30, the management of the Louisiana
Southern Railway met your committee in conference for the purpose of draw-
ing up a set of rules to govern working conditions of employees on this rail-
road. As the submission presented by the carrier was in ex-parte form, it
does not indicate what rules were proposed by the employees' representatives,
and I am directing this letter to you for the purpose of ascertaining whether
it is the intention of the employees' committee to present a statement of their
proposed rules and arguments in support thereof; also, whether the members
of this committee representing employees attended the conference merely as
representatives of employees, or whether they attended the conference as repre-
sentatives of an organization.
In the event any labor organizations are involved in this dispute, please ad-
vise the name of such organization.
Very truly yours,
C. P. CARRITHERS, Secretary.
Under date of September 27, 1921, the following letter was ad-
dressed to the board:
Mr. C. P. CARRITHERS,
NEW ORLEANS, LA., September 27, 1921.
Secretary United States Railroad Labor Board,
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: Your communication of the 21st instant received, and contents
carefully noted. I wish to state that we were under the impression that Mr.
D. G. Gray, chairman, Gulf Coast Lines, System Federation No. 55, had taken
this subject of the Louisiana Southern Railway up with the Labor Board, as
the Louisiana Southern Railway was included in the Gulf Coast Lines' agree-
ment.
From the contents of your communication Mr. W. G. Choate wishes to place
me before the Labor Board as not having submitted any agreement. I wish
to state that I handed Mr. Cox, his assistant, a set of rules to govern working
conditions which were the same as offered at Houston, Tex., by the Gulf Coast
Line employees covering shop craft employees; after reading the first page and
glancing over the second page he told me that these rules were the same as
offered at Houston by the Gulf Coast Line employees; he then refused to con-
sider my contract.
In reply to your question whether the committee represented employees, I
will state that each member represented his craft, and as a member of the
Railway Employees' Department, American Federation of Labor, I will in-
close copy of letter given Mr. Choate at end of conference. I will forward
copies of contract offered Mr. Choate just as soon as we can have them typed.
Very truly yours,
Jos. W. BURDGE,
923 Spain Street, New Orleans, La.;
Chairman Shop Craft Committee, Louisiana Southern Railway,
(N. O., J. & M. R. R. Lessee.)
Under date of December 7, 1921, the following notice was sent to
representatives of the carrier and of the employees:
DECISIONS.
363
W. G. CHOATE,
[Docket 1224.]
CHICAGO, ILL., December 7, 1921.
Houston, Tex.
General Manager, Gulf Coast Lines,
B. M. JEWELL,
President, Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.,
4750 Broadway, Chicago, Ill.
GENTLEMEN: Dispute between the Federated Shop Crafts and the Gulf Coast
Lines on question of rules and working conditions set for hearing in Chicago, 10
a. m., Thursday, January 5.
Please advise if you will be represented; and if so, by whom.
Yours truly,
C. P. CARRITHERS, Secretary.
The carrier replied under date of December 15, 1921, as follows:
HOUSTON, TEX., December 15, 1921.
Mr. C. P. CARRITHERS,
Secretary, United States Railroad Labor Board,
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 7, file
Docket 1224, concerning rules and working conditions for shop crafts, etc., on
the Louisiana Southern Railway.
This is to advise that the Gulf Coast Lines will be represented by myself,
assisted by general counsel and others.
Yours very truly,
W. G. CHOATE.
The hearing was conducted on January 5, 1922, both interested
parties being present.
Under date of March 29, 1922, the Labor Board issued Decision
No. 833. which disposed of one of the questions to be decided.
Under date of March 27, 1922, the carrier addressed the following
letter to the board:
Mr. C. P. CARRITHERS,
HOUSTON, TEX., March 27, 1922.
Secretary, United States Railroad Labor Board, Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: Referring to United States Railroad Labor Board's Docket No.
1224, entitled Railway Employees' Department v. Gulf Coast Lines, reference
application of rules and working conditions to Louisiana Southern Railway
employees, hearing held before board on January 5, 1922, at Chicago.
Under date of June 30, 1921, an ex-parte submission was made to your honor-
able body of rules and working conditions covering all the employees on the
Louisiana Southern Railway. Up to this time only a hearing concerning the
shop-craft employees has been granted, but at the time of hearing it was
understood that whatever decision was made applicable to these men would also
apply to the other employees.
This matter has been in your hands for hearing and decision for almost one
year, and notwithstanding the fact that this company is operating at a deficit
of not less than $3,000 per month, no decision has as yet been rendered, and on
account of the extraordinary conditions surrounding the operation of this rail-
road it is of vital importance that an immediate decision be rendered.
You can easily understand that no railroad or private corporation can long
exist when it steadily fails to earn anything near its operating expenses.
This letter is to request that an immediate decision be rendered concerning
the rules and working conditions of these men, and that the said decision be
made applicable to all the employees on this railroad.
Yours truly,
W. G. CHOATE.
The decision above is the Labor Board's answer to the carrier's
letter of March 27, 1922.
20936°-23-24
364
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1009.-DOCKET 1068.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
Question.-Dispute regarding seniority rights and claim for pay
for time lost by Ada Goff, an employee in the accounting depart-
ment..
Statement.-Miss Goff entered the service of the carrier in the
accounting department, July 24, 1919, and worked in place of a
regular employee who was absent from duty until on or about
August 30, 1919, when the regular employee returned to work and
Miss Goff was relieved from the service. Subsequently, Miss Goff
worked from about September 4, 1919, to about December 20, 1919,
and was again released. Her next service commenced on or about
February 9, 1920, and ended January 11, 1921, when she was released
on account of reduction in force. On February 16, 1921, she en-
tered the service of the carrier as comptometer operator in the car
accountant's office and was relieved on March 18, 1921, account
of alleged incompetency. The car accountant's office of the carrier
in question is a part of the accounting department and the clerical
employees in said office are considered within the same seniority
district and included in the same seniority roster as the employees
in the accounting department.
The employees state that when Miss Goff was relieved in Septem-
ber, 1919, she left her address on file and was recalled to the ser-
vice about September 7, 1919; that when she was again released in
December, 1919, she left her address on file and was recalled to the
service on February 8, 1920. On November 4, 1920, Miss Goff re-
quested a vacation which was denied her on the ground that she had
not been in the service one year. The employees protested and
it was ruled that Miss Goff's service prior to February 8, 1920,
was of a temporary character. Her seniority date was shown on
the roster issued in January, 1921, as February 8, 1920. The em-
ployees protested the action of the carrier in depriving Miss Goff
of seniority prior to February 8, and while the grievance was
pending Miss Goff was again released from the service on January
11, 1921. No promise was made as to prospect of work in the future.
she being informed that there was no further work for her and denied
the right to displace any other clerk, although there were 45 younger
clerks in the department holding positions to which her seniority
rights entitle her. This action of the carrier was also made the sub-
ject of a grievance, and while it was pending with the management
Miss Goff was again recalled to the service effective February 16,
1921, and worked until March 18, 1921, when, the employees claim,
she was relieved without any explanation and younger employees
retained in the service.
The employees contend that in view of the facts above stated Miss
Goff's seniority should date from July 21, 1919, the date she entered
the service; that the action of the carrier in relieving her from the
service on January 12, 1921, was in violation of the rules of the
agreement; and that she should be reinstated to the service and
DECISIONS.
365
reimbursed for the time lost from January 12, 1921, to February 16,
1921, and from March 18, 1921, to the date she is reinstated in the
service.
The position of the carrier is summarized as follows:
Miss Goff entered the service July 24, 1919, as a supply comptom-
eter operator in place of a regular employee who was on leave of
absence, and was relieved from the service on August 30, 1919, when
the regular employee returned. She was reemployed as a comptom-
eter operator September 4, 1919, on special work, with the under-
standing that her employment ceased with the completion of said
work, and when this work was finished, December 20, 1919, her
services were discontinued. She was again employed for special
work on February 9, 1920, with the understanding that the work
was of temporary character and that her services would cease when
the special work was completed. It is claimed that during the
period of her employment she did little or no work on a comptom-
eter but was employed as a junior clerk and used a Burroughs listing
machine to some extent in connection therewith. When the special
work for which she was employed on February 9, 1920, was com-
pleted in January, 1921, she was again released from the service.
The carrier contends that during the period of her employment
as related above Miss Goff was considered a temporary employee
engaged in connection with special service and that as a temporary
employee she accumulated no seniority rights. The carrier further
states that, notwithstanding this, at the time she presented her claim
the service of two comptometer operators were required in the car
accountant's office and she was permitted to bid on one of these posi-
tions with the understanding that she would be required to qualify
as a first-class operator within 30 days. On March 18 her services
were discontinued because she was not considered qualified for the
position of comptometer operator.
Opinion. The claim of the employees in this dispute involves two
questions: First, the proper date of Miss Goff's seniority, and, sec-
ond, reinstatement with pay for time lost during the period January
12 to February 16, 1921, and from March 18, 1921, to date of rein-
statement.
The rules of the clerks' national agreement pertaining to the
seniority date are rules 5 and 14, reading as follows:
RULE 5. Seniority begins at the time the employee's pay starts.
RULE 14. Positions or vacancies of 30 days' or less duration shall be consid-
ered temporary, and may be filled without bulletining.
Rule 5 provides that seniority begins at the time the employee's
pay starts. Rule 14 establishes vacancies of less than 30 days' dura-
tion as temporary. Therefore, since Miss Goff was employed by the
carrier from July 21, 1919, to September 3, 1919-a period of more
than 30 days-she was not properly classified as a temporary em-
ployee; her seniority should have commenced on July 21, 1919, and
her name should have been shown on the clerks' seniority roster from
that date.
The claim for reinstatement with pay for time lost between Janu-
ary 11, 1921, to February 16, 1921, and from March 18, 1921, to date
of reinstatement, is covered by rule 21 of the agreement, reading, in
part, as follows:
366
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
When reducing forces, seniority rights shall govern. When forces are in-
creased, employees shall be returned to service in the order of their seniority
rights.
After Miss Goff returned to the service on February 9, 1920,
she
was clearly entitled to exercise her seniority rights, in accordance
with rule 21, when the force was reduced on January 11, 1921. This
she was not permitted to do, and according to an account of a con-
versation between herself and the car accountant prior to her return
to the service on February 16, 1921, submitted by the carrier, she
was not at that time exercising her seniority rights as provided by
rule 21 of the agreement. On the contrary, she was apparently being
assigned to a position for which she had made application after
having been out of the service, and her failure to qualify on said
position within 30 days did not justify relieving her from the serv-
ice. There were on that date a number of other positions to which
she could have exercised her seniority, and if she had failed to
qualify on any such position within 30 days, she would have been
entitled to retain her seniority rights and bid on any bulletined
position.
Decision. For the reasons herein set forth, the Labor Board
decides that Ada Goff shall be reinstated to the service of the carrier
with seniority rights unimpaired from July 21, 1919, and shall be
reimbursed for the wage loss sustained from January 12, 1921, to
February 16, 1921, and from March 18, 1921, to the date of her re-
instatement, less any amount earned in other employment during
those periods.
DECISION NO. 1010.-DOCKET 1121.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of Russell Carpenter, checker, Manchester
transfer, New York, for additional compensation alleged to be due
him under rules of the clerks' national agreement.
Statement.-At Manchester transfer there is maintained a roster
of regular and extra platform checkers. Regular checkers were paid
for full six-day assignments in each week when they did not lay off
of their own accord. On December 13, 1920, Mr. Carpenter, who
was carried as a regular checker at that point, was shown on the
list of extra checkers. The transfer was closed two days in Decem-
ber, 1920, and two days in January, 1921, for which time deduction
was made from his wages.
The employees state that Mr. Carpenter was not advised to lay
off on December 13, 1920 (the day his name was shown on the extra
list), and that he reported every day with the other regular checkers
in the usual manner and worked at checking on all days the transfer
operated except two days when he was required to truck freight,
for which he was paid the truckers' rate of pay.
The employees contend that since Mr. Carpenter was not laid
off on December 13, but on the contrary worked as a checker every
day the transfer was operated except the two days he was used as
DECISIONS.
367
a trucker, that he was in fact a regular checker and entitled to the
weekly guaranty provided in rule 66, and that the action of the
carrier in changing his title from regular to extra checker was for
the purpose of evading the application of said rule, and hence in
violation of rule 84; furthermore, that under rule 72 his rate should
not have been reduced when he was required to do trucking.
The carrier states that on December 13, 1920, owing to the de-
pression in business, the number of regular checkers at Manchester
transfer was reduced and Mr. Carpenter, as well as several others,
was placed on the extra list. It is claimed that it has been the
practice at that station to post a list of regular and extra checkers
for the observance of the employees affected, and that the posting
of their names on the extra list constituted notice to such employees
that their positions as regular checkers were abolished.
The carrier contends that after his name was shown on the extra
list, on Decemeber 13, 1920, Mr Carpenter could have exercised his
seniority rights to position of verifier, in accordance with rule 27
of the clerks' national agreement. He failed to do this, and it is
claimed that since he remained an extra checker he was not entitled
to compensation for the days the transfer was closed nor to the
checkers' rate on the days he worked as a trucker.
Rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement reads, in part, as follows:
Rule 66.-Determining daily rate. *
Nothing herein shall be con-
strued to permit the reduction of days for the employees covered by this rule
(66) below six per week, excepting that this number may be reduced in a week
in which holidays occur by the number of such holidays.
Rule 72 of said agreement reads, in part, as follows:
Rule 72.-Preservation of rates. Employees temporarily or permanently
assigned to higher-rated positions shall receive the higher rates while occupying
such position; employees temporarily assigned to lower-rated positions shall
not have their rates reduced. *
Rule 84 of said agreement reads as follows:
Rule 84.-Rates. Established positions shall not be discontinued and new
ones created under a different title covering relatively the same class of work
for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay or evading the application of these
rules.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board the carrier stated that
Mr. Carpenter had been restored as a regular checker January 16,
1921, although no notice of this fact was posted nor was it indicated
by the posting of his name on list of regular checkers, as was done
on December 13, 1920, in connection with classifying him as an extra
checker. In the opinion of the Labor Board, the inclusion of Mr.
Carpenter's name on list of extra checkers did not constitute notice
of abolition of his position as required by the rules of the agree-
ment. Furthermore, he reported for duty and worked the same as
the regular checkers on all days the transfer was operated in Decem-
ber, 1920, and January, 1921, except the two days he was required.
to do trucking.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides that Mr. Carpenter
was entitled, under the rules of the clerks' national agreement, to
the same compensation as the regular checkers and shall be reim-
bursed for the four days lost and for the difference between the rate
of pay of checker and the rate of pay of trucker on the two days
he worked in the latter position. Position of employees is sustained.
368
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
This decision shall not be understood to apply to similar claims
arising prior to December 13, 1921.
DECISION NO. 1011.-DOCKET 1186.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of Earl Huber, clerk, Tuscola, Ill., for the right
to exercise his seniority to position in the office of superintendent of
motive power.
Statement. On January 5, 1921, position of clerk to agent at Tus-
cola, Ill., held by Earl Huber, was abolished on account of reduction
in force. Mr. Huber made application for the right to exercise his
seniority to a position in the office of the superintendent of motive
power at that point, but his application was denied.
The employees contend that the position to which he desired to
exercise his seniority rights was one subject to the provisions of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, and that
under the rules of said agreement pertaining to the exercise of
seniority, Mr. Huber was entitled to an opportunity to qualify for
the position in question.
The employees further contend that the carrier declined to grant
conference for the purpose of handling this dispute, and it was filed
with the Labor Board as an ex-parte submission. The carrier was
furnished with a copy of the employees' position and filed a written
statement of its position upon the contentions of the employees as
set forth in the ex-parte submission. In the written statement sub-
mitted to the board, the carrier contends that the position in the office
of the superintendent of motive power to which Mr. Huber desired
to exercise his seniority was of a confidential nature and therefore
classified as a personal-office-force position, not subject to the pro-
visions of the clerks' national agreement. However, at the hearing
conducted by the Labor Board, the representative of the carrier
stated that the position was not one of a confidential nature and ad-
m.itted that it was subject to the agreement.
The carrier indicated in the written submission to the Labor Board
that the agent's office and the office of the superintendent of motive
power were not within the same seniority district. However, evidence
introduced at the hearing shows that all clerks in the operating de-
partment, including those in the office of the superintendent of motive
power, were considered as being within the same seniority district.
Furthermore, a bulletin covering a vacancy in a clerical position in
the office of the superintendent of motive power in April, 1921, was
posted to all clerks in the operating department, including those in
station and yard service.
The carrier further contends in both their written and oral presen-
tation that Mr. Huber did not possess sufficient fitness and ability to
qualify on the position in the office of the superintendent of motive
power.
DECISIONS.
369
Rule 6 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
** *
Rule 6.—Promotion basis. Employees covered by these rules shall be in line
for promotion. Promotion shall be based on seniority, fitness, and ability;
fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail,
NOTE.-The word "sufficient" is intended to more clearly establish the right
of the senior employee to bid in a new position or vacancy" where two
or more employees have adequate "fitness and "ability."
""
The intent of this rule is to establish seniority as the first considera-
tion in selecting the successful applicant for a bulletined position,
but there must be coupled with seniority, sufficient fitness and ability
to quality on the position in the 30-day trial provided for in rule 10
of the agreement. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board,
Mr. Huber admitted that he had not had experience in the work of
the position in the office of superintendent of motive power and that
he knew nothing about the work of said position.
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1012.-DOCKET 1190.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of T. J. Markey, operator,
Chicago, Ill.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1013.-DOCKET 1194.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago & North Western
Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of G. D. Lobdell, dispatcher, Sioux City divi-
sion, for 12 days' vacation, with compensation, for the year 1921.
Statement. Mr. Lobdell, train dispatcher, Sioux City, Iowa, en-
tered the service as dispatcher at that point October 16, 1918, and
was displaced from regular trick dispatcher's position on March 3,
1921, account reduction in force. His seniority did not entitle him to
hold a regular trick or regular relief dispatcher's position, and he per-
formed extra services subsequent to March 3, 1921, relieving regular
trick and assistant chief dispatchers. Claim is made for vacation
allowance during the year 1921 on basis of having been in service
as train dispatcher in excess of one year, and under the provisions
of instructions in effect reading as follows:
The rules adopted by the regional directors at their meeting held in Chicago,
October 3, 1918, providing for two days off per month for all dispatchers,
and for two weeks' vacation per annum for dispatchers who have served in
a capacity continuously one year or more, to be changed to provide that all
dispatchers shall have one day off per week, and that those who have been
370
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
in the service in that capacity continuously one year shall have, in addition,
two weeks' vacation per annum.
It is the contention of the employees that on March 2, 1921, Mr.
Lobdell had been continuously employed in the capacity of dis-
patcher for one year, and was therefore entitled to a vacation of two
weeks with pay under the rules established by the United States
Railroad Administration and assumed by the Labor Board as a
basis for the application of the increases prescribed in Decision No. 2.
The carrier states that inasmuch as Mr. Lobdell's position as regu-
lar trick dispatcher at Sioux City was abolished prior to the time
when he would normally have received a vacation during the year
1921, and he was not employed as a regular trick or regular relief
dispatcher during the period in which vacation allowances were
granted, he was not, under the provisions of the instructions issued
by the regional directors during the period of Federal control, en-
titled to two weeks' vacation with pay.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the rule in effect
governing vacations for train dispatchers G. D. Lobdell, dispatcher,
was entitled to a vacation for the year 1921. However, since the year
1921 has passed and the rule does not provide for a double vacation
period in the following year nor for pay in lieu of vacations not
granted, the Labor Board can not afford the employee any relief in
this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1014.-DOCKET 1195.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago & North Western
Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of S. W. Shaler, train dispatcher, Wyoming di-
vision, for compensation in lieu of vacation not granted during the
year 1920.
Statement. Mr. Shaler was employed as train dispatcher at Pierre,
S. Dak., September 1, 1919, which position was abolished July 31,
1920. Mr. Shaler was thereupon transferred to a train dispatcher's
position at Boone, Iowa, in which position he remained until Octo-
ber, 1920, when he was transferred to train dispatcher's position at
Casper, Wyo., having been in the service as a train dispatcher con-
tinuously since September 1, 1919.
Claim is made for compensation account vacation not being al-
lowed for the year 1920 on the ground that Mr. Shaler had been in
the service one year on September 1, 1920, and is entitled to vacation
with pay under the provisions of the instructions of the United
States Railroad Administration, reading in part as follows:
The rules adopted by the regional directors at their meeting held in Chicago,
October 3, 1918, providing for two days off per month for all dispatchers and
for two weeks' vacation per annum for dispatchers who have served in a capac-
ity continuously one year or more, to be changed to provide that all dispatchers
shall have one day off per week and that those who have been in the service
in that capacity continuously one year shall have, in addition, two weeks'
vacation per annum.
The employees contend that on September 1, 1920, Mr. Shaler
had been in the carrier's service in the capacity of dispatcher for a
DECISIONS.
371
period of one year, and that under the instructions of the United
States Railroad Administration, herein quoted, he was entitled to a
vacation of two weeks with pay.
The carrier contends that the period during which vacation allow-
ances are granted is generally described as the "summer months,"
and that the instructions issued to the division officers annually in
connection with making arrangements for vacations prescibed the
vacation period as commencing on April 1 and expiring on Septem-
ber 1. The carrier contends that inasmuch as Mr. Shaler had not
completed one year's service as a train dispatcher until September 1,
1920, or subsequent to the conclusion of the vacation period, he was
not entitled to vacation allowance in the year 1920 under the instruc-
tions of the regional director.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the rule in effect
governing vacations for train dispatchers Mr. Shaler, train dis-
patcher, was entitled to a vacation for the year 1920. However, since
that year has passed and the rule does not provide for double vaca-
tion period in the following year nor for pay in lieu of vacation not
granted, the Labor Board can not afford the employees any relief
in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1015.-DOCKET 1197.
Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-What is the proper seniority date of Benjamin Her-
shey, chief clerk, Tifft Street, Buffalo, N. Y.?
Statement. Mr. Hershey entered the carrier's service December
6, 1892, in the freight office at Buffalo, and worked in various clerical
positions until August 18, 1913, on which date he was transferred to
the freight claim department at Philadelphia, Pa. He remained in the
latter office until October 7, 1916, when his service terminated. The
record is not clear as to the exact circumstances under which his
service terminated--the employees claim that he was dismissed, and
the carrier claims that certain changes were made affecting his posi-
tion and that he was not requested to resign, neither was he dis-
missed, but it is admitted that he was not offered any direct encour-
agement of immediate employment in the claim department. He
returned to Buffalo and made application for a position in the
freight office at that point, but owing to conditions existing at that
time it was impossible to place him where his services could be
utilized.
On March 4, 1917, he entered the service of the New York, Chicago
& St. Louis Railroad Co. at Buffalo, and remained therein until
April 4, 1917, when he returned to the service of the Lehigh Valley
Railroad in the freight office at Buffalo, where he has since been
employed.
The carrier claims that during the period of his employment with
the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co., Mr. Hershey was
on a leave of absence, and that therefore his service was continuous
and his seniority should date from December 6, 1892. The employees
372
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
claim that Mr. Hershey was not on a leave of absence when he en-
tered the service of the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad,
and that, therefore, his seniority should date from the date he re-
entered the service of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, namely, April
4, 1917.
There is no evidence of Mr. Hershey having been transferred back
from the freight claim department to the freight house at Buffalo
when his service in the freight claim department terminated on
October 7, 1916. On the contrary the carrier admits that after Mr.
Hershey's service in the freight claim department terminated he re-
turned to Buffalo and applied to the agent at that point for a posi-
tion. The agent was unable to place him at that time and there is
no record of his having performed any service for the carrier until
April 4, 1917. The carrier is unable to produce any written leave.
of absence, but claims that the agent gave Mr. Hershey verbal per-
mission to accept employment with the New York, Chicago & St.
Louis Railroad Co., although Mr. Hershey had left the freight office
in August, 1913, and, so far as the record shows, had not been em-
ployed in any branch of the carrier's service after October 7, 1916.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that Benjamin Hershey's
seniority shall date from April 4, 1917.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1016.-DOCKET 1840.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of T. E. Davis, telegrapher, Houston, Tex., for
one day's pay account of not being called to work the second trick in
"HN" office, Sunday, April 17, 1921.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1017.-DOCKET 1841.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of C. H. Conlan, telegrapher, for difference be-
tween the pay of the position he held in the carrier's service and the
pay of a temporary vacancy which occurred in the "HN" office dur-
ing May, 1921.
#
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
373
DECISION NO. 1018.-DOCKET 1679.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall George Ringe, formerly employed as blacksmith
at Bogalusa, La., who was discharged from the service of the carrier,
be reinstated and paid for all time lost?
Statement. The employees' submission contains the following
statement of facts:
On January 2, 1921, the carrier posted a notice that the shops would be closed
on January 3. On January 3 the notice was posted that shops would reopen on
January 4, but that only men as designated in the notice should return to work.
George Ringe, blacksmith, employed by the carrier nine years, was one of the
shop employees who was not named in the notice to return to work on January
4. On January 7, 1921, Mr. Ringe inquired of the master mechanic as to his
status with the carrier and he was informed that he was discharged.
The employees further state that Mr. Ringe was dismissed by the
carrier without an investigation as provided in rule 37 of the exist-
ing agreement, and that the carrier discriminated against the em-
ployee account of his alleged organization activities.
A complete copy of the employees' ex-parte submission was for-
warded to and receipt of acknowledged by the carrier prior to this
case being docketed and date set for hearing. The carrier did not
deny the contentions made by the employees, and in the following
letter, dated March 25, 1922, from W. E. Farris, vice president and
general manager, declined to be represented at the hearing:
Replying to your letter of the 20th instant, Docket 1679, advising that
the case of George Ringe, blacksmith, Bogalusa, La., is set for hearing April
6, 1922.
We will not be represented.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the Labor Board
decides that George Ringe shall be reinstated to his former position,
with seniority rights unimpaired, and paid for all time lost, less
any amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1019.-DOCKET 1680.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts),
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of H. C. Coon, H. C. Boyd,
and H. T. Williams, who were dismissed from the service January
8, 1921.
Statement.—The employees' submission contained the following
statement of facts:
In the latter part of November Committeeman H. C. Coon was told by the
master car builder that if he, Mr. Coon, did not get off the committee he
would lose his job.
On the 8th day of January, 1921, Mr. Coon and the other two committeemen―
namely, H. C. Boyd and H. T. Williams-were summarily discharged.
374
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The committee of carmen called on the master mechanic for the purpose of
finding out why the committee was discharged. They were informed that the
carrier had no further use for the men who were fired, but were given no other
reason. This was on January 17, 1921, the delay being caused by the master
mechanic being away on business on the road.
On January 18, 1921, the general manager was asked for a conference in
the proper manner, i. e., in writing. Up to date there has been no answer
received and we are, therefore, now making submissions of these facts and
grievances.
This matter could not be taken up with other than the general manager,
W. E. Farris, as he is the highest operating official the road has.
Employees further contend that the carrier violated rule 39 of
the then existing agreement in discriminating against and discharg-
ing the grievance committee of the carmen, and further that no
investigation was held as contemplated in rule 37 of the then exist-
ing agreement.
A complete copy of the employees' ex-parte submission was for-
warded to and receipt of acknowledged by the carrier prior to this
case being docketed and the date set for hearing. The carrier did
not deny the contentions made by the employees, and in the follow-
ing letter, dated March 25, 1922, from W. E. Farris, vice president
and general manager, declined to be represented at the oral hearing:
Replying to your letter of the 20th instant, Docket No. 1680, advising that
the case of H. C. Coon, H. C. Boyd, and H. T. Williams has been set for hear-
ing April 6, 1922:
This company will not be represented.
Decision. The Labor Board decides, upon the evidence submitted,
that the employees in question shall be reinstated to their former
positions with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost,
less any amount they may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1020.-DOCKET 1682.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of M. A. Jenkins, machinist,
who was dismissed from the service January 5, 1921.
Statement. The employees' ex-parte submission contained the
following statement of facts:
On January 3, 1921, M. A. Jenkins, machinist, employed by the carrier for
three years, served on the federated committee in conference with the general
manager on the many grievances existing at that time in company shops. On
January 4 Mr. Jenkins was summarily notified that he was transferred to the
night force effective January 5.
On January 5, before starting work, he was notified by Master Mechanic
Heslin that he had orders to fire him, and furthermore that he was fired, effec-
tive at once.
The employees further contend that the carrier violated rule 37
of the then existing agreement in discharging Mr. Jenkins without
having an investigation; further, that the carrier violated rule 39 by
discriminating against Mr. Jenkins because he had served on a com-
mittee representing the employees.
DECISIONS.
375
A complete copy of the employees' ex-parte submission was for-
warded to and receipt of acknowledgment by the carrier prior to this
case being docketed and date set for hearing. The carrier did not
deny the contentions made by the employees, and in the following
letter, dated March 25, 1922, from W. E. Farris, vice president and
general manager, declined to be represented at the oral hearing:
Replying to your letter of the 20th instant, Docket 1682, advising that the
case of M. A. Jenkins, machinist, has been set for hearing April 6, 1922:
This company will not be represented.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that M. A. Jenkins shall be reinstated to his former position with
seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost, less any
amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1021.-DOCKET 1683.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of R. C. Jenkins, R. E. May,
J. L. Stillwell, F. E. Tate, A. A. Bass, J. M. Welch, W. E. Jordan,
and C. H. Mathews, who were dismissed from the service November
22, 1920.
The employees' ex-parte submission contains the following state-
ment of facts:
On November 22, 1920, the following-named carmen were dismissed from the
carrier's service, without five days' notice and in violation of their seniority
rights, by the carrier posting a notice on that date that their services were
no longer required from that date: R. C. Jenkins, R. E. May, J. L. Stillwell,
F. E. Tate, A. A. Bass, J. M. Welch, W. E. Jordan, C. H. Mathews.
The employees further contend that the eight men above named
had many years' service with the carrier and that at the time of their
dismissal there were employees in the same department having less
seniority who were retained in the service. The employees also con-
tend that the carrier violated rule 37 of the then existing agreement
by not conducting an investigation as contemplated in that rule
prior to the dismissal of these employees.
A complete copy of the employees' ex-parte submission was for-
warded to and receipt thereof acknowledged by the carrier prior
to this case being docketed and date set for hearing. The carrier
did not deny the contentions made by the employees, and in the fol-
lowing letter declined to be represented at the oral hearing:
Replying to your letter of the 20th instant, Docket No. 1683, advising that the
case of R. C. Jenkins, R. E. May, J. L. Stillwell et al. has been set for hearing
April 6, 1922.
This company will not be represented.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the Labor Board
decides that the employees in question shall be reinstated to their
former positions with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all
time lost, less any amount they may have earned in other employ-
ment.
376
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1022.-DOCKET 1684.
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New Orleans Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of N. J. Hoey, formerly em-
ployed as electrician, who was dismissed from the service on No-
vember 24, 1920.
Statement.—The statement of facts from the employees' ex-parte ·
submission is quoted in part as follows:
Discharged November 24, 1920, account of being undesirable and for the good
of the service, without investigation and, therefore, in violation of rule 37 of
the national agreement, which distinctly says "neither shall an employee be
discharged for any cause without first being given an investigation.”
The employees further contend that the action on the part of the
carrier in discharging this man was in line with the alleged pro-
cedure in discharging from its service practically all of the com-
mitteemen of the different crafts, and practically all men who were
in any sense active in the organization, and that the carrier dis-
criminated against this employee for that reason.
A complete copy of the employees' ex-parte submission was for-
warded to and receipt of acknowledged by the carrier prior to this
case being docketed and the date set for hearing. The carrier did
not deny the contentions made by the employees and in the follow-
ing letter, dated March 25, 1922, from W. E. Farris, vice president
and general manager, declined to be represented at the oral hearing:
Replying to your letter of the 20th instant, Docket No. 1684, advising that
the case of N. J. Hoey, electrician, has been set for hearing April 6, 1922:
The railroad company will not be represented.
F
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the Labor Board
decides that N. J. Hoey shall be reinstated to his former position
with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost, less any
amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1023.-DOCKET 1174.
Chicago, Ill., May 20, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding displacement of M. C. Harris from
position of regular relief dispatcher, Wausau, Wis.
Statement.-The position of regular relief dispatcher at Wausau
was created on or about August 15, 1919, and Mr. Harris was
assigned to it. The position was not bulletined until November 30,
1919, at which time Mr. Harris filed application for the position
and continued therein until January 23, 1921. On that date A. W.
Warner, train dispatcher, was assigned to the position, and Mr.
Harris was assigned to the position of third-trick dispatcher in that
office.
The employees state that when the position of relief dispatcher
was created in August, 1919, Mr. Harris was assigned to it for the
DECISIONS.
377
reason that no one else in the office would take it, and that at that
time Mr. Harris requested the chief dispatcher to bulletin the posi-
tion and have the other dispatchers go on record as to whether or
not they would take it, but the request was ignored.
The employees further state that the bulletin of November 30,
1919, stated that no change would be made in the position after
December 6, 1919; that on the latter date Mr. Harris was the only
employee who had made application for the position of regular
relief dispatcher; and that he therefore continued said position.
The instructions of the United States Railroad Administration
pertaining to seniority for train dispatchers, assumed by the Labor
Board as the basis for the application of Decision No. 2, contained
the following regulation with reference to seniority:
It is not possible to lay down a definite seniority rule, because ability and
merit are of paramount importance in this highly responsible work, and in
any event must govern; but where the ability and merit of two men are equal,
the choice of positions, either within the same office or between different dis-
patching offices of a division, so far as possible should be determined upon the
basis of seniority.
The employees contend that under the recognized application of
the rule above quoted seniority rights may be exercised only in
case of promotion, demotion, vacancy, new positions, or change of
conditions for betterment in existing positions, and that when Mr.
Warner was permitted to displace Mr. Harris on January 23, 1921,
none of the aforesaid conditions obtained. On April 10, 1921, Mr.
Harris was displaced from the third-trick position on account of
reduction in force and was out of work entirely from that date ex-
cept for what extra work there was available for him to perform.
The employees request that Mr. Harris be reimbursed for the
monetary loss sustained through the alleged improper action of the
carrier in permitting his displacement from the position of regular
relief dispatcher on January 23, 1921, until April 10, 1921.
The carrier states that Mr. Harris was regularly employed as
telegraph operator at a point about 20 miles distant from Wausau,
and served as extra dispatcher in relieving regular dispatchers dur-
ing their leave of absence two days per month, two weeks per year,
in accordance with instructions of the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration. The carrier states that subsequently when instruc-
tions were issued granting train dispatchers one day per week, the
position of regular relief dispatcher was created and Mr. Harris
filled the position of monthly-rated regular relief dispatcher until
January 23, 1921, when he was displaced by senior train dispatcher,
Mr. Warner.
The carrier contends that the displacement of Mr. Harris from
the position of relief dispatcher acknowledged the principle of
seniority where ability and qualifications were equal, and that the
claim of the employees as herein set forth is in conflict with the
principles of seniority.
It appears that the position held by Mr. Harris was bulletined
by the carrier on November 30, 1919, and that Mr. Warner had not
made application for said position up to the time that bid submitted
in accordance with said bulletin had closed. It also appears that
when Mr. Warner was assigned to the position of regular relief dis-
patcher held by Mr. Harris, January 23, 1921, no condition, such as
378
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
reduction of force, vacancy, or other circumstances usually recog-
nized as justifying the exercise of seniority, obtained.
At a hearing conducted by the Labor Board the employees intro-
duced a question of the alleged violation of certain regulations per-
taining to assignment of relief dispatcher in the office at Wausau
and the effect of such irregularities upon the status of Mr. Harris;
it appears, however, that this question had not been handled with
the carrier in accordance with the provisions of the transportation
act, 1920, and is therefore not properly a part of this dispute.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that M. C. Harris, train
dispatcher, was improperly displaced from the position of monthly
rated regular relief dispatcher on January 23, 1921, and he shall,
therefore, be reimbursed for the wage loss sustained as a result of
said displacement during the period January 23 to April 10, 1921.
!
DECISION NO. 1024.-DOCKET 1187.
Chicago, Ill. May, 20, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Union Depot Co. of Columbus, Ohio.
Question.-Dispute regarding application of rule 49 of the na-
tional agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees to cer-
tain employees in station service, Columbus, Ohio.
Statement.—In the original submission of this dispute to the La-
bor Board the positions involved were those of foremen, milk,
baggage and parcel room employees, mail handlers, mail sorters.
train announcers, gatemen, ushers, telephone operators, messengers,
baggage-delivery clerks, matrons, and porters.
At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board the carrier con-
ceded the employees' contention with respect to the positions of
foremen, and the employees withdrew their claim in behalf of all
classes of employees except the parcel-room employees and baggage-
delivery clerks. The presentation as amended at the hearing covers
a dispute as to the applicability of rule 49 to parcel-room employees
and baggage-room delivery clerks.
The employees contend that these classes of employees are clerks.
and not subject to the application of rule 49. whereas the carrier
contends that they are not clerks but are baggage and parcel room
employees whose service does not require continuous application and
that they are not, therefore, properly classified and paid under rule
49 of the clerks' national agreement.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board shows that the
employees herein referred to do not devote four or more hours per
day to work of a clerical nature as defined in rule 4 of the clerks'
national agreement. The evidence also shows that the service per-
formed by these employees does not require continuous applica-
tion and they are therefore properly classified and paid in accord-
ance with rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
DECISIONS.
379
DECISION NO. 1025.-DOCKET 1193.
Chicago, Ill. May, 20, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding seniority rights of C. E. Molander,
train dispatcher.
Statement.-In May, 1921, the dispatching offices at Aberdeen,
S. Dak., and Montevideo, Minn., were consolidated. As a result of
this consolidation Mr. Molander, who entered the carrier's service.
as train dispatcher June 3. 1919, was out of employment. On
July 14, 1919, he was advised that there was no further work for
him on the division as a train dispatcher. He thereupon addressed
a communication to the carrier in which he claimed that he was
senior to L. E. Nelson and E. J. Ruehmers, dispatchers, both of
whom were retained in the carrier's service, and requested a hear-
ing to establish his seniority standing. The carrier did not grant
the conference requested, but advised Mr. Molander that accord-
ing to its records Mr. Nelson had been in the service since 1906 and
was, therefore, senior to Mr. Molander. Mr. Ruehmers had less
seniority than Mr. Molander, but he was working as an extra dis-
patcher and not retained in a regular position.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board the employees con-
ceded that Dispatcher Nelson was senior to former Dispatcher
Molander, but claimed that in view of the fact that he was senior
to Dispatcher Ruehmers he was entitled to be retained as an extra
dispatcher and given the extra work performed by extra Dispatcher
Ruehmers and any other work available.
The carrier states that when the offices herein referred to were
consolidated, Mr. Molander did not have sufficient seniority to en-
able him to retain a regular position and he was so notified. The
carrier contends that the action taken was in accordance with the
existing rules and practices governing seniority of train dispatchers
and that there is no rule under which they were required to carry
Mr. Molander on the extra roster and notify him when there was
work for him to perform.
The rule in regard to seniority promulgated by the United States
Railroad Administration and continued in effect by decision of the
Labor Board, reads as follows:
It it not possible to lay down a definite seniority rule because ability and
merit are of paramount importance in this highly responsible work, and in
any event must govern; but where the ability and merit of two men is equal,
the choice of positions, either within the same office or between different dis-
patching offices of a division, so far as possible should be determined upon the
basis of seniority.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the action of the carrier
was not in conflict with the rule governing seniority herein quoted.
Request of the employees is therefore denied.
20936°--23- -25
380
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1026.-DOCKET 1487.
Chicago, Ill., May 20, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of C. T. Bickell, clerk,
auditing department, to exercise his seniority when his position was
abolished on August 13, 1921.
Statement.-Mr. Bickell was employed by the carrier on August
23, 1920, and held various clerical positions in the carrier's service
until August 13, 1921. When the position he held on that date was
abolished he was denied the right to exercise his seniority on the
ground that during the period of his employment he was considered a
temporary employee and had not accumulated seniority.
The employees state that Mr. Bickell was employed as a wage-
statistic clerk in the office of the auditor of disbursements on August
23, 1920, that on September 1, 1920, he bid upon and was awarded.
position of fourth statistical clerk, and that on February 4, 1921,
he was displaced from his position by a senior employee and he in
turn displaced an employee with less seniority who was assigned to
the work of handling corrections of inventory, and remained in that
position until it was abolished August 23, 1921. The employees con-
tend that Mr. Bickell established seniority rights in the office of the
auditor of disbursements from August 23, 1920, that he was shown
on the seniority roster posted on January 13, 1921, as having estab-
lished such rights, and that when the position he held on August 13,
1921, was abolished he should have been permitted to displace any
employee with less seniority holding a position for which he had
the necessary fitness and ability.
The employees base their claim on rules 5, 14, and 15 of the clerk's
national agreement, and rules 8 and 25 of the agreement between
the carrier and employees in clerical service effective July 1, 1921,
which rules read as follows:
Clerks' national agreement:
RULE 5. Seniority begins at the time the employee's pay starts.
RULE 14. Positions or vacancies of 30 days' or less duration shall be con-
sidered temporary and may be filled without bulletining.
RULE 15. Positions or vacancies of indefinite duration need not be bulletined
until the expiration of 30 days from the date of employment or vacancy.
Clerks' agreement of July 1, 1921:
RULE 8. When practicable, employees should accept promotion; however,
those declining promotion or failing to bid for a bulletined position shall not
lose their seniority.
RULE 25. Employees whose positions are abolished may exercise their senior-
ity rights over junior employees. Other employees affected may exercise their
seniority in the same manner.
The carrier denies that Mr. Bickell was employed as a wage-
statistic clerk and claims that he was employed as a temporary clerk;
that when he was displaced by a senior employee on February 14,
1921, he did not exercise his rights to a permanent position, but
solicited and was given a temporary position designated as
66 tem-
porary clerk, inventory." The carrier states that during the time he
remained on this temporary position, i. e., from February 14, 1921,
DECISIONS.
381
until it was discontinued, on August 13, 1921, he was not denied the
right to exercise his seniority over junior employees when vacancies
occurred; but when he failed to assert his seniority during that
period the carrier did decline, on August 13, 1921, to dismiss a regu-
lar employee in order to make a place for Mr. Bickell, who, it is
claimed, had by preference accepted and continued in a temporary
position.
The carrier states that it has been the practice for many years,
when special work of unknown duration was undertaken which could
not be handled by the regular force, to employ clerks from outside
of the service, and that in employing such clerks for temporary posi-
tions their status is carefully explained to them. However, if during
the period of such temporary employment a vacancy occurs in the
regular force for which it is necessary to hire some one from outside
of the service, such temporary employees are, if desired, given con-
sideration. Owing to the temporary character of such positions, the
rate is usually higher than that paid employees on permanent posi-
tions. Further, it is stated that it has not been the practice to
regard temporary employees as affected by reduction in force, nor
has it been the practice to require them to pass the usual examina-
tion prescribed for applicants for permanent positions.
The carrier contends that these conditions existed prior to Federal
control and have not been changed by any rules of the clerks' na-
tional agreement nor the agreement effective July 1, 1921, nor has
there been any change in the practice or conditions surrounding said
temporary positions. The carrier contends that it has always been
the practice to permit temporary employees to accumulate seniority
and offer to them, as an additional inducement to accept temporary
employment, the right to bid upon vacancies occurring in the regular
force during the period of such employment, and that this practice
is in the nature of a concession or inducement and is not in accord-
ance with any rule governing the seniority of clerical employees.
Opinion. The evidence shows that Mr. Bickell entered the car-
rier's service on a position designated by the carrier as "temporary
clerk” in August, 1920, that he was transferred to position desig-
nated as
"fourth statistical clerk," September 1, 1920. The latter
position was a permanent one and he remained thereon until Feb-
ruary 14, 1921, when he was displaced by another employee. He had
the alternative of exercising his seniority rights to one of several
positions at a lesser rate of pay, but arrangements were made to
permit him to transfer to a position designated as "temporary clerk-
inventory at a higher rate of pay than any of the positions to
which his seniority rights would have entitled him, and he remained
thereon until August 13, 1921, on which date the position was abol-
ished and he was relieved from the service.
While it has been shown that the officials of the auditing depart-
ment considered Mr. Bickell a temporary employee, and that the
action taken in his case was in accordance with the existing practice
and interpretations of the clerks' seniority rules established for that
department, the said practices and interpretations are not, in the
opinion of the Labor Board, in accordance with the intent of the
rules of the clerks' national agreement herein quoted.
It is the judgment of the Labor Board that the rules of the clerks'
national agreement pertaining to seniority which are quoted in this
382
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
decision were promulgated for the purpose of prohibiting the very
practice that apparently exists in the auditing department of the
said carrier, and to give to employees the right to apply for posi-
tions of more than 30 days' duration which pay a higher rate of pay
than the permanent positions to which such employees may be as-
signed. It appears that the Railroad Administration had so inter-
preted the rules of the clerks' national agreement involved in this
dispute, and that these interpretations were accepted and promul-
gated by the carrier for the government of clerical employees in its
service, but have not been accepted by the auditing department.
Decision. The Labor Board decides, for the reasons herein set
forth, that when the position held by C. T. Bickell was abolished
on August 13, 1921, he was entitled, under the rules in effect govern-
ing seniority of clerical employees, to exercise his seniority rights
to any position held by employees of less seniority, and that he shall
therefore be reinstated to the carrier's service with seniority rights
unimpaired and reimbursed for the wage loss sustained since August
13, 1921, less any amount earned in other employment since that date.
DECISION NO. 1027.-DOCKET 1501.
Chicago, Ill., May 20, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
Question. Proper rate of pay for fire patrolmen.
Statement.-Evidence submitted in this case indicates that during
the summer months fire patrolmen are employed by the Delaware &
Hudson Co. for the purpose of patrolling track running through the
Adirondack Forest Preserve, this being necessary to conform to the
requirements of the New York State Conservation Commission and
because of the danger of fire as a result of flying sparks, live coal
dropping from fire box, etc.
It is shown that in the year 1920, upon receipt of Decision No. 2
of the Labor Board, that in view of the fact that these positions
were at that time being filled, increases specified in that decision
were added to the rates that the employees filling these positions
were receiving. It is further shown that in the fall, 1920, these po-
sitions were discontinued and that in the spring of 1921, when it
was necessary to recruit the forces for the summer months, the man-
agement filled there positions at a rate lower than had been paid
employees filling similar positions during the preceding summer sea-
son, the parties accepting service in 1921 signing an agreement to
the effect that they would accept the rate of pay offered by the man-
agement, which was 30 cents per hour for each hour worked, as
compared with 481 cents per hour with overtime provisions the pre-
ceding season, after the application of Decision No. 2.
The employees take the position that the action on the part of the
management constituted an arbitrary reduction in wages for fire
patrolmen, and therefore contend that the wages and working con-
ditions in effect should not have been changed until the matter had
been handled in accordance with provisions of the transportation
act, 1920.
DECISIONS.
383
Opinion. The evidence submitted shows that the rate in effect
under the authority of the United States Railroad Administration
was 40 cents per hour at the time of the issuance of Decision No. 2.
This rate, in accordance with said Decision No. 2, was increased to
483 cents per hour.
The board takes the position that the service in question is not
temporary but "seasonal," and that therefore the rate of 40 cents
per hour established by the Railroad Administration should be the
basis in determining the rate applicable to that service in 1921, which
basis would produce a rate of 48 cents per hour up to July 1, 1921,
on which date Decision No. 147 became effective, and which provided
a decrease for this class of service, again establishing the rate of 40
cents per hour. The overtime conditions established by the Railroad
Administration were also continued in effect by the provisions of
Decision No. 2 until other rules had been mutually agreed upon or
decided by the Labor Board.
Decision. Unless and until the parties to agreement affecting this
class of employees mutually agree otherwise, the Labor Board de-
cides that for the season 1922 and subsequent seasons the rate of pay
and overtime conditions for the service in question shall be in con-
formity with rates of pay and overtime conditions established for
these positions.
DECISION NO. 1028.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922—Effective July 1, 1922.
;
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood of Mainte-
nance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers et al.
Subject of the dispute.-Between each of the carriers named below
and the classes of employees represented by the organizations named
below disputes have arisen as to what shall constitute just and
reasonable wages.
Conferences were held between each carrier and the accredited
representatives of its said employees, and said disputes, not having
been decided in such conferences, were referred to the United States
Railroad Labor Board for decision.
All the carriers named below are petitioning for a reduction in
the wages of said employees, and on a considerable number of the
roads the employees are requesting an increase in wages.
Both parties made a full presentation to the Labor Board of their
respective contentions, by testimony and argument, oral and written.
The Western Maryland Railway Co. and the Erie Railroad Co.
had applications pending before the Labor Board for a wage reduc-
tion of maintenance of way employees. After contracting their main-
tenance of way work, or a portion thereof, the Western Maryland
Railway Co. withdrew its application for all its maintenance of way
employees and the Erie Railroad Co. withdrew its application for
employees covered by section 8 of this decision.
Parties to the dispute.-The following carriers are parties to this
dispute:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
384
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Alton & Southern Railroad.
Arkansas & Memphis Railway Bridge & Terminal Co.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Boston & Maine Railroad and its subsidiaries.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Central Indiana Railway Co.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Muncie Belt Railway.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
DECISIONS.
385
Erie Railroad Co.
Chicago & Erie Railroad.
New Jersey & New York Railroad.
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad.
Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad.
Florida East Coast Railway Co.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Grand Trunk Railway System (lines in United States).
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Lake Charles & Northern Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Long Island Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Minneapolis.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
386
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Natchez & Louisiana Railway Transfer Co.
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines East and West).
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Fort Street Union Depot Co.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.
North East Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
Tamaqua, Hazelton & Northern Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
St. Paul Bridge & Terminal Railway Co.
St. Paul Union Depot Co.
San Antonio & Arkansas Pass Railway Co.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Sioux City Terminal Railway.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermilion Railroad Co.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad and Steamship Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co.
DECISIONS.
387
Southern Railway Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and its subsidiaries.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
The organizations which are parties hereto, representing the em-
ployees involved herein, and each of which has a dispute with one
or more of the above-named carriers, are as follows:
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers.
Railway Employees Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop
Crafts).
Maintenance of Way Foremen's Association.
International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees.
American Federation of Railroad Workers.
History of the controversy.-The Railroad Labor Board by De-
cision No. 2, effective May 1, 1920, increased the wages of this class
of employees, along with others, on all the railroads then before the
board. That decision was rendered at a time when living costs and
wages were at their summit. Shortly afterwards living costs and
wages in general began to decline.
The Labor Board by Decision No. 147, effective July 1, 1921, re-
duced the wages of this class of employees on all the carriers before
the board.
These two decisions, Nos. 2 and 147, were handed down by the
board after a full hearing of all parties. The board endeavored in
said cases, as it does in the present one, to observe the provisions
of the transportation act, 1920, prescribed for its guidance, which
read as follows:
388
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
SEC. 307. (d)
In determining the justness and reasonableness of
such wages and salaries or working conditions the board shall, so far as appli-
cable, take into consideration among other relevant circumstances:
(1) The scales of wages paid for similar kinds of work in other industries;
(2) The relation between wages and the cost of living;
(3) The hazards of the employment;
(4) The training and skill required;
(5) The degree of responsibility;
(6) The character and regularity of the employment; and
(7) Inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the result of previous
wage orders or adjustments.
The wages of this class of employees has not been standardized and
made uniform throughout the country, as many people seem to
think. Prior to Decision No. 2, they were not so standardized, and
the increases made by that decision were arrived at by adding to the
various existing rates a uniform increase of a certain number of cents
per hour.
The reductions made by Decision No. 147 were similarly arrived
at by applying to the various rates established by Decision No. 2 a
uniform decrease of a certain number of cents per hour.
Basis and analysis of decision. In this case the board adopts as
its base the rates fixed in Article III of Decision No. 147, and finds
it just and reasonable under the law and the evidence to make the
following schedule of decreases per hour:
Cents.
SEC. 1. Bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and concrete, water-
supply, and plumber foremen (except water-supply and plumber foremen
coming under the provisions of section 1 of Article IV, Decision No. 147)__
SEC. 2. Assistant bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and con-
crete, water-supply, and plumber foremen, and for coal-wharf, coal-chute,
and fence-gang foremen, pile-driver, ditching and hoisting engineers and
bridge inspectors (except assistant water-supply and plumber foremen com-
ing under the provisions of section 1 of Article IV, Decision No. 147)
SEC. 3. Section, track, and maintenance foremen, and assistant section,
track, and maintenance foremen_.
SEC. 4. Mechanics in the maintenance of way and bridge and building de-
partments (except those that come within the scope of agreements with the
Federated Shop Crafts)---
SEC. 5. Mechanics' helpers in the maintenance of way and bridge and
building departments (except those that come within the scope of agree-
ments with the Federated Shop Crafts)
SEC. 6. Track laborers, and all common laborers in the maintenance of
way department and in and around shops and roundhouses not otherwise
provided for herein__.
SEC. 7. Drawbridge tenders and assistants, pile-driver, ditching, and hoist-
ing firemen, pumper engineers and pumpers, crossing watchmen or flagmen,
and lamp lighters and tenders..
SEC. 8. Laborers employed in and around shops and roundhouses, such
as engine watchmen and wipers, fire builders, ash-pit men, flue borers, coal
passers (except those coming under the provisions of section 3 of Article
VIII, Decision No. 147), coal-chute men, etc__-.
SEC. 9. For miscellaneous classes of foremen and other employees named
in connection with a carrier affected by this decision, but not specifically
listed under any section in the classified schedules of decreases, deduct an
amount equal to the decreases specified for the respective classes to which
the miscellaneous classes herein referred to are analogous.
5
5
3
4
1
5
сл
5
5
As an example of the absence of uniform standardization of the
wages of the class of employees herein covered, take those embraced
in section 6 above-namely, track laborers, etc. Under Decision No.
147, the rates of pay of such employees range from 28 cents
per hour
to 40 cents per hour. As a matter of fact, the 28-cent rate is found
DECISIONS.
389
on only a few roads and applies to a comparatively small number
of employees. As an illustration of the range of rates of these em-
ployees, the rates prevailing under Decision No. 147 on the South-
ern, the Illinois Central, the Chicago Great Western, the Northern
Pacific, the New York Central, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe Railroads are given below.
These railroads are somewhat illustrative of the rates per hour for
so-called common labor in the East and West and on roads that run
through the North and South:

Illinois Chicago
Southern.
Central.
Great
Western.
Northern New York
Pacific. Central.
Santa Fe.
291
291
37
40
37
291
301
301
391/
381
30
301
303
40
391
302
31
311
40
32
34
32
32
323
323
342
351
351
35
37
37
351
354
373
39
39
39
37
39
391
40
40
40
The range of rates per hour under this decision on said rail-
roads is obtainable by subtracting 5 cents from the rates above set
out.
The Labor Board is of the opinion that after the reductions made
under this decision, common labor on the railroads will still be
receiving, as a rule, a wage in excess of that paid to similar labor
in other industries, and that the same will be true of all other classes
of labor covered by this decision. The board is of the opinion,
however, that the hazards and hardships of the employment, the
training and skill required, the degree of responsibility to the public,
and other elements mentioned in the statute, combine to justify the
payment of a better wage to these employees than is paid to similar
labor in outside employment.
On a very considerable number of the roads the foreman and
section men are furnished living quarters and fuel by the carrier.
Moreover, the board is not in sympathy with the idea that a gov-
ernmental tribunal, empowered to fix a just and reasonable wage for
men engaged in serving the public in the transportation industry,
should be controlled by the one consideration of the low wages that
may be paid to other labor in a period of temporary depression and
unemployment. It is but just to say that railway managements
have indicated no desire for such a result.
Based upon the evidence before the board, the statistical depart-
ment of the board has made a study of the comparative purchasing
power of the wage herein fixed for so-called common labor and the
purchasing power of the wage paid such labor on the railroads in
December, 1917, immediately prior to Government control of the
carriers; in January, 1920, just prior to the termination of Federal
control; on May 1, 1920, the effective date of Decision No. 2; on July
1, 1921, the effective date of Decision No. 147; and in March, 1922.
The result of this study is as follows:
?
390
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Average hourly rates:
Cents.
December, 1917.
19.3
January, 1920
37.7
May, 1920.
46.3
July, 1921___.
37.7
Under present decision.
32.7
Per cent of increase in average hourly rates over December, 1917 :
January, 1920_
May, 1920
Per cent.
95.3
139.9
May, 1920.
July, 1921
Under present decision.
Increase in cost of living over December, 1917:
January, 1920
July, 1921
March, 1922 (latest available Government data)__
95.3
69.4
40.0
52.0
26.7
17.2
Per cent of increase in purchasing power of earnings of subsequent dates
as compared with December, 1917:
January, 1920
May, 1920
July, 1921
Under present decision__
39.5
57.8
54. 1
44. 5
Although average hourly earnings of this class of employees are
below the earnings prior to Decision No. 2 by 5 cents per hour,
their value is 3.6 per cent greater, due to the decrease in cost of
living. The cost-of-living figures set out in the foregoing tables have
been compiled from the reports of the United States Department of
Labor and are for the latest date for which such data are available.
Decision. The Railroad Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the rates of wages heretofore established by the authority
of the United States Railroad Labor Board shall be decreased as
herein before set out for the class of employees there named, and
that such decreases shall be effective as of July 1, 1922.
(2) That the scope of this decision is limited to the carriers named
under Article I herein, to such carriers as may be included hereafter
by addenda, and to the specific classes of employees named or re-
ferred to under each particular carrier.
(3) That the reduction in wages hereby authorized shall be made
in accordance with the following articles, which prescribe the regu-
lations and designate the employees affected:
ARTICLE I.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific groups of its em-
ployees named or referred to in this article, in amounts hereinbefore
specified for such groups in the schedule of decreases.
The section numbers used in connection with a carrier refer to
the corresponding section numbers in the schedule of decreases, and
in determining the groups of employees affected on each carrier the
following rules shall govern:
(a) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
without naming the classes, all classes of employees named in the
corresponding section numbers of the schedule of decreases are
affected.
(b) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
and specific classes of employees are named, only the same classes
DECISIONS.
391
of employees named in the corresponding section numbers of the
schedule of decreases are affected.
(c) Where section numbers are omitted in connection with a car-
rier, the classes of employees named in the corresponding section.
number of the schedule of decreases are not affected.
Some of the carriers presented disputes applicable only to cer-
tain sections of the eight groups or sections comprising the class
of employees herein covered, whereas others included all of the
eight groups specified herein.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Alton & Southern Railroad.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Sec. 8. Roundhouse laborers.
Sec. 9. Section laborers, and watchmen.
Arkansas & Memphis Railway Bridge & Terminal Co.
Secs. 3, 6, and 7.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and mainte-
nance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Sec. 9. Laborers.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Painter foremen.
Sec. 2. Fence-gang foremen and ditching engineers.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (carpenters and painters only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (carpenter and painter helpers only).
Sec. 7. Ditching firemen and pumpers.
Sec. 9. Ditcher and steam-shovel foremen, extra-gang and extra fore-
men, trackmen, fence-gang laborers, seasonal laborers, flange
men, and steam-shovel firemen.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Sec. 1. Bridge and building foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge and building foremen and bridge inspectors.
Secs. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Drawbridge tenders.
Sec. 8.
Sec. 9. Portable steam-equipment operators, trackmen, portable steam-
equipment firemen, pumping-equipment operators, and cross-
ing tenders.
Boston & Maine Railroad and its subsidiaries.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pile-driver, ditching and hoisting firemen, pumper engineers and
pumpers, crossing watchmen or flagmen, and lamp lighters
and tenders.
Sec. 8.
392
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation,
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Fence-gang foremen.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4 and 5.
Sec. 7. Ditching firemen.
Sec. 8. Laborers (in and around shops only).
Sec. 9. Ditcher foremen and section laborers.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Central Indiana Railway Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge foremen.
Sec. 2. Fence-gang foremen.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (bridge carpenters and painters only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (bridge-carpenter helpers only).
Sec. 6.
Sec. 9. Track foremen (general), section laborers, and fence and bridge
laborers.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and
maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building, painter and mason foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building, painter and mason føremen.
Sec. 3. Section foremen and assistant section foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (carpenters, painters and masons only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (carpenter helpers only).
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Pumpers.
Sec. 8.
Sec. 9. Derrick engineers, extra-gang foremen, and assistant extra-
gang foremen.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and
maintenance foremen and assistant track and
maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and
maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Co.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen.
Sec. 6.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and
maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
DECISIONS.
393
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building, and water-supply foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building, and water-supply foremen.
Sec. 3. Track foremen and assistant track foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (bridge and building carpenters and painters, water-
service repair men and pipemen and maintenance-of-way tin-
ners only.)
Sec. 5. Helpers (carpenters and water-service helpers only).
Secs. 6, 7, and 8.
Sec. 9. Extra-gang foremen and assistant extra-gang foremen.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge and building foremen.
Sec. 2. Ditching engineers.
Sec. 3. Track foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (carpenters only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (carpenter helpers only).
Sec. 6. Track laborers.
Sec. 7. Ditching firemen, pumpers, and crossing watchmen.
Sec. 8.
Sec. 9. Bridge watchmen.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Muncie Belt Railway.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (carpenters only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (carpenter helpers only).
Sec. 7. Crossing watchmen.
Sec. 9. Extra-gang foremen, section laborers, and tunnel watchmen.
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Drawbridge tenders.
Sec. 8.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (structural steel and iron workers only).
Sec. 5.
Sec. 6. Track laborers.
Sec. 7.
Sec. 8. Engine watchmen and wipers, fire builders, ash-pit men, flue
borers, and coal passers.
Sec. 9. All common laborers other than those employed in motive power
and equipment department, boarding-car help, yard clean-
ers, caretakers, watchmen, and fire knockers.
394
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and concrete
foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and
concrete, and coal-chute and fence-gang foremen, and pile-
driver, ditching, and hoisting engineers.
Sec. 3. Track foremen and assistant track foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pile-driver, ditching and hoisting firemen, pumpers, crossing
watchmen, and lamp lighters.
Sec. 8.
Sec. 9. Steam-shovel firemen.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Erie Railroad Co.
Chicago & Erie Railroad.
New Jersey & New York Railroad.
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad.
Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad.
Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7.
Florida East Coast Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Sec. 1. Bridge and painter foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge and fence-gang foremen, and pile-driver, and
ditching engineers.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (bridge and building carpenters and painters only).
Sec. 7. Ditching firemen, pumpers, and crossing watchmen.
Sec. 8.
Sec. 9. Extra-gang foremen and assistant extra-gang foremen, section
laborers, and extra-gang laborers.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Grand Trunk Railway System (lines in United States).
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Great Northern Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge and building foremen.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (bridge and building carpenters only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (bridge and building helpers only).
Sec. 9. Bridge and building laborers.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
DECISIONS.
395
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Sec. 9. Lamp men.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Ditching engineers and bridge inspectors.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pumpers, crossing watchmen and lamp tenders.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Ft. Smith Railway Co.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, and 8.
Lake Charles & Northern Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building and painter foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building and painter foremen.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4 and 5.
Sec. 6. Track laborers.
Sec. 8.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, and 8.
Sec. 9. Drawbridge deckhands.
Long Island Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Drawbridge tenders and assistants, pile-driver, ditching and
hoisting firemen, pumper engineers and pumpers, and lamp
lighters and tenders.
Sec. 8.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Secs. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, and 8.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and concrete,
Sec. 3.
water-supply and plumber foremen.
So Track laborers.
Sec. 8.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
20936°-23-26
396
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Minneapolis.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and S.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Ditching and hoisting firemen, pumper engineers and pumpers,
crossing watchmen or flagmen, and lamp lighters and tenders.
Sec. 8.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pile-drivers, ditching and hoisting firemen, pumper engineers
and pumpers, crossing watchmen or flagmen, and lamp light-
ers and tenders.
Sec. 8.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building, and water-supply foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building, and water-supply foremen, and fence-
gang foremen.
Sec. 3. Section and track foremen and assistant section and track fore-
men.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (bridge and building department only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (bridge and building department only).
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Pumpers.
Sec. 8. Laborers (in and around shops only).
Sec. 9. Assistant fence-gang foremen, extra-gang foremen, crane op-
erators, section, yard, bridge and building, extra-gang, fence-
gang, water-supply laborers, crane firemen (maintenance of
way), firemen (construction subdepartments), and pitmen.
Natchez & Louisiana Railway Transfer Co.
Secs. 4 and 8.
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
New York Central Railroad Co. (lines East and West).
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
Secs. 6, 7, and 8.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
DECISIONS.
397
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Sec. 6. Track laborers.
Sec. 7. Drawbridge tenders, pumpers, and crossing 'watchmen.
Sec. 9. Section, bridge, and extra-force laborers, combination draw-
bridge tenders and pumpers, and unskilled laborers.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Fort Street Union Depot Co.
Sec. 1. Bridge, building, painter, construction, mason, and concrete
foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and con-
crete foremen, coal-wharf, coal-chute, and fence-gang fore-
men; pile-driver, ditching, and hoisting engineers; and bridge
inspectors.
Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.
North East Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
Tamaqua, Hazleton & Northern Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
Sec. 3. Track foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Sec. 9. Work-train, extra-gang, and other gang foremen, and pumper
firemen.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pile-driver, ditching, and hoisting firemen, pumper engineers
and pumpers, crossing watchmen or flagmen, and lamp
lighters and tenders.
Sec. 8.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5 and 6.
Sec. 7. Pile-driver, ditching, and hoisting firemen, pumper engineers
and pumpers, and lamp lighters and tenders.
Sec. 8.
398
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Secs. 6 and 8.
Rutland Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 6, 7, and 8.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pumpers, crossing watchmen or flagmen, and lamp lighters and
tenders.
Sec. 8.
St. Paul Bridge & Terminal Railway Co.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main
tenance foremen.
Secs. 6, 7, and 8.
St. Paul Union Depot Co.
Secs. 3, 6, and 8.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Sec. 6. All common laborers (in and around shops and roundhouses
only).
Sec. 8.
Sioux City Terminal Railway.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen,
Secs. 6, 7, and 8.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermilion Railroad Co.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad and Steamship Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Southern Railway Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge and building foremen, coal-wharf, coal-chute,
and fence-gang foremen, and pile-driver, ditching, and hoist-
ing engineers.
Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Sec. 7. Crossing watchmen.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Loufs and its subsidiaries.
Sec. 1. Bridge and building foremen.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge and building foremen.
Sec. 3. Section foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Pile-driver, ditching, and hoisting firemen.
Sec. 8. Laborers (in and around shops only).
DECISIONS.
399
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 4. Mechanics (carpenters, painters, and pump repairmen only).
Sec. 5. Helpers (carpenter helpers only).
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Drawbridge tenders, pumpers, and crossing watchmen.
Sec. 8.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen and assistant track and main-
tenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Wabash Railway Co.
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Assistant bridge, building, construction, mason and concrete,
water-supply, and plumber foremen, coal-wharf, coal-chute,
and fence-gang foremen, and pile-driver, ditching, and hoist-
ing engineers.
Secs. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Drawbridge tenders and assistants, pile-driver, ditching and
hoisting firemen, pumpers, crossing watchmen or flagmen,
and lamp lighters and tenders.
Sec. 8.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Sec. 3. Track and maintenance foremen.
Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
ARTICLE II.—GENERAL APPLICATION.
The general regulations governing the application of this de-
cision are as follows:
SECTION 1. The provisions of this decision will not apply in cases
where amounts less than $30 per month are paid to individuals for
special service which takes only a part of their time from outside
employment or business.
400
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
SEC. 2. Decreases specified in this decision are to be deducted on
the following basis:
(a) For employees paid by the hour, deduct the hourly decrease
from the hourly rate.
(b) For employees paid by the day, deduct eight times the hourly
decrease from the daily rate.
(c) For mployees paid by the month, deduct 204 times the hourly
decrease from the monthly rate.
SEC. 3. The decreases in wages and the rates hereby established
shall be incorporated in and become a part of existing agreements
or schedules, or future negotiated agreements or schedules, and shall
remain in effect until or unless changed in the manner provided by
the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 4. It is not intended in this decision to include or make de-
creases in wages for any officials of the carriers affected except that
class designated in the transportation act, 1920, as "subordinate
oflicials," and who are included in the act as within the jurisdiction
of the Labor Board. The act provides that the term "subordinate
officials" includes officials of carriers of such class or rank as the
Interstate Commerce Commission shall designate by regulation duly
formulated and issued. Hence, whenever in this decision words are
used, such as "foremen," etc., which may apply to officials, such words
are intended to apply to only such classes of subordinate officials
as are now or may hereafter be defined and classified by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission as "subordinate officials" within the
meaning of the transportation act, 1920.
ARTICLE III.-INTERPRETATION OF THIS DECISION.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employ-
ees of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision,
which can not be decided in conference between the parties directly
interested, such dispute shall be referred to the United States Rail-
road Labor Board in the manner provided by the transportation
act, 1920.
SECTION 1. All such disputes shall be presented in a concrete and
joint signed statement setting forth:
(a) The specific question involved.
(b) The facts in the case.
(e) The position of the employees.
(d) The position of the management thereon.
Where supporting documentary evidence is used, it shall be at-
tached to the application for decision in the form of exhibits.
SEC. 2. Such presentations shall be transmitted to the secretary
of the United States Railroad Labor Board, who shall place same
before the Labor Board for final disposition.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissent from the majority decision for the fol-
lowing specific reasons:
(1) The rates of pay established under this decision as the basic
minimum rates of the transportation industry will merely perpetuate
the low level of purchasing power possessed by this large class of
DECISIONS.
401
i
workers in pre-war years. The opinion expressed in the majority
decision, that "The board is not in sympathy with the idea that a
governmental tribunal, empowered to fix a just and reasonable wage
for men engaged in serving the public in the transportation indus-
try, should be controlled by the one consideration of the low wage
that may be paid to other labor," would seem to indicate a feeling
that the decision should not perpetuate the injustices of a former
unregulated period. Below we show clearly the fallacies of attempt-
ing to show that the rates of the decision will mean increased pur-
chasing power over pre-war levels.
(2) The rates of pay established under this decision will mean
annual earnings far below any minimum standard of subsistence
which has been formulated, even below those of most conservative
employer groups.
(3) The rates of pay established under this decision are not based
upon the human needs of the hundreds of thousands of families
involved. They are insufficient to provide these families with the
absolute essentials. The earnings of this large group of railroad
employees will not provide the father of a family with as much food
as is allowed convicts in the Cook County (Ill.) jail.
(4) The pre-war standard perpetuated by this decision was the
product of inequitable wage bargains. It is considerably below the
level recognized at that time as necessary for the maintenance of
health and energy.
UNFAIRNESS OF MAJORITY DECISION ON INCREASED PURCHASING POWER.
The statistical study of the comparative purchasing power of the
wage for common labor fixed by this decision and the purchasing
power of the wage paid such labor in December, 1917, which serves
as the major justification in the majority report, is unfair and
misleading.
In the first place, it fails to take account of the change in the
number of hours constituting the basic working-day as between the
two periods. During the period covered the basic day was reduced
from 10 hours to 8 hours. According to Wage Series Report No. 3
issued by the Labor Board, the average daily rate of pay for this
class of labor was $1.93 in December, 1917, and will be $2.62 under
this decision. This shows a wage increase amounting to 35.8 per
cent, not 69.4 per cent as stated. This would bring a consequent
reduction in the figure for the increase in the value of earnings from
44.5 per cent, the figure in the majority report, to 15.9 per cent,
which is the correct figure. For, as stated in the report of the Lane
Commission:
Reductions in hours are not to be regarded as increases in pay. This rule
is made necessary, first, by its justice, for it is not to be contemplated that
hours are reduced to decrease earnings; and, second, by the impracticability
of applying any other rule.
* We assume the good faith of all reduc-
tions in hours as being what they pretend to be.
The Railroad Labor Board has decided that eight hours shall con-
stitute the basic day for this class of labor, and it must, therefore,
in good faith, recognize that the basic earnings of these employees
under the decision will be only 35.8 per cent above the level of De-
cember, 1917, meaning an increase in purchasing power of only
15.9 per cent instead of 44.5 per cent, as stated in the majority report.
402
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In the second place, however, consideration of the entire compari-
son forces one to the conclusion that the period chosen presents an
unfair picture. During the period 1915 to 1917 the cost of living
had been rising far more rapidly than the wages of this class of
employees. In other words, the $1.93 per day representing the av-
erage wage in December, 1917, meant a lower purchasing power than
the average wage in 1915.
This fact is clearly shown in the tables compiled by the statis-
ticians of the Lane Commission. In Table 6, Part II, Appendix II
of the report of this commission, it appears that the expenditures
for necessities of 11 families of railroad employees having incomes
up to $600 exceeded their incomes by a total of $2,647.95. This deficit
is more than double that of the same families for the year 1915,
which totaled $1,028.84. Practically all of the employees in question
come within this class. The majority report therefore chose, as a
base period for comparison with the wages of the decision, a year in
which this class of labor was suffering an increasing deficit.
It is hardly necessary to point out that a fairer comparison would
have gone back to 1915. In that year, according to the Interstate
Commerce Commission, the average hourly earnings of section men
were 15 cents. For the 10-hour day this meant earnings of $1.50.
Comparing this with the earnings for the standard day under the
majority decision-namely, $2.62-we find that the level of money
wages will be 74.4 per cent above the 1915 level. According to
United States Department of Labor reports, the cost of living in
March, 1922, was approximately 60.5 per cent above the average for
1915. Combining these two figures we arrive at the correct per cent
by which the value of a section man's wages under the majority
decision will exceed the value of his wages in pre-war days. It
amounts to only 8.7 per cent instead of 44.5 per cent, as indicated in
the majority report.
There is, however, a third way in which the majority report fails
to show the real effect of this decision upon the value of the wages
of common labor in the maintenance of way department. The sta-
tistics presented deal only with section men. There are roughly
100,000 other unskilled workers who will also be affected by the
decision. In the Interstate Commerce Commission classification these
are classed as other unskilled laborers." In the Railroad Labor
Board's Wage Series Report No. 3 the number of "other unskilled
laborers" is set down as 108,977.
66
According to the Interstate Commerce Commission report for 1915
this group received an average hourly rate of 18.2 cents in that year.
Under the majority decision this same group will average approxi-
mately 35.9 cents per hour. Extended to a daily basis this will mean
$2.872 for the standard work day compared with $1.82 in 1915. In
other words, the money wages of this group of employees under the
decision will be only 57.8 per cent above those which they received
in 1915. This contrasts with an increase in the cost of living, already
noted, of 60.5 per cent, showing a decrease of 1.7 per cent in value
of their earnings.
Combining the two classes of unskilled employees in the main-
tenance of way department, we have approximately 380,000 men who
will receive money wages for the standard day under the decision
DECISIONS.
403
only 69.7 per cent above those which they received in 1915. In other
words, the increase in the real value of the wages of this group as
between the two periods will only amount to approximately 5.7
per cent.
The following short table will summarize the facts discussed above:
WAGES OF SECTION MEN.
Average per hour.
Average per day--
Percentage increase in wages..
Percentage increase in cost of living-
Percentage increase in value of wages---.
WAGES OF OTHER UNSKILLED LABORERS.
Average per hour.
Average per day---.
Percentage increase in wages_
Percentage increase in cost of living.
Under
present
decision.
1915.
$0.15
1.50
74. 4
60.5
8.7
$0.327
2. 616
1915.
Under
present
decision.
$0.182
$0.359
1.82
2.872
57.8
60.5
1.7.
Percentage decrease in value of wages__
THE TWO GROUPS COMBINED.
Percentage increase in real wages of both groups (weighted average)__
ADEQUACY OF PRE-WAR WAGES.
5.7
The increase in the value of the wages of this class of employees
is, therefore, so small as to be negligible. The vital question is as
to the adequacy of the pre-war wage and consequently of the wage
established by the present decision. The pre-war wages of this class
of workers were established in a labor market which to all intents
and purposes was subject to no regulation. The carriers bought
this labor as a commodity at the lowest possible figure. Just and
reasonable wages could not result from such a process, which is the
very antithesis of the function which the Labor Board is supposed to
perform under the transportation act. It seems strange that a re-
sponsible body created to establish just and reasonable wages, with
certain clearly defined principles laid down, should arrive at wage
rates so closely approximating the value of those arising in an
utterly unregulated labor market. The majority decision appears
in strong contrast with the words of a similar governmental tri-
bunal, appointed for a similar purpose. The Departmental Wage
Board of Review of the United States Navy Department, in its
report dated August 31, 1921, said:
The rates of pay that in a large measure determine the rates for all trades
and occupations are those granted to first-class laborers, which it will be noted
the board has recommended be fixed at $0.41 per hour, and the pay for skilled
mechanics, or the so-called basic trades, which the board recommends be fixed
at $0.73 per hour. As far as laborers are concerned, the pay of $0.41 per hour
approximates very closely $1,000 per year. The board does not believe that
it is decent for the Government to pay less money than this to American citi-
zens with families to support.
The laborer usually has a family to
support and with present prices of the necessities of life, with less than $0.41
per hour it is practically impossible for him to properly clothe, house, feed,
and educate his family. The board believes that it is contrary to the public
interest to give less wage than the above to first-class laborers.
* *
404
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In terms of the latest cost-of-living information, that for March,
1922, the amount set forth as a basic minimum would amount to
approximately 39 cents per hour, which is 16 cents per hour above
the minimum established for section men under the decision.
MINIMUM SET IN MAJORITY REPORT CORRESPONDS WITH MINIMUM WAGE
FOR WOMEN WITHOUT FAMILIES TO SUPPORT.
According to data contained in the majority report, the minimum
hourly rate of pay for section men on the railroads of the United
States will, under this decision, be 23 cents. This means earnings
for a full-time 48-hour week of $11.04. The following table shows
the latest data as to minimum wages for women in various States:
District of Columbia:
Printing
Hotels and restaurants.
Laundries_
Arkansas:
Stores in Fort Smith...
California:
All occupations___.
Kansas:
Laundries and factories__
Mercantile_
Telephones
Massachusetts:
Candy and food preparations.
Corsets_-_-
Brush making, provisional_
Men's clothing.
Women's clothing-
Men's furnishings
Knit goods
Office and building cleaners.
Paper boxes__
Minnesota:
Per week.
$15.60
16.50
15.00
13. 25
15.00
11.00
10.50
9.00
12.00
13.00
14. 40
14.75
14.00
13.75
13.75
15. 40
15.50
All occupations
10.25-14.00
North Dakota :
Waitresses and counter girls.
14.90
Chambermaids and kitchen help.
14.20
Mercantile___
14.50
Laundries
14.00
Telephone
12.00-14.00
Oregon:
All occupations_.
13.20
Texas:
All occupations
All occupations
Washington :
All occupations except public housekeeping-
Public housekeeping---.
Wisconsin :
From the above table it appears that legal minimum wages in the
United States fall primarily in the range from $11 to $15 per week.
It is a striking fact that the minimum wage for section men under
the majority decision is just $11.04 per week, with an average wage
for the 250,000 section men amounting to only $15.69 per week.
This last figure is well within the range of minimum wages for
women.
12.00
13.20
14.50
10.50-12.00
DECISIONS.
405
It can not be too strongly emphasized that a minimum wage for
women workers is based upon the presumption that the woman is
not responsible for the maintenance of a family, while in any virile
nation which desires to preserve its growth and strength a minimum
wage for men must rest upon the presumption that the normal em-
ployee either is or is to be responsible for the maintenance of a
family. According to Justice Henry Bourne Higgins of the Aus-
tralian Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, writing in the Har-
vard Law Review (Vol. XXIX., No. 1):
The court announced that it would ascertain first the necessary living wage
for the unskilled laborer, and then the secondary wage due to skill or other
exceptional qualifications necessary. Treating marriage as the usual fate of
adult men, a wage which does not allow of the matrimonial condition and the
maintenance of about five persons in a home, would not be treated as a living
wage.
One can not conceive of industrial peace unless the employee has secured to
him wages sufficient for the essentials of human existence.
This, the basic wage, must secure to the employee enough wherewith to renew
his strength to maintain his home from day to day.
The basic wage is the same for the employee with no family as for the em-
ployee with a large family.
Here, we are talking about this basic wage for the unskilled
worker on which the entire wage structure of the transportation.
industry must rest and we find it set at about the level of minimum
wages for women without families. Pointing out the difference be-
tween a minimum wage for men and a minimum wage for women,
Justice Higgins makes the distinction very clear, as follows:
The principle of the living wage has been applied to women, but with a dif-
ference, as women are not usually legally responsible for the maintenance of a
family. A woman's minimum is based on the average cost of her own living
to one who supports herself by her own exertions. (Italics ours.)
It is obviously unjust to expect railroad employees who should
be responsible for the maintenance of families to endure wages at
a level designed as the minimum for the support of single women.
Such a comparison shows the inherent absurdity of expecting a
male employee to "renew his strength and to maintain his home from
day to day" on the wages provided in the majority decision.
CONTRAST BETWEEN WAGES OF THE MAJORITY DECISION AND ANY MINI-
MUM STANDARD WHICH MAY BE CHOSEN.
The most important grounds for dissent from the majority decision
lie in the contrast between the wages therein provided and any mini-
mum standard of subsistence which has ever been suggested whether
by governmental or state departments, investigators for charitable
institutions, city bureaus, or by representatives of labor. The wages
provided in the decision will enable the average employee of this
class to secure little more than one-half of the necessities specified
in the majority of these budgets as absolutely essential. This de-
cision will provide the section men with only about two-thirds of
the goods provided by the lowest budgets of the National Industrial
406
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Conference Board.¹ As a matter of fact the minimum rates under
this decision will scarcely buy the food part of the minimum sub-
sistence budgets which will be cited, with nothing left for clothing,
rent, furniture, heat, light, and other essentials.
For purposes of comparison we have had 14 of these budgets
brought up to date. None of the budgets can be considered as rep-
resenting a living wage—that is, a wage conforming to American
standards of comfort. They are distinctly bare subsistence levels
below which it is unsafe to expect families to go.
As shown in the majority statement, the minimum earnings of sec-
tion men will be 23 cents per hour, amounting for a full 2,448-hour
year to $563.04. The average earnings for this occupation will be
32.7 cents per hour, amounting to $800.50 per year. As a matter of
fact, in 1915, according to reports to the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, section men only averaged 93.7 per cent of full-time earn-
ings. If during the ensuing year this average holds, the average
earnings of this basic occupation in the transportation industry will
amount to approximately $750.07.
The United States Department of Labor in the years 1900–1902
investigated the living costs of 25,440 actual families. Of these,
11,156 were selected because the expenditures for food, clothing, rent,
etc., could be segregated. The average in case of these families
amounted to $650.98. The average annual expenditure of these fami-
lies amounted to $617.80, or to considerably more than the minimum
to be allowed section men under this decision. Between 1900-1902
and March, 1922, the cost of living has increased by approximately
126 per cent; in other words, these families would to-day need
$1,401.17 to secure the same standard of living. This is nearly dou-
ble the average wage of section men under the majority decision.
The following table shows other minimum subsistence budgets, the
date at which prepared, the increase in living costs between that date
and March, 1922, and the approximate cost of these minimum budgets
to-day:
1" The National Industrial Conference Board is a cooperative body composed of rep
resentatives of National and State industrial associations, and is organized to provide
a clearing house of information, a forum for constructive discussion, and machinery for
cooperative action on matters that vitally affect the industrial development of the
Nation.
"Officers.-Frederick P. Fish, chairman; Loyall A. Osborne, vice chairman; Albert
G. Duncan, treasurer; Magnus W. Alexander, managing director.
Affiliated organizations.-American Cotton Manufacturers' Association, American Elec-
tric Railway Association, American Hardware Manufacturers' Association, American Mal-
leable Castings Association, American Paper and Pulp Association, Electrical Manufac-
turers' Club, Institute of Makers of Explosives, Manufacturing Chemists' Association of
the United States, National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, National Association of
Finishers of Cotton Fabrics, National Association of Manufacturers, National Associa-
tion of Sheet and Tin Plate Manufacturers, National Association of Wool Manufacturers,
National Automobile Chamber of Commerce (Inc.), National Boot and Shoe Manufacturers'
Association, National Electric Light Association, National Erectors' Association, National
Founders' Association, National Association of Farm Equipment Manufacturers, National
Industrial Council, National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, National Metal Trade
'Association, Rubber Association of America (Inc.), The American Pig Iron Association,
The Railway Car Manufacturers' Association, The Silk Association of America, Tobacco
Merchants' Association of the United States, Associated Industries of Massachusetts,
Associated Industries of New York State (Inc.), Illinois Manufacturers' Association,
Manufacturers' Association of Connecticut (Inc.)."
DECISIONS.
407
Cost of minimum subsistence budgets at current prices.

Budget of-
Louise B. Moore..
New York Conference of Charities and Corrections
(Doctor Chapin).
J. C. Kennedy (Chicago stockyards).
New York State Factory Conference:
New York.
Buffalo..
Fhiladelphia Bureau of Municipal Research..
New York Board of Estimates and Apportionment.
Prof. W. F. Ogburn...
National Industrial Conference Board:
Fall River..
Lawrence...
West Hoboken.
Cincinnati...
Worcester..
¹Decreases.
Date prepared.
Original
cost.
Per cent
increase
in cost of
living.
Cost of
budget
March, 1922.
1903-1905.....
$728.00
124.8
$1,634. 22
1907.
825.00
106.5
1, 703. 25
1909-10....
800.00
84.8
1,478.06
1914..
876. 43
62.0
1, 419.82
1914.
772. 43
62.0
1,251.34
1918.
1,636.79
13.3
1,582.77
1915.
844.94
62.0
1,368.80
July, 1918..
1,386.00
13.3
1,340.26
October, 1919..
1,267.76
1 10.7
1,144.79
..do..
•
1,385.79
110.7
1,251.37
January, 1920.
1,604.15
117.0
1, 331.44
May, 1920.
1,692.50
1 23.0
1,303. 23
June, 1920..
1,733. 38
1 23.0
1,334.70
We are forced to dissent from the establishment of rates of pay
which will allow a minimum of $563.04 and an average of $800.50
per year to nearly a quarter of a million men at a time when the
cost of most conservative subsistence budgets ranges from $1,144.79
up to $1,703.25.
The lowest-cost budgets shown in the above table are those of the
National Industrial Conference Board. A few remarks on these will
clarify the contrast drawn. These budgets, costing to-day from
$1,144.79 to $1,334.70, according to the locality, are the less liberal of
two minimum budgets prepared by this association of industries.
Their food budget eliminates all the choicer cuts of meat, the only
fresh meats allowed being flank and chuck beef. The clothing budget
is arrived at by establishing the cost of certain minimum require-
ments and then deducting 25 per cent from this cost "to allow for
the different means by which the cost of clothing may be reduced.”
The budget makes no provision for savings other than insurance.
The average earnings of the quarter of a million section men, as
provided in the decision, are to be less than 70 per cent of the lowest
National Industrial Conference Board Budget. The minimum earn-
ings of these section men under the decision will be less than 50 per
cent of this lowest subsistence budget.
WAGES HARDLY COVER FOOD COSTS IN MINIMUM BUDGETS.
In the majority of budgets cited above, the proportion of the
budget devoted to the purchase of foods is given. The following
table shows the food cost of these budgets, secured by applying the
increase in retail food costs since the budget was prepared to the cost
of the food provided at prices then prevailing. The amount remain-
ing over for other expenses in the case of the minimum rate provided
in the decision is also shown.
408
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Minimum earnings of section men contrasted with cost of various minimum
food budgets.

Food budget.
Cost of
minimum
Minimum
food
budget.1
earnings,
section
Amount
remaining
for other
men.
expenses.
U. S. Department of Labor (1900–1902).
$502.25
$563. 04
$60.79
Louise B. Moore (New York)..
589.41
563.04
* 26.37
Robert C. Chapin (New York).
629.88
563.04
2 66.84
J. C. Kennedy (Chicago)..
658.38
563, 04
2 95.34
Philadelphia Bureau of Municipal Research
535.59
563.04
27.45
New York Board of Estimates and Apportionment...
507.07
563.04
55.97
National Industrial Conference Board:
Fall River..
419. 10
563.04
143.94
439.84
563.04
123.20
502.52
563.04
60.52
468.33
563.01
94.71
474. 01
563.01
89.03
Lawrence.
West Hoboken
Cincinnati..
Worcester..
1 Based on percentage each budget allows for food.
2 Deficit.
In view of the fact that the landlord is persistent, that fuel is
an absolute necessity for cooking if for nothing else, that clothing
is generally considered socially desirable, and that other expenses
will crop up, it is apparent that the food problem of the mainte-
nance of way family will be acute.
WAGE RATES OF DECISION MEAN UNDERNOURISHED FAMILIES.
In order to make allowance for the other essentials of a family
budget we will follow the relative weights used by the United States
Department of Labor. The average rate established by the decision
for track laborers will mean possible monthly earnings of $66.71.
The following table shows the distribution of these earnings accord-
ing to the budgetary requirements:

Food..
Clothing.
Housing.
Fuel and light..
Furniture, etc..
Miscellaneous.
Item.
Weight.
Amount per
month.
38.2
$25.48
16.6
11.07
13.4
8.94
5.3
3.54
5. 1
3.40
21.4
14.48
In a family of five this will mean an average possible expenditure
per person for clothing of $2.21 per month.
It will be clear to anyone that there are few places where decent
housing can be had for $8.94 per month, while $3.54 will hardly more
than cover gas and electricity, with no allowance for winter fuel.
But the most significant fact is the insufficiency of the allowance
for food. A monthly expenditure of $25.48 means 84.9 cents per day.
Assuming that the family is normal, equivalent to 3.35 adult males,
this will mean the following allowance per day for the feeding of
each member of the family:
DECISIONS.
409
Member.
Amount
Equivalent.
for food.
Man.
Wile..
Twelve-year boy.
Six-year girl..
Two-year boy
Cents.
1.00
25.3
.90
22.7
.90
22.7
.40
10.1
.15
3.8
In other words, the youngest child is to have less than a cent and
a half per meal.
The inadequacy of 25.3 cents to keep up the health and energy
of the wage earner is apparent when we remark that the United
States Army, buying in wholesale quantities, to-day spends 40 cents
per day for the ration of each enlisted man. Presumably buying on
a wholesale basis, Cook County, Ill., is paying 45 cents per day for
the feeding of prisoners in the jails. Evidently the track laborer
under this decision will secure considerably less than a prison ration.
The clearest picture of the inadequacy of this wage appears, how-
ever, when the attempt is made to prepare menus for this worker
on the basis of the 25.3 cents which he has to spend. The following
menus have been prepared to cover three typical days. The person
who prepared these menus was instructed to use the cheapest possi-
ble foods with a view to securing the greatest possible nourishment
for the money. In the case of each item the cost at current prices
and the number of calories is given.
FIRST DAY.
BREAKFAST.
$0.019 2 slices toast, 1 square oleo….
.023 1 dish prunes (2 ounces)
.009 1 cup coffee (condensed milk, 1 teaspoon sugar)
.051
LUNCH.
039 1 ham sandwich___
.016
.030 1 bauana__
1 doughnut
.085
DINNER.
.051
Baked beans ( pound to 1 ounce bacon)
.010
1 slice bread, square oleo----
•
009 1 cup coffee__.
058
apple pie----
128
•
.264
Total for first day.
Calories.
240
300
85
625
250
160
127
537
295
120
85
350
850
2, 012
410
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
SECOND Day.
BREAKFAST.
2 slices toast, 1 square oleo..
$0.019
·
032
1 baked apple--
.009 1 cup coffee..
.060
.042 1 bologna sandwich.
.040 1 orange
.016 1 cookie_
.098
Calories.
240
125
85
450
LUNCH.
250
100
50
400
DINNER.
.047 Pot roast (pound)
.017
Potatoes (pound)
.019 2 slices bread with 1 square oleo___.
.009 1 cup coffee-----.
.092
. 250
Total for second day---
THIRD DAY.
BREAKFAST.
$0.065 1 bowl of oatmeal_
.009 1 cup coffee__
.074
042 1 egg sandwich………
03
1 apple.
.016 1 doughnut
088
488
435
240
85
1, 248
1,898
Calories.
309
85
394
LUNCH.
250
75
160
485
DINNER.
•
.060 Liver (pound)
.017 Potatoes (pound)-‒‒‒
.014 1 slice bread and 1 square oleo--
.009 1 cup coffee-
100
.262
Total for third day.
156
435
140
85
816
1, 695
With scarcely any possibility of variety this ration would only
average slightly over 1,900 calories per day. It is generally recog-
nized that 3,500 calories per day is necessary for a man engaged in
moderate work.
According to a report published in the leading British medical
journal, the London Lancet, for March 5, 1921:
It has been found by definite measurements that every individual expends
daily a certain amount of energy in carrying on the vital processes essential to
the continuance of life. In the case of a man at rest in bed this is equivalent
DECISIONS.
411
to about 1,700 calories per day. This is his basal metabolism. Benedict has
shown that in conditions of undernutrition it may be decreased some 30 per
cent, and it may therefore be possible for life to be maintained by a resting
man on some 1,200 calories per day. The performance of any muscular work,
even that of sitting in a chair for, say, 16 hours, increases the expenditure of
energy, roughly, to 2,200 calories, while for 8 hours in bed, 14 hours in a chair,
and 2 hours of moderate exercise an expenditure of 2,500 calories is required.
We are faced with the extraordinary fact that the track laborer
with a family on the wage carried in the decision can secure little
more than the number of calories required to maintain life without
exertion of any kind. He can not secure as many calories as are
required by a man who spends 14 hours of his day in a chair and
exercises moderately for only two hours unless he sacrifices some of
the other necessities of life.
The appalling fact is even more patent in the case of the minimum
rate which will be paid under the decision, 23 cents per hour or $46.92
per month. Distributing the wage to the different items of a family
budget, we get the following table:

Food..
Clothing.
Housing.
Fuel and light.
Miscellaneous..
Furniture and furnishings.
Total.
Item.
Relative
weight
to total.
Proportion
of monthly
earnings
based on
percentage
in second
column.
38.2
$17.92
16.6
7.79
13.4
6. 29
5.3
2.49
5.1
2.93
21.4
10.04
100.0
46.92
The mere division of this wage shown alone makes it appear inade-
quate on the face of it. The allowance for clothing, amounting to
$1.56 per member of the family per month, can obviously be cut no
further. Rental at $6.29 sounds like a Utopian dream unless we are
to assume that congestion and bad sanitation are tolerable.
The division of the food allowance, which amounts to 59.7 cents
per day among the various members of the family, allows the man
17.8 cents per day for three meals, less than half the prison ration in
Cook County, Ill. Expressed in terms of meals it would show some-
thing like the following:
FIRST DAY.
BREAKFAST.
$0.045 Bacon, 3 slices_.
005 1 slice bread
>>
•
009 1 cup coffee
059
Calories.
75
100
85
260
LUNCH.
278
160
438
042 1 meat sandwich (pound) ---
016 1 doughnut_____
.058
20936°-23-27
412
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DINNER.
045 Macaroni († pound) and cheese (1 ounce)
.005 1 slice bread
.009 1 cup coffee
525
100
85
.059
710
.176
Total for first day--.
1, 408
SECOND Day,
BREAKFAST.
$0.019 2 slices toast, 1 square oleo.
.009 1 cup coffee___
Calories.
240
85
028
•
325
LUNCH.
: 042 1 meat sandwich (pound)
278
•
016 1 cookie___
.058
50
328
DINNER.
.047 Pot roast (pound)
488
.017 Potatoes (pound)
435
.005 1 slice bread
100
.009 1 cup coffee
85
078
1, 108
. 164
Total for second day-
1, 761
THIRD DAY.
BREAKFAST.
Calories.
$0.023 1 dish prunes.
.020 1 roll
.009 1 cup coffee
052
•
300
100
85
485
LUNCH.
•
042 1 egg sandwich.
250
016 1 cookie___.
50
.058
300
.044 Baked beans (pound)
.005 1 slice bread_
.009 1 cup coffee
.016 1 doughnut..
.074
184
•
Total for third day.
DINNER.
295
100
85
160
640
1, 425
Without noting the calories these meals appear inadequate. They
supply scarcely enough food to maintain life without exertion.
It is clear, then, that on the basis of the rates of pay established
under the majority decision, some quarter of a million railroad em-,
DECISIONS.
413
ployees-an entire class-must forego the thought of a family in
order to be sure of enough food to keep themselves from actual starva-
tion. With the development of families undernourishment will im-
mediately appear.
PRE-WAR WAGE OF SECTION MEN WAS WHOLLY UNJUST.
The above-recited facts show the grounds for our dissent. Under
the decision the great body of employees in the maintenance of way
department will receive real wages at about the same level as pre-
vailed prior to the war. The pre-war wages were established in an
overstocked labor market, through railroads or contractors bargain-
ing against the weakness of individual workers in search of a job.
Such unregulated conditions can not serve as a basis for the orderly
establishment of just and reasonable wages by such a body as the
United States Railroad Labor Board without a complete denial of
its functions.
The pre-war wages of these employees in the maintenance of way
department were unjust, they were inadequate. During the period
1912-1915 it was generally recognized that a minimum of at least
$800 was necessary for the support of a family. The average annual
earnings of section men, in that period, were $429.93. (Interstate
Commerce Commission report for 1915.)
In No. 9 of the Infant Mortality Series published by the Children's
Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, page 30, appears
the following:
A striking relationship between the infant mortality rate and the fathers'
earnings is shown in Table XVIII; the highest rate, 179.5 is for infants whose
fathers are in the lowest earning groups, and the lowest rate, 22.2, is for those
whose fathers are in the highest group. The mortality rate, with a single ex-
ception, falls consistently as the fathers' earnings increase, but the rate does not
fall below 100 until the group $850 to $1,049 is reached; from this point the
fall in the rate is very marked. In other words, the babies in families where
the earnings of the father are low, die at a much higher rate than do those
whose fathers are able to provide sufficient care for them. Poverty with its
concomitants is an important factor in infant mortality.
This appears in the report covering an investigation in Saginaw,
Mich., in 1913. The same fact is pointed out in reports covering in-
vestigations in Akron, Ohio, Brockon, Mass., Johnstown, Pa., New
Bedford, Mass., Waterbury, Conn., and Manchester, N. H.
The following table shows clearly the level of earnings below which
infant deaths multiply. And it should be noted that the earnings
of section men in 1915 fell into the lowest income class shown.
Infant mortality rates, 1913–14, for five cities specified, according to earnings
of father, from studies by United States Children's Bureau.

Under $450.
$450 to $549.
$550 to $649.
$650 to $849.
$850 to $1,049.
$1,050 to $1,249..
$1,250 and over
Earnings of father.
Akron,
Ohio.
New Water- Man-
Bedford, bury, chester,
Mass. Conn. N. H.
Sagi-
naw
Mich.
117. 1
118.0
1 203.0
1 129.0
1 154. 0
1 244.0
179.5
1 147.0
1 174. 0
112.2
89.7
103.0
115.8
98.4
1 143.0
174.5
103.4
1 118. 0
162.6
105.7
82.0
134.7
1 85.3
125.0
44.6
58.4
1 58.0
189.0
1 70.0
33.0
40.0
1 60.0
1 68.0
1 58.0
22.2
'Approximated from a chart, the basic figures for which were not given. See p. 39 of Infant Mortality,
Series No. 11 of Children's Bureau, U. S. Department of Labor.
414
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION MUST BE BASED ON HUMAN NEEDS.
We must therefore dissent from the decision which tends to per-
petuate as the basic minimum of the railroad industry a wage level
established in a wage market dominated by the impersonal law of
supply and demand with the employer in this strategic position. Jus-
tice Higgins, of the Australian Court of Conciliation and Arbitra-
tion, shows clearly the difference which should exist between mini-
mum rates established by such a board and those arising in the open
market in the following quotation:
The imposition of a minimum wage below which an employer must not go in
employing a worker of a given character implies, of course, an admission of the
truth of the doctrine of modern economists-of all schools, I think-that free-
dom of contract is a misnomer as applied to the contract between an employer
and an ordinary individual employee. The strategic position of the employer in
the contest as to wages is much stronger than that of the individual employee.
The power of the employer to withhold bread is a much more effective weapon
than the power of the employee to refuse labor. Low wages are bad in the
workers' eyes, but unemployment with starvation in the background is worse.
(Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXIX, No. 1.)
Justice Higgins emphasizes the importance of setting a proper
basic wage as follows:
The "basic or living wage, the minimum for the unskilled worker, is the
primary factor in the fixing of all wages by award, and the fixing of the proper
basic wage is necessarily of an importance that can hardly be exaggerated.
(Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXII, No 3.)
In commenting upon one of his cases he says:
Not only in the vastness of the sums involved, but in the effects on families
and the proper nurture of children, and in indirect consequences in all employ-
ment, the responsibility of the court is very grave. The decisions of the court
probably affect directly more human lives than the decisions of all the other
courts. (Ibid.)
We believe that in this decision the Labor Board is affecting hun-
dreds of thousands of families; it is touching the proper nurture of
hosts of children. It must adopt the attitude expressed by Justice
Higgins, setting the basic minimum of a great industry in terms of
human needs.
The human needs of these hundreds of thousands of families were
vividly brought before the board by representative families. They
showed humanly what statistics can show at best only coldly-the
inadequacy of the basic wage rates prevailing prior to this decision.
EXPRESSIONS FROM EMINENT SOURCES.
In addition to the foregoing we desire to make brief reference to
views enunciated by men of prominence, which to our minds indi-
cates the trend of the leading thought and opinion regarding this
most important subject.
The following brief quotation is from a speech by President Hard-
ing in New York City, May 23, 1921 (as reported in the Baltimore
Sun of May 24, 1921). It constitutes one of the very best state-
ments ever made as to the significance and content of the living-
wage idea. President Harding says:
In our effort at establishing industrial justice we must see that the wage
earner is placed in an economically sound position. His lowest wage must be
DECISIONS.
415
enough for comfort, enough to make his house a home, enough to insure that
the struggle for existence shall not crowd out the things truly worth living
for. There must be provision for education, for recreation, and a margin for
saving. There must be such freedom of action as will insure full play to the
individual's abilities.
This is a highly pregnant paragraph. President Harding states
his conviction that the lowest wage paid to a wage earner must be
sufficient not only to provide the material necessities of life, such
as food, clothing, and shelter, but he must also get a sufficient wage
to obtain a degree of comfort, to make "his house a home" and to
insure him "the things truly worth living for."
The specific "things" mentioned are:
1. Provision for education.
2. Provision for recreation.
3. A margin for savings.
4. Freedom of action to insure full play to the individual's
abilities.
The following is a statement of principles governing the awards
of the United States National War Labor Board, agreed upon in
conference between capital and labor, and proclaimed by the Presi-
dent of the United States in 1918:
THE LIVING WAGE.
1. The right of all workers, including common laborers, to a living wage is
hereby declarded.
2. In fixing wages minimum rates of pay shall be established which will
insure the subsistence of the worker and his family in health and reasonable
comfort. (Proclamation, p. 9.)
In the very recent past the Secretary of Labor, Hon. James J.
Davis, contributed a series of articles on the question of "Saving
wage, "the articles of Mr. Davis appearing in the Chicago Tribune.
The following appears in the first of the series of articles contributed
by Mr. Davis:
War first gave us the living wage as a thing to think about. Since then
it has stayed with us as a phrase, a label for the amount of money that it was
supposed to represent. We still hear much about it with a good deal of con-
fusion as to what is meant by a living wage. The trend of events since the
war has put the employer in the position of clinging to the original meaning
of the term, as a wage adjusted to the actual cost of living.
But to the wage-earner himself the living wage has come to mean some-
thing more definite. If it means anything to him, the living wage means a
wage on which he can really live-that is, a pay envelope that will permit
him to do a little more than merely meet the day-to-day cost of his necessities
and enjoy something of life in addition. *
In his thoughts the merely living wage in its original meaning is something
obsolete. He will never willingly go back to it. To this fact we may as well
reconcile ourselves, and adjust our economic life to it. * * *
A very few reactionary minds among us may still cling to the literal in-
terpretation of a living wage as one to meet the cost of living only; but these
I feel sure will be pushed aside by the greater number of more liberal-minded
Americans who in the future will be sure to put a broader conception on the
term, "A living wage."
The following appears in Article II:
He is no longer a mere worker at a bench-an automaton. His intelligence
has been expanded by new and rapid experiences. His tastes have been height-
ened along with the increase in his intelligence. He, too, has risen to the en-
joyment of books, pictures, music, and the theater-a chance at the higher edu-
cation-to cite but a few of his demands.
416
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In other words the newly enlightened workingman has risen to a new place
as a human being and as a member of our rich community. Conscious of having
taken that place, he is now entitled to insist upon enjoying all the advantages
of it.
The following is an extract from report of the Second Industrial
Conference called by President Wilson, 1920:
Considered from the standpoint of public interest, it is fundamental that the
basic wages of all employees should be adequate to maintain the employee and
his family in reasonable comfort, and with adequate opportunity for the educa-
tion of his children. When the wages of any group fall below this standard for
any length of time the situation becomes dangerous to the well-being of the
State. No country that seeks to protect its citizens from the unnecessary rav-
ages of disease, degeneration, and dangerous discontent can consistently let the
unhampered play of opposing forces result in the suppression of wages below a
decent subsistence level. Above that point there may well be a fair field for the
plan of competition in determining the compensation for special ability, for spe-
cial strength or special risk (where risk is unavoidable), but below that point
the matter becomes one of which the State, for the sake of its own preservation,
must take account.
The following is an extract from the record of hearings before the
Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Washington, Monday
morning, April 17, 1922, page 4391:
The CHAIRMAN (Senator CUMMINS). I suppose those who framed the law
never dreamed that when the Government undertook to fix wages that the
wages of any man who was required to work would be less than would be nec-
essary to support him and his family in reasonable comfort.
Mr. LAUCK. No, sir; that is our contention. Of course, we can not conceive
anything else. And it is an actual fact now, Mr. Chairman, beyond any possi-
bility of contradiction, that the lowest-paid men can not live on the wages that
the railroads are paying. It is heartrending to hear the testimony of these em-
ployees. And then, when you get into the highest-paid employees, about which
the railroads have made these gross statements, you find they are receiving a
minimum wage and nothing for skill and experience. And another considera-
tion that is important there, Mr. Chairman, is this: That if the Labor Board
does not take the view that the just and reasonable wage shall be adequate for
the lowest-paid worker to maintain himself and his family in comfort-of
course, it is inconceivable that they should not take that view, but they have
not passed on it-if they do not take that view, then they are only a register of
the supply and demand of labor; that is, they are a barometer of the supply
and demand and violate the whole fundamental principle of the transporta-
tion act. I was going to bring that out later.
Senator LA FOLLETTE. In applying the rule of "just and reasonable” in
wages, as laid down in the transportation act, Congress adopted the same
phraseology as it did in the dealing with rates and commodities.
Mr. LAUCK. Yes, sir.
Senator LA FOLLETTE. And omits all regard of the human element.
Mr. LAUCK. Yes; there are absolutely no human standards set forth specifi-
cally; I think really the intent of Congress-
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think the words "just and reasonable" do
embrace that.
Mr. LAUCK. I think it would imply that, but the railroads interpret that to
mean comparative with other industries, and bring forth argument that the
railroads should not have more highly paid clerks or employees. Of course,
the answer to that is that this is a semipublic body of workers, and they must
consider standards that in the restrictions of other industries would not be
considered.
The CHAIRMAN. My view of it is that here are two men, and one man may
agree to work for the other at any wage that he would be willing to accept,
whether it is just and reasonable or not, but when organized society comes to
fixing the wage, it is no more right to fix a wage below the point of living and
comfortable living than it is to fix a return on capital below a reasonable point.
The following appears on page 925, hearings before the Committee
on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, February 3, 1922 (Mr.
DECISIONS.
417
James A. Emery, general counsel of the National Industrial Council,
Washington, D. C.) :
Mr. EMERY. Yes; and now we have the fact presented that there are petitions
for reductions in rates. We have the evidence that they can not be asked to
continue unless they can reduce their operating expenses. And the assertion
is made and I am speaking of assertions only now-the assertions are made
that the classifications and standards, as well as the wage rates of those engaged
on the railroads, is incomparable with that of other individuals outside of the
railroads and railroad shops.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator CUMMINS.) That, however, is all within the juris-
diction of the Labor Board, the classifications and everything that affects labor
employed by the railroad company; all those things are within the jurisdiction
of the Labor Board. Now, when you come to the proposition that the Labor
Board must accept as conclusive and act, at any rate, on the rate of pay which
may be general in private employment for a somewhat similar service, then
you also reach one of the most difficult points in the administration of the law,
or in the regulation of railroads. As I said a few moments ago, they must
consider that-the law says they must consider that. But suppose the rate of
pay in private employment was lower than would support human life or sup-
port a man reasonably and fairly, you do not think, do you, that the Labor
Board could say to the railroad men that they must work for less than a living
wage because some of their associate laborers in other fields were willing to
work for less than a living wage?
Mr. EMERY. Certainly not.
All of the best thought of the day is to the effect that wages of
working people should not fall below a level which will permit
them to live in a fair state of comfort, health, and decency. In a
word, the "living wage or saving wage" is almost universally
regarded as a social and economic necessity.
""
For the reasons set forth, the undersigned are unable to concur
in the decision fixing a further reduction in the basic minimum
rates of pay in the transportation industry.
A. O. WHARTON,
ALBERT PHILLIPS,
W. L. McMENIMEN.
DECISION NO. 1029.-DOCKET 1113.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Railroad Co.
Question.-This decision is upon a dispute between the organiza-
tion and the carrier named above as to the proper classification and
rate of pay of three employees at Broadway tower, Kansas City, Mo.
Statement. On December 24, 1919, the employees in question were
advised by the carrier that their position would be governed by Sup-
plement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, United States Railroad
Administration. Since that date they have been classified and paid
as operators and included in the agreement between the carrier and
employees in telegraph service.
The employees contend that this action of the carrier was arbi-
trary and unauthorized; that these employees perform work gen-
erally recognized as dispatchers' work; that they have been hereto-
fore classified and paid as dispatchers; and that no material change
has been made in their duties to justify their reclassification.
418
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier states that these employees were, on December 24,
1919, classified in accordance with the provisions of Supplement No.
13 to General Order No. 27 and its interpretations; that the positions
are incorporated in agreement between the carrier and employees in
telegraph service; and that Decision No. 2 was applied to the rates
established by or under the authority of the United States Railroad
Administration.
The carrier contends that these employees do not perform dis-
patchers' duties and that their present classification and rate of pay
is in accordance with existing orders and decisions governing em-
ployees in their class of service.
Decision. The Labor Board has given consideration to the oral
and written evidence submitted, and decides that the position of the
carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1030.-DOCKET 1198.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper seniority date of Joseph
Minogue and the displacement of certain clerical employees in con-
nection with the exercise of seniority rights on the part of said
employee.
Statement. On or about June 7, 1921, the position held by Joseph
Minogue was abolished and he was permitted to displace H. W.
Gorman.
Mr. Gorman was employed by the carrier as a clerk on December
10, 1918, and has been in continuous service in that capacity since
that date.
Mr. Minogue entered the carrier's service as yard clerk on Novem-
ber 27, 1917, and was transferred to the position of agent at coal
storage grounds, South Plainfield, N. J., September 25, 1918. He
held the position of night yardmaster at that point from April 25 to
May 1, 1920, on which date he was appointed chief clerk to the yard-
master. When the latter position was abolished, he was permitted
to displace Mr. Gorman, who was at that time assigned to the posi-
tion of yard clerk.
The employees state that neither the position of agent at coal stor-
age grounds nor the position of night yardmaster were included
within the scope of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees, and that Mr. Minogue forfeited his seniority in
clerical service when he accepted these positions.
The employees contend that his proper seniority date is May 1,
1920, the date he was assigned to the position of chief clerk to the
yardmaster, and that that is the date of his seniority as shown by
the clerks' seniority roster, which was posted at the time the displace-
ment occurred.
The employees further contend that since Mr. Minogue had less
seniority than Mr. Gorman the action of the carrier in permitting
the displacement above described was improper, and therefore re-
DECISIONS.
419
quest that Mr. Gorman be placed in the position to which his senior-
ity rights entitle him and paid for the wage loss sustained account
of said displacement, and that other employees affected likewise be
reimbursed.
The carrier states that although the rules pertaining to employees
in telegraph service were applied to the position of agent at coal
storage grounds, the duties of said position were largely of a clerical
nature, and the position would be more properly classed as yard
clerk instead of agent. However, it is also stated that under the
clerk's national agreement the position would have been considered
an excepted one and under the rules of said agreement employees
holding excepted positions would have retained their seniority rights.
The carrier contends that Mr. Monogue's seniority on the clerks'
roster should date from the date he entered the service as a clerk
at South Plainfield, namely, November 27, 1917; and further con-
tends that his seniority date as shown on the clerks' roster, namely,
May 1, 1920, is in error.
Opinion. The seniority roster, which was posted and which was
in effect at the time the displacement occurred, shows Mr. Minogue's
seniority date as May 1, 1920, and Mr. Gorman's seniority date as
December 10, 1918.
Rule 22 of the clerks' national agreement reads, in part, as follows:
A seniority roster of all employees in each seniority district, showing name
and proper dating will be posted in agreed-upon places accessible to all em-
ployees affected. The roster will be revised and posted in January of each
year, and will be open to protest for a period of 60 days from date of post-
ing
The seniority roster in question had been posted for a period of
over 60 days when the displacement occurred, and Mr. Monogue
made no protest in regard to his seniority date as shown on the said
roster during the period allowed for such protest under rule 22
above quoted.
Decision.-Position of the employees is sustained.
i
DECISION NO. 1031.-DOCKET 1208.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of W. J. Schroeder, Tren-
ton, N. J., pending an investigation and hearing in connection with
his dismissal from the service on August 23, 1921.
Statement.-Mr. Schroeder was employed at Trenton, and was
dismissed from the service on August 23, 1921.
The employees state that rule 29 of the agreement between the
carrier and the employees, dated February 15, 1920, provides that
employees who have been in the service more than 90 days, or whose
applications have been formally approved, shall not be dismissed
from the service without an investigation, at which they may be
represented by an employee of their own choice.
Rule 29 of the agreement reads as follows:
An employee who has been in service more than 90 days or whose applica-
tion has been formally approved shall not be disciplined or dismissed without
420
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
investigation, at which investigation he may be represented by an employee
of his choice. He may, however, be held out of service pending such investiga-
tion. The investigation shall be held within seven days of the date when
charged with the offense or held from service. A decision will be rendered
within seven days after the completion of investigation.
It is the contention of the employees that under the rule above
quoted it is not necessary for an employee to ask for an investiga-
tion; but that the carrier is obliged to grant an investigation with
representation of his own selection before dismissal. The employees
contend that this rule was not complied with in connection with Mr.
Schroeder's dismissal from the service, and request that he be rein-
stated and paid for all time lost except for the seven-day period re-
ferred to in rule 29.
The carrier admits that Mr. Schroeder was dismissed from the
service, but denies that he was dismissed without an investigation,
contending that on the contrary he was repeatedly warned and his
attention called to his many and repeated delinquencies.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board shows that W. J
Schroeder was dismissed from the service without an investigation
of the character contemplated by rule 29 being granted. The Labor
Board, therefore, decides that he shall be reinstated with seniority
rights unimpaired; that he shall be reimbursed for wage loss sus-
tained since the date of his dismissal, less the seven-day period re-
ferred to in rule 29, and any amount earned in other employment
since that date; and that he shall be given an investigation in ac-
cordance with rule 29 of the agreement herein quoted.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1032.-DOCKET 1222.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Western Maryland Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of V. G. J. McCarty to posi-
tion of claim investigator and rate clerk.
Statement.-On May 31, 1921, Mr. McCarty was assigned to posi-
tion of claim investigator and rate clerk, in accordance with Decision
No. 141 of the Labor Board. He occupied the position 30 days and
on June 29, 1921, he was informed that he had failed to qualify.
The employees state that while Mr. McCarty may not have per-
formed the duties of the position named as well as an employee with
years of experience and extensive familiarity with all of the duties
thereof, he was as well qualified as was reasonably necessary, and
contend that his removal from said position constitutes unjust treat-
ment and discrimination. It is, therefore, requested that he be rein-
stated to said position and paid for all time lost.
The carrier states that the employee in question was given a fair
opportunity to qualify within the 30-day period allowed by the rules
of the agreement governing working conditions of clerical and sta-
tion employees, and that his performance indicated that he was not
qualified to handle the work of the position. The carrier contends
that during the period of his incumbency the output of the depart-
DECISIONS.
421
ment was reduced and that to continue him on the position would
have resulted in an undue impairment of the service and uneconomical
operation.
Decision.-The Labor Board has given due consideration to all
of the oral and written evidence presented by both parties to this
dispute and decides that the request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1033.-DOCKET 1228.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. Dispute as to whether certain employees classified as
watchmen shall be included within the scope of the national agree-
ment of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
Statement. The employees in question are employed as watch-
men of property comprising the office buildings, storehouses, and
yards of the general stores department; the office buildings, shops,
and yards of the motive power department; and the office buildings,
shops and yards of the car department. They are under the super-
vision of the general storekeeper, and are divided into three classes,
as follows:
(1) General watchmen or roundsmen, having no specific assigned
territory, but having general supervision over other watchmen, such
as clock pullers, gatemen, etc., are invested with police powers, and
travel within the confines of the territory described.
(2) Gatemen stationed at the various entrances or exits to the
property, who are required to check credentials of those passing in
or out, open and close gates at certain points for the purpose of
permitting vehicles to pass in or out.
(3) Clock pullers who are assigned to certain buildings or yards
and are required to make hourly trips over their assigned territory,
punch clocks at specified points, keep a general lookout for fires and
other irregularities.
All of these employees are assigned to eight consecutive hours
with no allowance for meal period and work daily. Employees
referred to in items (2) and (3) are not invested with police powers.
Watchmen assigned to specific buildings fill material orders as re-
quired by the night force.
Prior to the promulgation of the clerks' national agreement these
employees were paid a monthly rate to cover all service performed.
Effective January 1, 1920, rates were adjusted to a daily basis under
the provisions of rule 66 of the national agreement. Effective May
1, 1920, they were increased in accordance with the provisions of
section 5, Article II, of Decision No. 2. Effective January 1, 1921,
a monthly basis of compensation was reestablished.
The employees contend that these employees are watchmen within
the meaning of that term as used in rule 1 of the clerks' national
agreement, and that they are subject to the rules of said agreement
and should be paid in accordance with rules 64 and 66 thereof.
422
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier contends that these employees are shop watchmen and
are not subject to the provisions of the clerks' national agreement;
that, in any event their service does not require continuous applica-
tion; and that they are, therefore, properly paid on a monthly basis
to cover all service performed.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the positions in question
do not come within the scope of the national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees.
Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1034.-DOCKET 1232.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper application of increases
granted by Decision No. 3 to position held by Z. Godwin, Fort Worth,
Tex.
Statement.-Mr. Godwin was employed by the carrier at Fort
Worth. The salary of the position he occcupied was originally $110
per month and was increased $32.64 per month under the provisions
of Decision No. 3. It is admitted that prior to the issuance of De-
cision No. 3 the salary of the position was increased from $110 to
$125 per month. In applying Decision No. 3 the carrier added the in-
crease prescribed in Article II thereof to the rate of $110 per month.
The employees claim that the increase should have been added to
the rate of $125 per month, but this contention is denied by the
carrier on the ground that the increase of $15 per month was made
subsequent to 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and was properly absorbed
in applying the increase prescribed in Article II of Decision No. 3.
The employees contend that the increase of $15 per month was
effective prior to 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and that therefore the
increase of $32.64 should have been applied to the rate of $125 per
month.
Article II of Decision No. 3 reads as follows:
For each of the hereinafter-named classes, add the following amounts per
hour to the rates of pay in effect 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920; provided, that
increases in rates of pay made since March 1, 1920, where such increases were
made for the purpose of adjusting inequalities, will be preserved and the
increases herein established added thereto.
Decision. The evidence shows that the employee in question was
paid at the rate of $125 per month effective February 20, 1920, and
that he was paid at this rate prior to 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
Therefore, the increase set forth in Article II of Decision No. 3
should be added to this rate.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISIONS.
423
DECISION NO. 1035.-DOCKET 1564.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of D. M. Dee, driver, La
Salle, Ill., April 8, 1921.
Decision. The Labor Board has given consideration to the oral
and written evidence submitted by both the employees and the car-
rier in this dispute, and decides that the charges against the em-
ployee in question are not well sustained.
The Labor Board, therefore, decides that he shall be reinstated
with seniority rights unimpaired and reimbursed for wage loss sus-
tained, less any amount earned in other employment since the date
of his dismissal.
DECISION NO. 1036.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., June 5, 1922.—Effective July 1, 1922.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Company et al. v. Railway Employees' De-
partment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), et al.
Subject of the dispute.-Between each of the carriers named below
and the class of employees represented by the organizations named
below disputes have arisen as to what shall constitute just and rea-
sonable wages.
Conferences were held between each carrier and the accredited
representatives of its said employees, and said disputes, not having
been decided in such conferences, were referred to the United States
Railroad Labor Board for decision.
All the carriers named below are petitioning for a reduction in
the wages of said employees, and on a considerable number of the
roads the employees are requesting an increase in wages.
Both parties made a full presentation to the Labor Board of their
respective contentions, by testimony and argument, oral and written.
Parties to the dispute.-The following carriers are parties to this
dispute:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Alton & Southern Railroad.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co.
Western Railway of Alabama.
Atlanta Joint Terminals.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
424
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Belt Railway of Chicago.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Boston & Maine Railroad and its subsidiaries.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of South Carolina.
Central Indiana Railway.
Central of Georgia Railway Co.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway.
Charleston Union Station Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.'
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Muncie Belt Railway.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad.
Florida East Coast Railway Co.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Georgia Railroad.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in U. S.).
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
DECISIONS.
425
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Indianapolis Union Railway Čo.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.
New York Central Railroad Co. (lines east and west).
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Fort Street Union Depot Co.
426
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.
Northeast Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
Tamaqua, Hazleton & Northern Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
St. Paul Bridge & Terminal Co.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Savannah Union Station Co.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Sioux City Terminal Railway.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas & Louisiana.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermilion Railroad Co.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad.
Southern Railway Co.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans Terminal Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
DECISIONS.
427
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and its subsidiaries.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Virginian Railway Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
The organizations which are parties hereto, representing the em-
ployees involved herein, and each of which has a dispute with one
or more of the above-named carriers, are as follows:
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop
Crafts).
American Federation of Railroad Workers.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics.
History of the controversy.-The Railroad Labor Board by Deci-
sion No. 2, effective May 1, 1920, increased the wages of this class of
employees, along with others, on all the railroads then before the
board. That decision was rendered at a time when living costs and
wages were at their summit. Shortly afterwards living costs and
wages in general began to decline.
The Labor Board by Decision No. 147, effective July 1, 1921, re-
duced the wages of this class of employees on all the carriers before
the board.
These two decisions, Nos. 2 and 147, were handed down by the
board after a full hearing of all parties. The board endeavored in
said cases, as it does in the present one, to observe the provisions of the
transportation act, 1920, prescribed for its guidance, which reads as
follows:
SEC. 307 (d) *
* In determining the justness and reasonableness of
such wages and salaries or working conditions the board shall, so far as ap-
plicable, taken into consideration among other relevant circumstances:
(1) The scales of wages paid for similar kinds of work in other industries;
(2) The relation between wages and the cost of living;
(3) The hazards of the employment;
(4) The training and skill required;
(5) The degree of responsibility;
(6) The character and regularity of the employment; and
20936°-23——28
428
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(7) Inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the result of previous
wage orders or adjustments.
The wages of the respective crafts herein referred to were practi-
cally uniform throughout the country by orders of the United States
Railroad Administration, which rates were in effect immediately
prior to the issuance of Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, which
was effective May 1, 1920. Under that decision new rates were estab-
lished by adding the increase of a certain number of cents per hour.
The reductions made by Decision No. 147 were similarly arrived
at by applying to the various rates established by Decision No. 2 a
uniform decrease of a certain number of cents per hour.
Basis and analysis of decision. In this case, the Labor Board
adopts as its base the rates fixed in Article IV of Decision No. 147,
and finds it just and reasonable under the law and the evidence to
make the following schedule of decreases per hour:
SEC. 1. Supervisory forces whether paid by the month or by
the hour
SEC. 2 (a) Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal
workers, electrical workers, carmen (except freight carmen),
molders, cupola tenders and coremakers, including those with
less than four years' experience, all crafts..
(b) Freight carmen-.
SEC. 3. Regular and helper apprentices and helpers, all classes__
SEC. 4. Car cleaners_.
No decrease.
7 cents.
9 cents.
7 cents.
5 cents.
The Labor Board is of the opinion that after the reductions
made under this decision, shop employees on the railroads will still
be receiving, as a rule, a wage in excess of that paid to similar em-
ployees in other industries.
""
The foregoing table of decreases has the effect of maintaining
the uniform rates for the respective classes which were continued
by Decisions Nos. 2 and 147. It will be noted that the differential
between "freight carmen and the other classes have been in-
creased 2 cents per hour by providing a decrease of 9 cents per
hour for this class as compared with 7 cents per hour for the other
crafts named. The board recognizes that there are certain branches
of carmen's work which require the service of skilled mechanics,
and for the classes so considered this decision provides a decrease of
7 cents per hour. It is, however, believed that the work of "freight
carmen is not of a character which requires the service of men as
skilled as in other branches of work coming within the scope of
carmen's work; therefore the differential between the minimum rates
of "freight carmen " and of the other shop crafts under this decision
will be increased to 7 cents per hour, which it is felt is just and rea-
sonable considering the character of service performed and the rates
of pay and working conditions applicable to this class of employees
prior to the issuance of any wage order by the United States Rail-
road Administration.
"
""
It will be further noted that no decrease is provided herein for
supervisory forces." The board, after due consideration, feels that
the duties and responsibilities of these positions are of such a char-
acter as to warrant the maintenance of the present rates.
Based upon the evidence before the Labor Board, the statistical
department of the board has made a study of the comparative pur-
chasing power of the wage herein fixed for certain of the shop
DECISIONS.
429
crafts and the purchasing power of the wage paid such employees
on the railroads in December, 1917, immediately prior to Govern-
ment control of the carriers; in January, 1920, just prior to the
termination of Federal control; on May 1, 1920, the effective date
of Decision No. 2; on July 1, 1921, the effective date of Decision No.
147; and in March, 1922.
The results of these studies are as follows:
AVERAGE HOURLY RATES.

Machin-
Car men.
ists
Cents.
Cents.
December, 1917...
50.5
37.7
January, 1920.
72.3
68.0
May, 1920.
85.3
81.0
July, 1921..
77.3
73.0
Under present decision.
70.3
64. 4
PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN AVERAGE HOURLY RATES OVER DECEMBER, 1917

January, 1920...
43. 2
80.4
May, 1920..
68.9
114.6
July, 1921.
53.0
93.6
Under present decision.
39.2
70.8
PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING OVER DECEMBER, 1917.

January, 1920..
40.0
May, 1920.
52.0
July, 1921..
26.7
March, 1922 (latest available Government data)..
17.2
PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN PURCHASING POWER OF EARNINGS OF SUBSEQUENT
DATES AS COMPARED WITH DECEMBER, 1917.

January, 1920
May, 1920..
July, 1921...
Under present decision.
2.3
28.9
11. 1
41.2
20.8
52.8
18.8
45.7
Although average hourly earnings of machinists are below the
earnings after Decision No. 2 was applied by 15 cents per hour,
their value is 6.9 per cent greater due to the decrease in the cost of
living.
The average hourly earnings of carmen are below the earnings
after Decision No. 2 was applied by 16.6 cents per hour, but their
value is 3.2 per cent greater for the same reason.
The cost-of-living figures set out in the foregoing tables have
been compiled from the reports of the United States Department
of Labor and are for the latest date for which such data are avail-
able.
Decision.-The Railroad Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the rates of wages heretofore established by the au-
thority of the United States Railroad Labor Board shall be de-
creased as hereinbefore set out for the classes of employees there
named, and that such decreases shall be effective as of July 1, 1922.
(2) That the scope of this decision is limited to the carriers.
named under Article I herein, to such carriers as may be included
430
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
hereafter by addenda, and to the specific classes of employees named
or referred to under each particular carrier.
(3) That the reduction in wages hereby authorized shall be made
in accordance with the following articles, which prescribe the regu-
lations and designate the employees affected.
ARTICLE I.—CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates and wages heretofore established by the authority of the
United States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific groups of its
employees named or referred to in this article, in amounts herein-
before specified for such groups in the schedule of decreases.
The section numbers used in connection with a carrier refer to the
corresponding section numbers in the schedule of decreases, and in
determining the groups of employees affected on each carrier the
following rules shall govern:
(a) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
without naming the classes, all classes of employees named in the
corresponding section numbers of the schedule of decreases are af-
fected.
(b) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
and specific classes of employees are named, only the same classes of
employees named in the corresponding section numbers of the sched-
ule of decreases are affected.
(c) Where section numbers are omitted in connection with a car-
rier, the classes of employees named in the corresponding section
numbers of the schedule of decreases are not affected.
Some of the carriers presented disputes applicable only to cer-
tain sections of the four groups or sections comprising the class of
employees herein covered; whereas, others included all of the four
groups specified herein.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Alton & Southern Railroad.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co.
Western Railway of Alabama.
Secs. 2 and 3.
DECISIONS.
431
Atlanta Joint Terminals.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Belt Railway of Chicago.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Boston & Maine Railroad
and its subsidiaries.
1
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
carmen, and molders
Secs. 3 and 4.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of South Carolina.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Central Indiana Railway.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3.
Central of Georgia Railway Co.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Sec. 4.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Charleston Union Station Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
432
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Muncie Belt Railway.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
DECISIONS.
433
:
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Sec. 4.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Sec. 2, 3, and 4.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Florida East Coast Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Georgia Railroad.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Grand Trunk Railway System (lines in United States).
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Great Northern Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
and carmen.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
'434
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Sec. 3.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.
Sec. 2.
Sec. 3. Helpers.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
DECISIONS.
435
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Carmen (car inspectors, freight and passenger; and passenger
car running repairmen, outside general repair shops only).
Sec. 4.
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines East and West).
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, elec-
trical workers and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, elec-
trical workers, carmen, and molders.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Sec. 4.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, elec-
trical workers, carmen, and molders.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, elec-
trical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, elec-
trical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, elec-
trical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Fort Street Union Depot Co.
Sec. 2.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Sec. 4.
436
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.
Northeast Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
Tamaqua, Hazleton & Northern Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Rutland Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, carmen, and molders.
Secs. 3 and 4.
St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists and boiler makers.
Sec. 3. Helper apprentices and helpers.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
St. Paul Bridge & Terminal Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists and boiler makers.
Sec. 3.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
and carmen.
Sec. 3.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3.
Savannah Union Station Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Sioux City Terminal Railway.
Sec. 2. Machinists and boiler makers.
Sec. 3. Helper apprentices and helpers.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermillion Railroad Co.
DECISIONS.
437
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana-Continued.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Southern Railway Co.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans Terminal Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and its subsidiaries.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Sec. 2.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Sec. 4.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3. Regular apprentices and helpers.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sec. 3. Helpers.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Virginian Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
438
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Wabash Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Sec. 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
ARTICLE II.-GENERAL APPLICATION.
The general regulations governing the application of this de-
cision are as follows:
SECTION 1. Decreases specified in this decision are to be deducted
on the following bases:
(a) For employees paid by the hour, deduct the hourly decreases
from the hourly rates.
(b) For employees paid by the day, deduct eight times the hourly
decrease from the daily rate.
(c) For employees paid by the month, deduct 204 times the hourly
decrease from the monthly rate.
SEC. 2. The decreases in wages and the rates hereby established
shall be incorporated in and become a part of existing agreements
or schedules, or future negotiated agreements or schedules, and shall
remain in effect until or unless changed in the manner provided by
the transportation act, 1920.
ARTICLE III.—INTERPRETATION OF THIS DECISION.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employ-
ees of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision
which can not be decided in conference between the parties directly
interested, such dispute shall be referred to the United States
Railroad Labor Board in the manner provided by the transportation
act, 1920.
SECTION 1. All such disputes shall be presented in a concrete and
joint signed statement, setting forth:
(a) The specific question involved.
The facts in the case.
(c) The position of the employees.
(d) The position of the management thereon.
Where supporting documentary evidence is used it shall be at-
tached to the application for decision in the form of exhibits.
SEC. 2. Such presentations shall be transmitted to the secretary
of the United States Railroad Labor Board, who shall place same
before the Labor Board for final disposition.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissent from the majority decision for the fol-
lowing specific reasons:
DECISIONS.
439
(1) The wage structure for the transportation industry which is
being built up in this series of decisions rests upon no consideration
of the human needs of the employees affected. These human needs.
were set forth by data and witnesses at the recent hearings with com-
pelling force. The majority have not considered the evidence on
this point, nor have they met the issue raised. Their failure to give
this, the most vital element, consideration and to inform the public
impartially on the subject, vitiates the whole decision.
(2) The evidence submitted in the recent hearings tended to show
that an income based on the 77-cent per hour rate does not enable
representative shop-craft families with the most economical manage-
ment to procure enough food for their families or to maintain their
own efficiency. This evidence included a tentative standard of liv-
ing expressed in terms of goods and services to which mechanics
naturally feel themselves entitled. At the current prices an increase
in pay would be necessary to enable these employees to secure such a
standard. Without any attempt to show that the employees affected
by this decision are not entitled to such a standard, and further with-
out any attempt to show how families can make good the food deficits,
the majority decision further reduces the ability of these employees
to meet the needs of their families. The undersigned dissenting
members feel that the Labor Board must initiate a study which shall
determine the amount necessary to meet some recognized standard,
that it must use the results as a basis for its decisions, and that it
must through this decision transmit this information to the public.
(3) The rates of pay contained in the award, being insufficient to
provide for a family of five, tend to substantiate the position taken
by management to the effect that wages need not be established with
reference to the needs of a family of this size. The most careful
and comprehensive investigation on this subject shows that wages
which do not provide for a family of that size mean that 72 per cent
of all children in families receiving this wage will be inadequately
provided for during at least five critical years of their lives. Per-
manent traces of this malnutrition will be left on the physique of
the next generation.
(4) The failure of the majority to consider the real merits of the
case has created a wage structure which has no relation to any exist-
ing standards. Based on evidence in possession of the Labor Board,
the minimum for the industry should have been nothing less than 50
cents per hour. Without for the moment questioning the justice of
the differentials resulting from the majority decision, this would
place the mechanics' rate at least as high as 87 cents per hour.
(5) The ordering of a larger decrease in the case of freight car-
men is unjust and wholly inconsistent with former decisions of the
Labor Board. In ordering such a change, the majority disregard
the fact that any difference in skill which may exist has been already
provided for in the 5-cent differential which dates from the days of
the United States Railroad Administration. They also disregard
the fact that under the classification rules of the board freight car-
men are mechanics and as such are entitled to the minimum rate for
mechanics.
(6) The rates of pay established in this decision will mean to the
employees affected lower purchasing power and lower standards as
compared with pre-war years. From December, 1917, to the present
440
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
decision, inclusive, the maintenance of equipment forces have suf-
fered a constant deficit, their wages at all times failing to keep pace
with living costs. The figures cited by the majority to the contrary
effect are a misrepresentation of the true facts as to the relative earn-
ings involved.
(7) The savings to the railroads, as a result of the decisions of
the Labor Board and of the lay-off of men, far exceed anything justi-
fied by the savings to the public in reduced rates. The employees
covered by this decision alone have had their pay roll cut to the ex-
tent of $371,817,996 per year, as hereinafter set out, based on number
of employees in service as of December, 1917, while the total pay-
roll cuts due to decisions alone total more than half a billion dollars.
During the last six months of 1921 the total pay roll slash, including
the lay-offs, was running at the annual rate of $1,300,000,000. This
diminished purchasing power of the employees as a group appears in
strong contrast with the increasing prosperity of the railroads noted
by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its recent opinion and by
the financial press.
(8) The increasing antithesis between profits and just wages will
result in lower morale among the railroad employees; thus the pres-
ent wage reductions will not result in economies and will prove con-
trary to the real needs of efficient and economical management.
(9) The majority have failed to carry out the function for which
the Labor Board was created. Such decisions containing no ex-
planation of the process by which the majority arrive at the rates
established, give the public an impression that these rates are not
founded upon a careful consideration of the facts. A strong con-
trast is presented with the decisions of other wage boards, not only
in this country, but in other parts of the world, as well as with the
decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which show the
public at considerable length how the evidence was weighed and the
conclusions reached.
In the light of the transportation act it is the clear duty of the
Board: First, to act as a constructive, impartial body in providing
means whereby railroad employees can have their legitimate human
needs satisfied without recourse to stoppages; and, secondly, to en-
lighten the public so that through the disordered state of unregu-
lated industry and the confusion of propaganda, they shall be able
to see the real facts as they affect the body politic. The decision in
question fulfills neither of these duties.
These reasons for our dissent are dealt with briefly in the order
enumerated.
THIS DECISION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS RELATED TO THE PRECEDING
DECISION.
This decision is one of a series covering the various groups of
railroad employees, but the problem will be misunderstood if these
decisions are considered separately. Together they really con-
stitute a single decision which determines for the time being the
wage structure of the industry. The problem involved in this series
of decisions has been clearly stated by Justice Higgins, already
quoted, as follows:
DECISIONS.
441
The court adheres to its practice of dividing the minimum wage awarded into
two parts: The "basic wage "-the minimum to be awarded to unskilled
laborers on the basis of "the normal needs of an average employee regarded as
a human being living in a civilized community"; and the other, the "secondary
wage "the extra payment to be made for trained skill or other exceptional
qualities necessary for an employee exercising the functions required. (Har-
vard Law Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 3, p. 191.)
Obviously, the justice of the entire wage structure in an indus-
try rests upon the justice of the "basic wage." The justness of this
basic wage depends upon the extent to which the board treats "the
proper sustenance of the persons employed on the basis of a family
life * * *
as a first charge on the product," to use the phrases of
Justice Higgins.
This decision, in effect, establishes a group of secondary wages
or differentials. Such a decision can be just and reasonable only
to the extent that it is based on a primary wage determined through
exhaustive study of the human needs of the common laborer's family,
coupled with a systematic determination of the differentials of skill
and responsibility represented in the occupations covered, and of the
differentials of payment necessary to secure and encourage the
requisite ability. If the Labor Board had determined the section
man's wage rate on a just and reasonable basis, we should not here
be concerned with the minimum amount necessary to sustain a
family, any more than Congress was so concerned when it fixed the
salaries of members of the Labor Board.
According to Justice Higgins, the court is to-day working on the
basis of a minimum wage determined by a rough estimate of what
was necessary to support a family in Melbourne in 1907, which is
varied according to changes in the cost of living. It is interesting
to note that this basic wage raised the minimum to a level over 27
per cent above the then existing average for unskilled labor. But
according to Justice Higgins, "There is no doubt that the rough
estimate made by the court in 1907 ought to be superseded or revised
by a new investigation made after so many years have elapsed as
to the absolute present cost of living.'
""
Now such an investigation of the absolute cost of living as the
basis for the minimum wage in the transportation industry is clearly
within the function of the United States Railroad Labor Board. It
is, in fact, its duty. The first principle laid down in the transporta-
tation act to govern decisions of the Board is:
The relation between wages and the cost of living.
This, clearly, is the principle which must be given primary con-
sideration in the determination of the basic minimum of the whole
wage structure. It is also a point on which he public has a right
to ask information.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD ON ABSOLUTE COST OF LIVING NOT
CONSIDERED.
The center of the case presented by the employees dealt with the
question of the actual cost of the necessities of family life. This
evidence consisted of far more than the pricing of "theoretical "
family budgets. It included the actual monthly expenditure ac-
counts of the families of railroad employees. It included witnesses,
442
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
railroad employees and their families who showed the board from
personal experience the impossibility of providing for a family on
the wages prevailing before this decision.
The undersigned must dissent from a decision which has ignored
these witnesses, the human needs of these tens of thousands of
families, which has given them not one word of answer. To them
the statement that they are hypothetically 40 per cent or 30 per
cent or 20 per cent better off than they were in December, 1917, or in
any other period, must sound like a rather bitter jest.
The representative of the shop crafts asked the board to con-
sider the wage question from the point of view of the needs of the
families expressed in quantities of food, clothing, fuel, etc. And it
appears to the undersigned dissenting members of the board that
the basic cause of disagreement lies in the failure to consider this
point or view.
In a decision a reduction of 7 cents an hour is impersonal, it
has little to suggest the human side. Consideration of the quanti-
ties of food, clothing, etc., which such a reduction will subtract
from a family budget will force board members and the public to
test the sincerity of their conclusions. And such a test is essential
where the pressure of conflicting interests is prone to force a man
to take the easiest road out. In dealing with minimum wages the
easiest road out may work irreparable harm to hundreds of thou-
sands of persons, many of them children.
The evidence presented by the shop crafts purported to show that
the existing wage rates were so inadequate as to force the families
dependent upon them to cut down the quantity of food purchased
below the level which scientists have determined as necessary to
health and full energy. Taking the food budget prepared by Pro-
fessor Jaffa, of the University of California, for a family of five as
a basis, the data presented showed that where 210 pounds per month
of meat, fish, milk, eggs, and beans are required, families with an
average income of $1,900 per year were able to purchase only 134
pounds; that where 104 pounds of flour, cereals, and rice are required,
they could purchase only 80 pounds; and where 160 pounds of pota-
toes, vegetables, and fruits were required, they were able to purchase
only 146 pounds. To summarize the matter, the evidence showed that
just and reasonable wages must increase existing rates so as to make
good the following monthly food deficits:
Meat, fish, milk, and eggs_
Flour, cereal, rice, etc__
Potatoes, vegetables, and fruits_
Butter, oils, and fats----
Pounds.
75
24
14
6
These deficits are below what Professor Jaffa calls "the danger
line below which it is precarious to go.
""
The Labor Board was created to insure the efficient and uninter-
rupted use of the transportation system. The shop crafts have cited
medical authorities to the effect that steady efficient service is physio-
logically and psychologically impossible where the bodily needs and
normal desires are unsatisfied. Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree, a well-
known British authority, writing in the February, 1917, issue of The
Nineteenth Century and After, puts the matter forcefully thus:
DECISIONS.
443
Now, in pursuing the quest for industrial efficiency, the first problem that
meets us is that of the level of wages.
In the course of the discussion he speaks of a bare "physical
efficiency wage." In some ways this is a good expression, for it re-
veals the shortsightedness of those who advocate low wages. It
seems to the dissenting members that the fixing of such a wage is
mandatory upon the Labor Board, and we can not agree to a decision
which falls far short of that standard.
The representatives of the shop crafts offered a quantity budget
to show the least amount which would enable them to render the
service required for the efficient and economical conduct of the trans-
portation industry. The standard set was frankly not a minimum
subsistence standard-it was an economical comfort standard such as
a skilled man, with four years of mechanical training behind him,
may rightfully expect. The cost of this budget was shown to be
approximately $2,600 per year, and provided for a family of five.
In this connection it appears that under Decision No. 147 the
skilled railroad mechanic could get only approximately 70 per cent
of the supplies and services enumerated. The following comparison
between the annual full-time earnings of railroad mechanics under
various decisions and the cost of two important minimum comfort
budgets shows clearly that the present rates of pay are not justifiable:
Railroad mechanic's earnings for full year compared with cost of necessary
supplies.
Annual earnings under present decision.
Annual earnings under Decision No. 147.
Annual earnings under Decision No. 2___
Cost of United States Dpartment of Labor budget_
Cost of railway employees department budget.
$1, 713. 60
1, 884.96
2,080, 80
2, 303.96
2,636.97
We are not completely satisfied with the budget which the shop
crafts have prepared. In the nature of the case the means for the
exhaustive study necessary is not at their disposal. As a matter of
fact it was put forward merely as a basis of discussion with the
request that the Labor Board and the representatives of manage-
ment join in the work of establishing such a standard.
Before the Labor Board can establish a just and reasonable basic
wage it will have to follow this line, dealing with the needs of the
employees. These needs can be scientifically determined within
fairly narrow lines. They can be determined from the point of
view of the life of the community and from the point of view of the
potential working power of the railway personnel. The failure of
the board to deal with this question is but one instance of the more
general failure to give thorough consideration to the merits of the
case before arriving at a decision.
A JUST WAGE MUST BE A FAMILY WAGE.
In general the majority decision of the Labor Board merely fol-
lowed the representatives of management in ignoring the whole ques-
tion raised. Representatives of management have, however, attacked
the proposition on one point, that is, the fact that provision is asked
for a family of five. Using census figures they found 4.4 persons
20936°-23-29
444
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
as the average family instead of 5 and 1.4 dependent children instead
of 3. This point has been brought out before the board and almost
continuously before the public. In its consideration of the matter
the public has, therefore, a right to demand something authoritative.
Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree is one of the leading authorities. Full
consideration of this question of the family will be found in Chapter
I of his book entitled "The Human Needs of Labor," which is based
upon a thorough study made in New York in 1911. Mr. Rowntree
sums up his investigation as follows:
The table on page 32 shows that half the men have had three or more chil-
dren simultaneously dependent on them for shorter or longer periods. Nearly
one-half (46.4 per cent) have three or more dependent children for periods of
at least five years. Thus it seems clear that in fixing minimum wages at least
three children per family must be allowed for, since no minimum-wage basis
could seriously be regarded as satisfactory which for so many years was
insufficient for one family out of every two.
Of course employers may argue that they should not have to pay minimum
wages, which are based upon transitory needs, during the whole of a working-
man's life. If the period of special pressure on the workman's purse only
lasted for a few months, this argument might hold good. But we have seen
from the table that 46 per cent of the men have three or more dependent
children for five years or more; years, too, which are very critical from the
standpoint of the future, since the mother is having children and the frame-
work of their bodies is being built up. Malnutrition lasting over five years
of childhood will leave permanent traces on the physique of the next genera-
tion. Besides, even if the minimum is in excess of the day-to-day needs, after
the exceptional stress is over the surplus will be needed to enable parents to
save something toward their old age (pp. 34–35).
Even more important, however, is the proposition of children
living in families with three or more dependent children. Accord-
ing to Mr. Rowntree:
An examination of the preceding tables and diagram shows that if we are
to base minimum wages on the human needs of families with less than three
children, 80 per cent of the children of fathers receiving the bare minimum
wage would for a shorter or longer period be inadequately provided for and
72 per cent of them would be in this condition for five years or more.
If we
allowed for three children per family in fixing minimum wages, 62 per cent
would, for varying periods, be inadequately provided for and 54 per cent would
be in this condition for five years or more. If we allowed four children per
family, 43 per cent of the children would still, for varying periods, be inade-
quately provided for and 38 per cent would be in that condition for at least
five years; and even if we allowed five children per family, 24 per cent of the
children would be inadequately provided for and over 20 per cent would be in
that condition for five years or more. In view of these facts it will, I think,
be clear that any suggestion that minimum wages should be based on less than
a standard of three children per family, as some authorities have recommended,
is entirely ruled out of court *
(pp. 40-42).
ENTIRE WAGE-RATE STRUCTURE OUT OF LINE.
It is clear that the majority have failed to consider the real issues
involved in the determination of the basic minimum wage and the
secondary wages in the transportation industry. The text of the
decision gives no evidence of any such consideration. As already
pointed out in the dissenting opinion in Decision No. 1028 (mainte-
nance of way employees), the basic wage established in said de-
cision conforms to no existing standard whatsoever. The lowest
budgets, those of the National Industrial Conference Board, an
employers' organization, could not be met with a wage of less than
DECISIONS.
445
50 cents per hour. Nothing less than this should be considered in
the industry.
The unjust basic wage throws the whole rate structure out of line.
If we concede the justice of the differential between the machinists'
rate and the average rate for unskilled labor under the two de-
cisions, then to obtain a fair level of earnings for machinists that
differential of 37 cents must be added to no base less than 50 cents
per hour, which would justify a wage rate of at least 87 cents per
hour for machinists. As a matter of fact the majority show no
grounds upon which a just secondary wage can be determined.
In short, we must dissent from the decision because both the basic
wage and the differentials above it appear to have no justification
in fact.
INJUSTICE TO THE FREIGHT CARMEN.
The failure of the majority to deal consistently with differentials
is especially apparent in the treatment accorded the freight carmen.
In an attempt to justify the greater decrease inflicted on this class
of employees the majority say:
The board recognizes that there are certain branches of carmen's work
which require the service of skilled mechanics, and for the classes so con-
sidered this decision provides a decrease of 7 cents per hour. It is, however,
believed that the work of "freight carmen
freight carmen" is not of a character that requires
the service of men as skilled as in the other branches of work coming within
the scope of carmen's work
This statement disregards two important facts: (a) The fact that
the difference in skill, if any exists, is already embodied in the 5-cent
differential which has separated the freight carmen from other me-
chanics since the days of the United States Railroad Administra-
tion; and (b) the fact that the 70-cent rate in the decision is a
minimum rate for mechanics-not a flat rate-and that the freight
carman is recognized as a mechanic.
The board in Decision No. 222 has recognized the work of freight
carmen as mechanic's work for which four years' apprenticeship is
required. In rule 153 it said:
Any man who has served an apprenticeship or who has had four years'
practical experience at car work, and who with the aid of tools, with or with-
out drawings, can lay out, build, or perform the work of his craft or occupation
in a mechanical manner, shall constitute a carman.
*
*
* * *
In rule 154 it says that carmen's work shall consist, among other
things, of "building, maintaining,
* painting,
and inspecting all
freight cars, both
both wood
steel * *
*
*
and
Here is the Labor Board's clear-cut statement that freight-car
work is the work of four-year mechanics a statement in the same
form and language as that applied to other mechanical occupations.
The 85-cent rate under Decision No. 2, the 77-cent rate under Deci-
sion No. 147, and the 70-cent rate under this decision are the mini-
mum rates per hour for mechanical work. Above these rates the
carriers could pay differentials for greater skill or responsibility.
But these rates represented the minimum which should be paid to
men who had gone through four years of mechanical training.
Under all previous decisions the freight carmen have unjustly suf-
fered a 5-cent differential below the other mechanics. Here is an
446
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
inequality arising out of previous awards which, according to prin-
ciple 7 of the transportation act, 1920, should be eliminated. Instead,
the present decision increases that inequality, ordering a greater de-
crease for this class of work, thereby establishing a minimum rate
of 63 cents per hour.
For freight-car work not requiring the skill of a four-year me-
chanic, the Labor Board has provided in rules 155 and 156 for the
hiring of helpers and apprentices. Abundant evidence is in the
hands of the board tending to show that the railroads have con-
tinuously failed to take advantage of this provision. With the rates
prevailing under Decision No. 2 proper use of helpers and appren-
tices in the car department would have meant a pay-roll saving of
$30,000,000 per annum. With the rates prevailing under Decision
No. 147, the saving would have been $25,000,000 per annum. In
other words, an honest application of the rules would mean a much
greater pay-roll saving than the increased differential contained in
the present decision which is to all intents and purposes incon-
sistent with the rules laid down by the board itself.
President C. H. Markham, of the Illinois Central System, pub-
lished an advertisement measuring about 6 by 11 inches in the
Chicago papers of June 1, 1921, to inform the public as to the im-
portance of the railroad work which the public does not see. Under
a big headline reading, "Illinois Central System calls attention to
things the public does not see," President Markham says, among
other things, that-
A modern refrigerator car has more than 1,500 parts. Perfect insulation
must be maintained and the car must be kept absolutely clean. The ice boxes
and many other parts require constant attention.
An ordinary box car has more than 500 parts which must be regularly and
constantly inspected and kept in safe condition. Just as a chain is strong as
its weakest link, the safety of a train is gauged by the weakest car in the
train.
This statement ties up closely with the reflection of the responsi-
bility of a car inspector appearing in "Car Maintenance Regula-
tions No. 120-3-4" published by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway Co. This is a 300-page book on the method to be followed
when inspecting freight and passenger trains. Of the 300 pages,
225 apply to freight-car work. It says:
After an inspector has shopped a car for defects which render it unsafe to be
continued in service, no one should be permitted to cause such car to be placed
back in service until the repairs for which the car was shopped have been
properly made or improper repairs corrected.
*
*
It should be considered just as serious and dangerous for one to remove a
bad-order card from a defective car and permit it to go into service without
necessary repairs being made, or permit a car to go into service with a bad-
order card on it without the repairs being made, as it would be for one to
change a signal in front of an approaching train operating under an automatic
block system.
This is quoted merely as an indication of the complexity and
responsibility involved in a carman's work.
JUSTIFICATION OFFERED FOR MAJORITY DECISION.
The majority decision assumes that the rates contained in the
decision will be considered low and makes its defense against attack
DECISIONS.
447
from that angle. In other words, the underlying assumption appears
to be that the decision will be regarded in a favorable light by the
railroads and the sympathizing business interests, and that it will
be regarded in an unfavorable light by those who think of wages
in terms of family support. The text of the majority opinion says,
in effect, that-
(1) The rates of pay decided upon are not so low as those prevail-
ing in outside industry; and
(2) The classes affected will be better off under the decision than
they were in 1920 or in 1917.
The first of these is merely stated as an opinion, and that of the
briefest. No facts are cited to justify the opinion. The public is
given no basis for understanding the case or forming a judgment.
The second assertion is supported by a few figures which are a
misrepresentation of the actual changes in the purchasing power
of the wages of this class of employees since the pre-war period.
We must protest against such a cynical disregard of the obligation
to inform the public. Aside from the fact that its tendency is com-
pletely to vindicate the propaganda,of the railroads and consequently
to condemn such statements as the employees have been able to
bring to public attention, there is the additional fact that the thin-
ness of the justification can not help but create in the public mind.
a belief that the decisions of the Labor Board do not result from
careful consideration of the merits of the case. That such decisions,
as that under discussion, carry such an appearance on the face of
them appears from the Wall Street Journal's comment upon a
similarly written decision from the maintenance of way employees.
It said of the decision:
Nothing very exact or scientific is to be found in all this. It means that the
Labor Board, like most such bodies, finds itself compelled to function by a
process of more or less haphazard compromise. (Wall Street Journal, May 30,
1922.)
The Labor Board has, under the law, a twofold function: (1) To
determine upon such just and reasonable wages and working condi-
tions as will render unnecessary a forceful struggle to secure these;
and (2) to inform the public in such a way that public opinion may
be based upon impartial facts.
We dissent from the majority decision because it conforms to
neither of these standards. So important do we consider this mis-
conception of the Board's function that we wish to deal with the
true purpose at somewhat greater length subsequently.
CONTRARY TO MAJORITY STATEMENT PURCHASING POWER OF SHOP CRAFTS
IS LOWER THAN IN PRE-WAR YEARS.
The outstanding fact about the rates established by the de-
cision is that they mean lower purchasing power and lower stand-
ards than employees of the maintenance of equipment forces en-
joyed in the pre-war period. This is true not only for mechanics
but also for the helper and apprentice group. This seems to be in
direct contradiction to the spirit of the opinion expressed in the ma-
jority decision that-
The board is not in sympathy with the idea that a governmental tribunal, em-
powered to fix a just and reasonable wage for men engaged in serving the public
in the transportation industry, should be controlled by the one consideration of
the low wages that may be paid to other labor *
448
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
With such a statement, it is extraordinary that the majority should
proceed to base their comparison of relative purchasing power on
December, 1917-a period when the wages of these employees were
admitted to be materially below those in other industries. How can
a decision be justified which does not maintain even the unjust stand-
ards of pre-war years?
As in the maintenance of way decision No. 1028, the table show-
ing the relative purchasing power of wages is misleading for two
reasons:
(1) Because it deals entirely with hourly rates, ignoring the
fact that the number of hours in the regular workday decreased
from nine and one-half to eight in the interval. A man's earnings
are the product of his regular hours multiplied by his hourly rate.
It has been generally recognized as just that a decrease in hours
shall not be treated as an increase in pay. A true reflection of the
changes in earnings can only be had by considering daily rates; and
(2) Because, as already pointed out, the choice of December, 1917,
as a base means the choice of a time when the wages of this class
of employees had fallen far behind the cost of living. Railroad
executives were unanimous in stating that in December, 1917, the
wage rates prevailing on the railroads were materially below those
prevailing in other industries. The following quotations from the
statement of W. G. McAdoo, former Director General of Railroads,
before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, bring this
out clearly. He said:
An absolute essential to the achievement of these imperative needs (relieving
the unprecedented congestion of traffic and restoring efficient operation of the
railroads) was to satisfactorily dispose of the labor problem.
Railroad employees throughout the country were thoroughly discontented
and strikes were impending everywhere.
The railroad executives had testified before the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission and elsewhere that railroad wages were below the scale paid in com-
petitive industries and had been seeking increases in rates in order that they
might increase wages.
Railroad labor was grossly underpaid and there were many grave abuses
in the matter of working conditions on the railroads which needed correction.
It was clear that railroad employees could not be expected to work for rail-
roads at lower rates of pay than they could command in competitive industries
throughout the country.
The high cost of living had made it impossible for many of them to live
on the wages they were receiving, and it was clearly in the interest of justice
and right, to say nothing of the wisdom and reason of the policy to bring their
wages to a level which would enable the railroads to command the requisite
amount of service and to prevent the continued depletion of their forces with
the constant labor turnover which railroad managers themselves had insisted
was one of the reasons why they were unable to make the railroads function
efficiently.
Before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in March, 1917, President Under-
wood of the Erie, President Samuel Rea of the Pennsylvania, President Smith
of the New York Central, and several other railroad executives complained that
the low wages being paid workers were driving thousands of men out of rail-
road service and preventing the efficient operation of the railroads.
He further testified that
The fact is that railroad employees worked for less pay during the war than
any other class of industrial workers doing similar work. The further fact is
that no fair complaint can be made of the part the railroad employees per-
formed during the war. The realization that they were working for their
Government in the stress and strain of war, that their patriotic service was
essential to victory, and that they would be fairly treated, inspired and spurred
them to unusual effort and to faithful service.
DECISIONS.
449
Examination of the following tables will show clearly the extent
to which the railroad shop employees have fallen behind throughout
the course of the inflation and deflation periods:
TABLE 1.--Average daily rates.

Machinists.
Class of employees.
Boiler makers..
Blacksmiths..
Sheet-metal workers.
Electrical workers..
Carmen.
Molders..
Helpers and apprentices..
Machinists.
Boiler makers.
Blacksmiths..
Decem-Decem- Janu-
ber,
ber.
May,
Under
July, present
ary,
1920.
1921.
deci-
1915.
1917. 1920.
sion.
4. 18
4.80
5.78
6.82
6. 18
5.62
4.10
4.71
5.85
6.89
6. 25
5.69
4.37
4.95
5.88
6.92
6. 28
5.72
3.91
4.40
5.77
6.81
6. 17
5. 61.
4.34
4.37
5.71
6.75
6. 11
5.35
3.05
3.58
5.44
6.48
5.84
5. 15
4.40 4.88
5.76
6.80
6.16
5.60
2.37
2.77 3.85
4.89
4. 25
3.67
TABLE 2.-Percentage increase in daily rates.

Class of employees.
Sheet-metal workers.
Electrical workers.
Carmen..
Molders...
Helpers and apprentices…..
Per cent increases in cost of living.
ber, 1917,
Decem- January, May,
1920,
July,
1920,
1921,
Present
decision
over
over
over
over
over
Decem-
Decem- Decem- Decem- Decem-
ber, 1915. ber, 1915. | ber, 1915. |ber, 1915. | ber, 1915.
14.8
38.3
63.2
47.8
34.5
14.9
42.7
68.1
52.4
38.8
13.3
34.6
58.4
43.7
30.9
12.5
47.6
74.2
57.8
43.5
6.7
31.6
55.5
40.8
27.9
17.4
78.4
112.5
91.5
68.9
10.9
30.9
54.5
40.0
27.3
17.9
62.5
106.3
79.5
54.8
35.5
89.6
106. 0
71.6
58.8
TABLE 3.-Per cent decrease in purchasing power.
[Subsequent dates compared with December, 1915.]

Class of employees.
Machinists.
Boiler makers..
Blacksmiths……
Sheet-metal workers.
Electrical workers.
Carmen.
Molders.....
Helpers and apprentices.
Decem- January,
May,
July,
ber, 1917.
1920.
1920.
1921.
Present
decision.
15.3
27.1
20.8
13.9
15.3
15.2
24.7
18.4
11.2
12.6
16.4
29.0
23. 1
16.3
17.6
17.0
22.2
15.4
8.0
9.6
25.7
30.6
24.5
17.9
19.5
13.4
5.9
13.2
1 11.6
16.4
18.2
31.0
25.0
18.4
19.8
13.0
14.3
10.3
14.6
2.5
L
1 Increase.
From this table it appears that since 1917 the employees cov-
ered by this decision have almost without exception fallen short of
receiving enough to enable them to maintain pre-war standards.
The only exceptions are the carmen and the helpers, which classes
have just about maintained their level. Under this decision the
unjust level of earnings described by Mr. McAdoo and by numer-
ous railways executives as prevailing in 1917 will be perpetuated.
These figures appear in strong contrast to the misleading table
in which the majority attempt to show that the present decision
will mean increased purchasing power ranging from 18.8 to 45.7
per cent above that of December, 1917. It seems to the dissenting
450
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
members of the board that the public has a right to demand a true
picture of the grounds on which important decisions rest.
WAGE LOSSES TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES.
The following table shows the total decrease in the returns to
the maintenance of equipment employees as a result of decisions
and reductions in force. In this table each figure is based upon.
the number of employees of each class employed in the month
when the decision became effective. This conservative method is
adopted so as to avoid duplication in consideration of the lay-offs.
•
Shop crafts.
Saving to carriers by Decision No. 147.
Saving to carriers by Decision No. 222.
Saving to carriers by present decision_
Saving to carriers by reductions in force_
Total saving at expense of shop forces_.
$64, 379, 872
38, 879, 976
59, 374, 546
164, 252, 379
326, 886, 773
The actual wage reductions per annum resulting from the Labor
Board Decisions Nos. 147, 222, and this decision, based on the number
of shop employees in the service of the carriers as of December, 1917,
are as follows:
Decision No. 147_
This decision_.
1 $89, 850, 015
2
78, 835, 626
Decision No. 222 (approximated by board's statistical staff)
Total of wage and rules decisions__.
Reduced pay roll resulting from reductions in force____
Total loss to shop forces---.
168, 685, 641
38, 879, 976
207, 565, 617
164, 252, 379
371, 817, 996
It is estimated that the recent rate cut advised by the Interstate
Commerce Commission will mean a reduction in operating revenue
of approximately $225,000,000 in addition to the $200,000,000 in cuts
for which the carriers have already claimed credit. From the above
table it appears that the reductions in the pay roll of the mainte-
nance of equipment forces alone are greater than the whole of the
new rate cut.
Following the same method, it appears that the carriers have cut
the pay roll of the maintenance of way employees to the extent of at
least $275,237,160, as follows:
Saving to carriers by Decision No. 147.
Saving to carriers by present decision.
Saving to carriers by reductions in force_
Saving to carriers by Decision No. 501_
$104, 538, 169
51,021, 755
113, 624, 972
6, 052, 264
275, 237, 160
The actual wage reductions per annum resulting from the board's
Decisions Nos. 147, 501, and this decision, based on the number of
maintenance of way employees in the service as of December, 1917,
are as follows:
1 Wage Series Report No. 3-455,776 employees.
2 Excluding 26,449 supervisors, as the decision does not change rates of pay of
supervisors.
3 Basis of computation, September, 1921, Interstate Commerce Commission Wage
Statistics.
DECISIONS.
451
Decision No. 147----
This decision_.
Decision No. 501 (approximated by board's statistical staff).
Total of wage and rules decisions__
Reduced pay roll resulting from reductions in force-----
Total loss to maintenance of way forces---
* $127, 280, 418
* 68, 846, 181
8
6, 052, 264
202, 178, 863
113, 624, 972
315, 803, 835
In connection with these figures it should be stated that the re-
ductions in force are not based on the low figures of February, 1922,
but on the summer force of 1921, during which year, according to
the opinion of the Interstate Commerce Commission (reduced rates
1922, No. 13293) the maintenance work was very nearly up to aver-
age.
The savings from the other classes as a result of Decision No. 147
totaled approximately $150,000,000. Without considering the sav-
ings at the expense of these employees through reductions in force,
the total amount shown above as given up by the employees as a
group exceeds $750,000,000. This is far in excess of any benefits
transmitted to the public in reduced transportation rates.
The above calculation is an attempt to appraise the saving which
will accrue to the carriers even under normal traffic conditions. The
slash in the pay rolls resulting from the subnormal traffic of 1921 is
far larger. It can be shown most clearly by comparing the total pay
roll for the latter half of 1920 with that for the same period of 1921,
as follows:
Pay roll for the last six months of 1920.
Pay roll for the last six months of 1921.
Decrease for half year….
$2, 034, 716, 238
1, 343, 886, 463
690, 829, 775
In other words, the pay-roll saving is running at an annual rate
of $1,300,000,000.
This decrease in the pay roll appears in such strong contrast to the
increasing prosperity of the carriers that it should not pass without
comment. The carriers which received enormous increases in oper-
ating revenue specifically to cover increases in pay roll are failing
to afford the public corresponding decreases when the increases
granted to employees are taken away.
The average net income received by the railroad corporations since
1916 has been larger than ever before in history. Including the
Government standard return, during the years when railroad em-
ployees' wages were falling short of meeting the rising cost of living,
the net income of the carriers was running over $900,000,000 an-
nually. Even in the year of severest depression the net income
totaled half a billion dollars.
The carriers in response to the request of the Interstate Commerce
Commission estimated that the rates and costs prevailing in Feb-
ruary, 1922, would result in net railway operating income of $907,-
693,630 on the basis of 1921 traffic. The commission says:
Taking the charted trend as normal, freight traffic for 1921 was subnormal
* * We feel justified in accepting increased revenue car loadings as fore-
Basis of computation, September, 1921, Interstate Commerce Commission Wage
Statistics.
Wage Series Report No. 3-585,625 employees.
452
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
*
shadowing an increased volume of freight traffic
The increase in
loading for all freight traffic during the first three months of 1922 was 11.9
per cent over that of 1921. (Report on Reduced Rates, 1922, p. 701.)
In their conclusion they depict the situation again as follows:
When we decided increased rates, 1920, supra, the country was still in a
period of steadily rising prices. We then resolved doubts as to future operating
costs in favor of the carriers. In recent months costs have been declining and
traffic increasing. Rates of pay for employees have been reduced to an extent
which, based upon the light traffic in 1921, is estimated by carriers to aggregate
more than $350,000,000 per annum. The Railroad Labor Board has estimated
that the reduction exceeds $400,000,000 per annum without taking into account
changes in rules and working conditions. The tendency is toward increased
revenues, lowered costs, and higher net income for the carriers. (Ibid, p. 731.)
After careful analysis of railroad estimates for the current year
based upon 1921 tonnage, the Interstate Commerce Commission says:
It appears that under present rates, and with an increase of 10 per cent or
more in traffic over that of 1921, not only would the net railway operating
income of the carriers as a whole for the next 12 months be substantially in
excess of the fair return herein determined, but it would greatly exceed the
corresponding figure for any year in the history of railroad operation. (Ibid.
p. 732.)
This situation is clearly foreshadowed in such reports as are avail-
able for the first four months of the year. In spite of the traffic
setback resulting from the coal strike, the net operating income of
the carriers listed below is more than two and one-half times the
net income for the same roads in 1921 and nearly four times the
balance obtained by subtracting the deficits of last year from the
net income.
The following table shows for 54 Class I carriers the net income
or deficit in 1921 and in 1922.
Net operating income for certain carriers, 1922 and 1921.
Carrier.
Wheeling & Lake Erie...
Bangor & Aroostook.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western
Gulf, Mobile & Northern.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia.
Detroit & Mackinac.
Buffalo & Susquehanna.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific.
First four
months,
1922.
First four months, 1921.
Income.
Deficit.
$502,516
$191, 594
1,031,340
$296, 823
702, 890
136, 440
260, 908
268, 855
7,118
49, 875
121, 855
58,750
127, 742
Southern Railway.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul...
Missouri, Kansas & Texas...
Boston & Maine..
West Jersey & Seashore.
1, 139, 730
4,808, 334
71,268
3,368, 329
1,452, 906
707, 014
31, 926
3, 191, 556
1,822, 129
12,085
Pennsylvania..
48, 057
4,097, 588
527,854
Philadelphia & Reading.
26,481, 673
4, 488, 656
Norfolk & Western..
4,967,468
1,082, 769
Chesapeake & Ohio..
6,757, 998
2,248, 283
New York, New Haven & Hartford..
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis…….
5,618, 682
1,509, 403
4,526, 507
1,290, 214
Central of New Jersey.
4,828, 128
4,319, 575
Central of Georgia..
1,887, 772
1,901, 109
Western Maryland.
1,048, 268
2,471
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh.
1,045, 718
972, 576
Norfolk Southern.
649, 943
217, 109
Rutland..
270, 945
107,863
Toledo & Ohio Central.
94, 223
80, 958
Kanawha & Michigan
29, 413
176, 884
Baltimore & Ohio……….
9,997
90,848
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western.
9,409, 476
5,623, 882
Delaware & Hudson…….
3,891, 753
2,227, 320
1,985, 927
957, 935
DECISIONS.
453
Net operating income for certain carriers, 1922 and 1921-Continued.

Carrier.
Wabash..
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio...
Lake Erie & Western.
New York Central…….
Lehigh Valley.
Chicago & Alton.
Illinois Central..
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Chicago & North Western.
Louisville & Nashville...
Missouri Pacific.
Great Northern..
Northern Pacific.
Michigan Central.
Pere Marquette..
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis..
Maine Central.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois..
Virginian Railway
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville..
Minneapolis & St. Louis..
Total...
First four
months,
1922.
First four months, 1921.
Income.
Deficit.
$1,196, 832
$611, 953
896, 443
569, 651
229, 718
$322, 527
16, 356, 440
7,241, 679
1,851, 121
1,448, 021
1, 139, 566
242, 386
7,648, 335
7,079, 121
6,363, 223
3,667, 241
7,651, 058
6, 578, 052
2,723, 106
2,479, 758
4, 405, 474
2,225, 776
1,834, 595
1, 100, 946
1,308, 447
918, 136
2,978, 489
818, 315
3,784, 616
2,318, 211
1,466, 204
912, 717
458,795
468, 418
227, 428
695, 670
459, 335
445, 562
448, 701
524, 255
1,009, 228
409, 814
2, 129, 086
1,288, 717
565, 581
228, 695
46,976
373,718
152 708, 784
62, 645, 176
20,631, 404
This table shows that every carrier earned a net income in the
first four months of 1922, the total net income being $152,708,784,
whereas in 1921, during the same four months, 23 of these carriers
incurred a deficit, the total net income amounting to $62,645,176,
with a total deficit of $20,631,404.
The following typical quotation from the financial columns of
the press clearly foreshadows increasing profits to the corporate
owners of the railroads.
Railway earnings, taken by themselves, have not yet measured up to the
fair return assigned by the transportation act. The fact, however, that in
March, when the movement of business recovery was only in its earliest stages,
net results very nearly touched 6 per cent of the property valuation and in the
East rose considerably above that percentage, is strong confirmatory evidence
to the prediction of the Interstate Commerce Commission that with unchanged
rates and increasing trade activity, earnings would before the end of the year be
running far beyond 6 per cent and, inferentially, that 10 per cent reduction in
rates, especially if accompanied by further reasonable wage readjustment, would
place the railway income in a comfortable position. This has, at any rate, been
the quite invariable result of industrial revival, even when accompanied by
reduction of rates. (New York Times, May 29, 1922.)
Thus it appears that the carriers, which have been receiving,
with the exception of a few months in 1921, the largest returns in
history, are to be placed in a comfortable position.
EFFECT UPON THE MORALE OF THE EMPLOYEES.
The significance of this very apparent contrast between the up-
ward tendency of profits and the downward tendency of human
living standards among wage earners will be felt in a lowering of
industrial morale which will prove a handicap far exceeding any
apparent gain from decreased pay rolls. This is pointed out by
Mr. Sumner H. Slichter in an article on Industrial Morale, pub-
454
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
lished in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Mr. Slichter, who
is an authority on the subject, says:
Most important of all in creating the prevailing low state of industrial
morale is the workmen's conception of the relationship prevailing between
themselves and industry-the feeling on the part of wage earners that instead
of industry being conducted for their benefit as well as the benefit of the stock-
holders, it is devoted almost exclusively to advancing the interests of the
stockholders, and that instead of workmen being a part of industry and
insiders in it, they are outsiders whom industry is not interested in serving,
but from whom it is interested in getting all it can.
Consider the effect of the workman's conception of industry and its relation
to him upon industrial morale. What could be better calculated to destroy his
sense of obligation toward the enterprise by which he is employed and his will-
ingness to cooperate to make it successful and to promote its prosperity than
the feeling that it is seeking to dominate and use him rather than to serve
him, that it is working against him rather than for him, that it is seeking to
pay him as little as it finds necessary, to prevent his wages from going any
higher than it can help, to keep his working day at as many hours as possible,
and to get more and more out of him by pushing up the speed, of his work?
If one party to an arrangement seeks to give as little and get as much as
possible, is it not natural for the other party to do likewise? No one would
expect a workman who feels that his employer pays the bare minimum which
economic conditions compel him to pay to reciprocate by doing his best to
promote the interest of his employers
When industry seeks to keep
wages low and hours long, when it consistently resists the workmen's efforts
to raise their standard of life, workmen can not be expected to be interested
in helping to make profits large. (Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.
XXXV, pp. 54–56.)
* *
The decision of the majority will result in lowered morale among
the workers in the transportation industry. This is inevitable. The
results of a similar policy are already being felt in the scarcity of
labor in the steel industry. This is pointed out by a special writer
for the Chicago Tribune which editorializes the matter. The corre-
spondent speaks of men in the Calumet region who " after working a
day or two at 30 cents an hour," thus coming within the rates set by
the majority for section men, "skipped from the steel mills to other
manufacturing plants where higher wages were paid." Others are
quoted as saying that "the wage rates were equal to working for
nothing, as living expenses ate up the pay envelope and still had some
appetite left." As a matter of fact, labor has been over-deflated.
The necessity of an impartial regulatory authority in the face of this
situation is expressed by Justice Higgins as follows:
There is very real antinomy in the wage system between profits and humanity.
The law of profits prescribes greater receipts and less expenditure--including
expenditure on wages and on the protection of human life from deterioration.
Humanity forbids that reduction of expenditure should be obtained on such
lines. Other things being equal, the more wages the less profits; the less wages,
the more profits. It is folly not to admit the fact and face it. Moreover, the
economies which are the easiest to adopt in expenditure tend to the waste and
degradation of human life the most valuable thing in the world; therefore, so
long as the wage system continues, there is need of some impartial regulating
authority. (Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 3, p. 216.)
The attitude which the Labor Board should have taken in the
present subnormal industrial situation is obvious. Its function is
to prevent the waste and degradation of human life.
PROPER FUNCTION OF RAILROAD LABOR BOARD.
The Interstate Commerce Commission in its recently issued opinion
urging reduction of transportation rates introduces its "conclusion "
with a very terse statement of its function. This statement may be
DECISIONS.
455
held to define the function of any Governmental regulatory body.
The Commission says:
Our
The carriers take the position that we must be guided solely by those things
which are definite and certain in the past. With this we can not agree.
function under the law is not that of mere computers and can not thus be
atrophied. The duty to prescribe rates for the future carries with it the obliga-
tion to exercise an informed judgment upon all pertinent facts, present and past,
in order to forecast the future as best we may. (Report on Reduced Rates,
1922, p. 730.)
In their public presentations the carriers have taken the position
that the Railroad Labor Board must be guided solely by those things
which are definite and certain in the past. In other words, they have
asked the board to perpetuate the standards or lack of standards pre-
vailing in the unregulated labor market of pre-war years. In short,
they want the Labor Board to write decisions guided by the injustice
of a struggle between employers and employees in which right is
determined by might. That this can not be the function of the Labor
Board under the transportation act is apparent to anyone who reads.
its provisions. President Daniel Willard, of the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad Company, has stated this concisely, as follows:
In fact, Congress in the transportation act has created for this particular
purpose a special labor court consisting of the same number as the Supreme
Court of the United States appointed in the same way-that is to say, by the
President and confirmed by the Senate-and has given the board or court a
status and dignity in keeping with its importance. The law says that it shall
be the duty of the board to establish rates of pay and standards of working
conditions which, in the opinion of the board, shall be just and reasonable.
It may, indeed, be said that Congress by this act has made a preferred class
of the railroad workers, because, so far as I know, this is the first and only
time that Congress has ever definitely said that any particular class of people
should be given at all times and under all circumstances just and reasonable
wages and working conditions.
Of course, Congress did not do this primarily in the interest of the workers;
Congress acted only as it had a right to act in the interest of the nation as a
whole. Congress provided or aimed to provide by law so that the railroad
workers would at all times be assured of just as good wages and just as good
working conditions without striking as they could reasonably expect to secure
if they did strike, for it is clear that no one could justify or expect to win a
strike for wages or working conditions that would be unjust and unreasonable.
(Railway Review, April 2, 1921, p. 521.)
Justice Higgins, of the Australian Court of Conciliation and
Arbitration, in discussing the function of that court, states the mat-
ter in much the same terms, though more tersely, as follows:
The people are consumers as well as producers and the object of the power
of the constitution is primarily to protect the people as consumers and, as
incidental to that end, to provide means whereby producers can have their
legitimate human needs satisfied without recourse to stoppages. (Harvard
Law Review, Vol. XXXII, p. 205.)
Such industrial courts are a comparatively recent development
in government, and Justice Higgins has taken the lead in expressing
the theory on which they rest, the function which ties them to the
social fabric. He sees this development as a new province for law
and order. He sees it as the function of such a court to intro-
duce system and standards into the use of human life for industrial
processes.
A. O. WHARTON.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
W. L. McMENIMEN.
456
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1037—DOCKET 1199.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co. (West of
Buffalo).
Question.-Request for reinstatement of E. J. Flynn to position
of chief clerk in the freight station at Hubbard, Ohio.
Statement.-On August 13, 1918, the station forces of the New
York Central Railroad Co. and the Erie Railroad at Hubbard were
consolidated and placed under the jurisdiction of the superintendent
of the Erie Railroad. Mr. Flynn, who had been serving as chief
clerk at the New York Central station at Hubbard, was appointed
accountant in the consolidated office, commencing August 13, 1918.
On December 13, 1918, he was appointed assistant agent.
On July 3, 1920, the general agent of the New York Central Rail-
road Co., who was also acting as chairman of the Youngstown Car-
Service Committee, requested that Mr. Flynn be allowed to accept
a temporary position in his office. Mr. Flynn was granted a 90-day
leave of absence, and on July 7, 1920, he commenced work for the
car-service committee.
The employees contend that Mr. Flynn's seniority in Hubbard
station was protected by rules 29 and 49 of the national agreement
of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees when he accepted service
with the car-service committee. The carrier contends that rule 47
does not apply, since Mr. Flynn accepted the position with the car-
service committee on July 7, 1920, several months after Federal con-
trol terminated. With respect to rule 29, the carrier states that it is
their understanding that rule 29 does not apply in this ease; that it
is the intent of this rule to cover employees in any certain depart-
ment or line of service; and that where, as in this case, an employee
accepts work entirely outside of the department or line of service,
the rule would not apply.
Opinion.-Rule 29 of the clerks' national agreement reads as
follows:
Employees now filling or promoted to excepted or official positions shall re-
tain all their rights and continue to accumulate seniority in the district from
which promoted.
When excepted or official positions are filled by other than employees covered
by these rules no seniority rights shall be established by such employment.
It appears that Mr. Flynn held certain seniority rights in the
freight station at Hubbard. In the consolidation of the New York
Central and the Erie Railroad stations at that point his seniority
rights in the service of the New York Central Railroad Co. were
preserved. The car-service commission or bureau to which he was
transferred at the request of the general agent of the New York
Central Railroad Co. was strictly a New York Central Railroad
bureau and not one organized by the Federal administration. Mr.
Flynn was transferred to this office at the request of the general
agent who was chairman of the said bureau, and during the period
of his incumbency therein he was holding a position in the carrier's
service not included within the scope of the clerks' national agree-
ment.
DECISIONS.
457
It is the opinion of the Labor Board that the position held by
Mr. Flynn in the car-service commission or bureau above referred
to was an excepted position within the meaning and intent of rule.
29. The Labor Board construes this rule to provide for employees
filling such positions to retain their seniority right and continue to
accumulate seniority in the district from which promoted.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that E. J. Flynn shall be re-
instated in the carrier's service with seniority rights unimpaired and
reimbursed for the wage loss sustained since the date he made appli-
cation to exercise his seniority rights in the freight station at Hub-
bard, Ohio, less any amount earned in other employment since that
date.
DECISION NO. 1038.-DOCKET 1229.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute in connection with bulletined. position not
awarded to employee holding seniority.
Statement. The position of maintenance clerk, superintendent's
office, Amarillo, Tex., was bulletined on vacancy bulletin No. 32, Sep-
tember 8, 1920. Ethyl Porter, general clerk, whose seniority dated.
from February 28, 1920, was the only employee who made applica-
tion for the position. However, J. E. Van Sant, extra gang time-
keeper, whose seniority dated from June 11, 1920, was assigned to the
position, effective September 20, 1920.
The carrier states that under normal conditions the employee fill-
ing the position in question is required to work considerable over-
time, and that under the laws of the State of Texas female employees
can not work over nine hours a day. The carrier further states that
on account of their lack of knowledge of the work performed by
maintenance forces, women are not generally fitted to satisfactorily
handle positions of this kind, and that from a moral and physical
standpoint the position is not an appropriate one for a woman.
The employees contend that very little overtime is required on the
position in question, and that instructions issued by the carrier pro-
vide that overtime shall not be worked unless absolutely necessary.
The employees further state that after this was shown the carrier
contended that it would be necessary to have a man on this position
owing to the traveling work involved in connection with straighten-
ing out material reports. The employees contend that investigation
developed that practically the entire assignment was devoted to keep-
ing of time for maintenance employees and that employees assigned
to the position in question had not been required to go out on the line
of road.
Rule 6 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Employees covered by these rules shall be in line for promotion. Promotion
shall be based on seniority, fitness, and ability; fitness and ability being suf-
ficient, seniority shall prevail, except, however, that this provision shall not
apply to the excepted positions covered in exception (b), rule 1, Article I, of
this agreement.
""
(
NOTE. The word "sufficient" is intended to more clearly establish the right
of the senior employee to bid in a new position or vacancy," where two
or more employees have adequate "fitness and ability."
458
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The position of maintenance clerk was abolished on January 22,
1921, at which time Mrs. Porter left the carrier's service on account
of reduction in force. However, she still retains her seniority, and
this dispute covers only a question of back pay for the period Sep-
tember 20, 1920, to January 21, 1921. Article 5246a, chapter 3, of
the Laws of the State of Texas restrict the hours of employment of
female employees to nine hours per day.
Decision.-The Labor Board has given careful consideration to all
of the oral and written evidence presented in connection with this
case and decides that the position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1039.-DOCKET 1235.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of the carrier to establish
the Mobile terminal as a separate seniority district, and claim of
George Gore for wage loss sustained in connection with the estab-
lishment of said seniority district.
Statement. On April 1, 1920, the position of superintendent of
terminals at Mobile, Ala., was created. On May 28, 1920, an ad-
dendum to the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees was negotiated and signed by the duly authorized representa-
tives of the carrier and the employees in the clerical and station
service. Article II of said addendum reads in part as follows:
Seniority districts shall be as follows and each department or subdivision
or division listed below shall constitute a separate seniority district.
All departments on an operating division or strict division district applying
to all departments on an operating division.
The Mobile terminal, as it is now designated, was a part of the
Mobile division and was so recognized in so far as the application
of seniority was concerned until January 25, 1921. At that time the
question of making it a separate seniority district was raised, and on
February 8, 1921, instructions were issued that Mobile terminal, in-
cluding Whistler, Ala., would be considered a separate seniority dis-
trict. On February 25, 1921, this order was modified to include
Mobile only. Certain employees have been denied seniority rights in
the Mobile office on account of this ruling.
The employees contend that under the agreement of May 28, 1920,
Mobile terminal was considered part of the Mobile division seniority
district and was so recognized until February 8, 1921; that Mobile
terminal is not an operating division as referred to in the agree-
ment, but is a terminal district; and that the establishment of a
separate district was not in accordance with the agreement, but was
an arbitrary ruling of the carrier issued without agreement with the
employees and after the employees specifically declined to agree to
the establishment of the said terminal as a separate seniority district.
The carrier states that under the provisions of the agreement
referred to herein seniority districts are arranged according to op-
DECISIONS.
459
erating divisions or districts, and that Mobile terminal is a sepa-
rate operating district. The superintendent of Mobile terminal
reports direct to the general superintendent in the same manner as
superintendents of other operating divisions. The carrier contends
that in view of this fact Mobile terminal automatically became a
separate seniority district under the provisions of the agreement
between the carrier and the employees herein referred to from the
date it was established.
Opinion. Since this dispute was submitted to the Labor Board
the question of seniority districts has been settled in connection
with the negotiation of a new agreement between the carrier and
the employees in clerical and station service, effective July 1, 1921,
so that this dispute involves only claim for time lost by Mr. Gore,
who was refused the right to exercise his seniority to position in the
Mobile office on March 12, 1921, by reason of the establishment of
the Mobile terminal as a separate district. Other claims for time
lost have been withdrawn because the employees involved have left
the service of the carrier. No claim of inability or incompetency
has been made with respect to the employee in whose behalf claim
is presented.
The evidence before the Labor Board shows that seniority dis-
tricts were clearly defined in the agreement between the carrier
and the employees dated May 28, 1920, and under the application
of the provisions of this agreement pertaining to seniority districts,
the carrier did not consider the Mobile terminal a separate "operat-
ing division or strict division district"; on the contrary, it was con-
sidered a part of the Mobile division until February 8, 1921. On
this date it was set up as a separate seniority district over the protest
of the employees.
Decision.-Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1040.-DOCKET 1243.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of H. B. Arnold and J. W. Holder, freight
handlers, Brunswick, Md., for pay for days they were required to
lay off in January, February, and March, 1921.
Statement. The employees named above, as well as several other
employees in the same class of service, were notified on certain days
during the months of January, February, and March, 1921, that
they would not be required to work on the succeeding days, and
deduction was made from their pay for the time so lost.
The employees contend that it was the intention of rule 48 of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship.
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees to pro-
vide eight hours' work six days a week, and that interpretations
rendered upon a similar rule in an agreement covering another class
of employees indicates that this was the intent of said rule. The
employees concede the right of the carrier to reduce the force, but
20936°—23--30
460
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
claim that the force should be reduced in accordance with seniority.
The employees further contend that the carrier failed to maintain
an extra list of this class of employees and to reduce the force in
accordance therewith as required by rule 21, and therefore request
that the employees named herein be reimbursed for the time lost on
the days they were notified not to work.
The carrier states that Brunswick is a large transfer point at
which approximately 125 freight handlers are employed; that as
the number of men required to handle the business varies from day
to day, it is not possible to regulate the force so that a uniform
number of men will be required daily, and it is therefore necessary
to adjust it in accordance with the business to be handled; that dur-
ing the period mentioned in this dispute the freight-handling force
at the point named consisted of 12 regular and 7 extra gangs com-
posed of one checker, one truck loader, and four truckers each; and
that the force required each day was determined on the business in
sight at the close of the day and the men who were not required on
the following day were notified accordingly.
The carrier further states that during the period in controversy
they were working what was known as senior gangs and junior
gangs, but all of the junior men were not assigned to the junior
gangs. When business was light the junior gangs were laid off,
which resulted in some junior men who had been assigned to senior
gangs working, while some senior men who had been assigned to junior
gangs were laid off. It is the contention of the carrier that the
fluctuation in business at the station in question makes it imprac-
ticable to guarantee regular employment exclusive of the Sundays
and specified holidays to the freight-handling force, and that rule
48 of the clerks' national agreement did not contemplate a six-day
guaranty for freight-handling forces regardless of business condi-
tions, nor require the management to pay freight handlers on days
when there was no work for them to perform.
Rule 48 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Rule 48.-Day's work. Except as otherwise provided in this article, eight
consecutive hours, exclusive of the meal period, shall constitute a day's work,
Rule 21 of the said agreement reads as follows:
Rule 21.-Reducing force. When reducing forces seniority rights shall govern.
When forces are increased employees shall be returned to service in the order of
their seniority rights. Employees desiring to avail themselves of this rule must file
their addresses with the proper official at time of reduction, advise promptly
of any change in address and renew address each 90 days. Employees failing
to renew their address each 90 days or to return to the service within 7 days
after being notified (by mail or telegram sent to the address last given) or
give satisfactory reason for not doing so will be considered out of the service.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that rule 48 herein quoted
does not provide for guaranteed employment of six days per week
for freight handlers regardless of fluctuation in business.
However, under the provisions of rule 21 the employees should
have been lail off in the order of their seniority. H. B. Arnold and
J. W. Holder are entitled to reimbursement for the days they were
required to lay off and other freight handlers of less seniority were
retained in the service on such days.
This decision shall not be understood to apply to similar claims
arising prior to March 18, 1921.
DECISIONS.
461
DECISION NO. 1041.-DOCKET 1249.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of J. W. Wickertsheim, as-
sistant cashier, Cumberland, Md.
Statement. The employee in question was dismissed from the
service November 17, 1920.
The employees contend that Mr. Wickertsheim was dismissed with-
out investigation as required by rule 32 of the national agreement
of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, and that no charges were
preferred against him at the time of his dismissal or since that date.
The carrier states that Mr. Wickertsheim was dismissed from the
service on account of insubordination and for making disrespectful
remarks to his superior on November 17; further, that on November
19 he was offered an investigation, but advised the agent that it was
not necessary.
Rule 32 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Rule 32.-Investigation. An employee who has been in service more than 60
days or whose application has been formally approved shall not be disciplined
or dismissed without investigation, at which investigation he may be rep-
resented by an employee of his choice. He may, however, be held out of service
pending such investigation. The investigation shall be held within seven days
of the date when charged with the offense or held from service. A decision will
be rendered within seven days after the completion of investigation.
The evidence shows that the employee named made application
for investigation within the seven-day period referred to in the
rule above quoted; that he was subsequently granted an investiga-
tion for the purpose of determining his right to such investigation;
and that the merits of his dismissal charge were only partially
covered. The evidence does not show that Mr. Wickertsheim was
given an investigation in accordance with the above-quoted rule
prior to his dismissal from the service.
Decision-The Labor Board decides that J. W. Wickertsheim
shall be reinstated to the carrier's service with seniority rights un-
impaired and paid for the wage loss sustained, less any amount
earned in other employment since the date of his dismissal, and less
the seven days referred to in the above rule; and that he shall be
granted an investigation in accordance with the rule herein quoted.
DECISION NO. 1042.-DOCKET 1250.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the position of chief claim clerk at Pier 22,
North River, New York, N. Y., be included within the scope of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, as de-
fined in rule 1, Article I, thereof?
462
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. Under date of January 13, 1921, a vacancy notice was
posted at Pier 22 covering the position of chief claim clerk in the
claim department at that point. Several applications were received
for the position, but on January 17 a notice was posted canceling
the bulletin of January 13, and stating that the position had been
filled by appointment.
The employees state that with the exception of Pier 22, the title
for the head of the claim bureau in the freight station is "chief claim
clerk," which position is included within the scope of the clerk's
national agreement. At Pier 22 the head of the claim bureau bears
the title of "terminal claim agent," and he is considered an officer.
On the basis of this classification, the position of chief claim clerk
(chief clerk to terminal claim agent) is considered an excepted posi-
tion.
The employees claim that the terminal claim agent is a clerk in
the agent's office and is carried on the agent's pay roll; that he has
no connection whatever with the general freight claim department,
nor is he an official whose chief clerk is properly excepted from the
provisions of the agreement. The employees state that the position
of chief claim clerk was bulletined, that applications there for were
submitted, and that after a period of four days the bulletin was can-
celed and the position assigned to one of the junior employees in the
service, notwithstanding the fact that employees of considerable
experience were among the applicants therefor. The employees
contend that the position of terminal claim agent is in reality that
of chief claim clerk; that the position is not and has not been shown
on the list of division or staff officers; and that the position of chief
claim clerk is in reality that of assistant chief claim clerk and not
one of a confidential nature excluded from the provisions of the
clerks' national agreement.
The carrier sates that in the latter part of the year 1917 a terminal
claim bureau was created in the New York terminals for the purpose
of handling all freight claims and, freight department matters in
connection with patrons, stations, contract terminals, and connecting
lines in New York Harbor. A terminal claim agent was placed in
charge of this bureau with jurisdiction to handle such matters over
his own signature. The force normally consists of a general claim.
clerk and about 12 clerks and stenographers. During the first part
of January, 1921, the chief claim clerk resigned and the vacancy was
filled by selection.
The carrier contends that the terminal claim agent is an official
and that the position of chief claim clerk, who is his chief clerk,
is properly classified as a personal office force position and as such
excluded from the provisions of the clerks' national agreement.
The carrier further contends that in the reorganization of the
claim department in the New York terminals, the terminal claim
agent was given a clerical force entirely independent of any specific
station or stations and considered a division officer with jurisdiction
over the handling of all claims and matters pertaining thereto at not
only the New York City stations but all the contract terminal com-
panies and connecting roads, comprising a total of 22 points.
The carrier contends that the chief clerk to the terminal agent was
designated as chief claim clerk at the time so that there would be a
DECISIONS.
463
distinction between the chief clerk to the terminal agent and the
chief clerk to a terminal claim agent; and that when the chief claim
clerk resigned during the month of January, 1921, the position was
erroneously bulletined, and when the fact was later discovered the
bulletin was canceled.
The carrier contends that the terminal claim agent is an official
at least equal in rank to train masters, master mechanics, division
engineers, assistant superintendent, terminal agents, etc., and that
the position of chief clerk in his office is one of a direct and confi-
dential nature and not subject to the provisions of the clerk's
national agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the position of chief
claim clerk herein referred to does not come within the scope of the
clerks' national agreement as defined in rule 1, Article I, thereof.
Request of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1043.-DOCKET 1475.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper rate of pay of H. J. Murphy,
clerk, superintendent's office, Marion, Iowa.
Decision. At hearing conducted by the Labor Board, it developed
that the parties to this dispute were not in agreement as to certain
questions of fact regarding the duties of the position in dispute.
This dispute is remanded to the employees and the carrier to
develop the facts in connection with position in dispute; and if a
settlement of the controversy can not be reached, it may be resub-
mitted to the Labor Board. With this understanding, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1044.-DOCKET 1967.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Claim of F. A. Danahy protesting rights of Messrs.
Osborne and Casavey to change seniority roster after lapse of 60
days.
Decision. This dispute has been withdrawn by the parties at
interest from further consideration by the Labor Board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1045.-DOCKET 1189.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Question.--Dispute regarding the right of a train dispatcher to
exercise his seniority to displace an employee holding a regular as-
signed position in the telegraph service.
464
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD
Statement. On or about March 1, 1921, the train dispatching office
at Muncie, Ind., was discontinued and M. P. Beyers, train dis-
patcher, was permitted to displace F. H. Bailey, first trick tele-
grapher, at Muncie yard office.
The employees state that Mr. Bailey entered the carrier's service
on June 1, 1900, and holds rights on the telegraphers' seniority roster
as of that date. Mr. Beyers holds no seniority rights, as his position
as train dispatcher is not included in the agreement nor is his name
carried on the telegraphers' seniority roster.
The employees contend that there is no rule in the agreement in
effect between the carrier and employees in the telegraph service.
which permits train dispatchers to displace employees holding regu-
lar assigned positions in the telegraph service, and request that Mr.
Bailey be restored to his position and reimbursed for the wage loss
sustained.
The carrier states that Mr. Beyers entered the service as extra
operator on July 27, 1887; that he was appointed operator and clerk
on February 2, 1897; and that he was promoted to train dispatcher
at Muncie, Ind., March 1, 1902. With the exception of several
months during the year 1902, he was continuously employed as train
dispatcher until March 16, 1921, when he was transferred to position
of operator at Muncie yard office.
The carrier claims that while there is nothing in the existing agree-
ment between the carrier and the employees in the telegraph service
that provides for employees promoted from positions in the tele-
graph service to dispatching or official positions retaining and exer-
cising their seniority in the telegraph service, there is on the other
hand nothing in the agreement that prevents it. The carrier con-
tends that in view of Mr. Beyers' long service record, it felt obligated
to permit him to retain his seniority and, in the exercise of same,
displace Mr. Bailey when the position of train dispatcher was
abolished in March, 1921. The carrier further contends that the
action taken in this case was in conformity with past practice in re-
gard to telegraph employees promoted to dispatching and official
positions retaining and exercising their seniority in the telegraph
service.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the basis of the evidence
before it that claim of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1046.—DOCKET 1200.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Qustion. Shall position of motive-power account clerk in the
division accountant's office, Pittsburgh, Pa., made vacant through
promotion of H. S. Lamm, be bulletined?
Statement. In September, 1920, the position of motive-power
account clerk in the division accounting office at Pittsburgh, became
vacant. Mr. Lamm bid upon and was awarded the position, but
before assuming the duties thereof he accepted another position in
DECISIONS.
465
the carrier's service at Cumberland, Md. The carrier subsequently
assigned the position to another employee without bulletining same
in accordance with the rules of the national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight handlers,
Express, and Station Employees.
The carrier states that when the position in question became
vacant in the early part of the year, 1920, it was bulletined and none
of the force of over 40 clerks in that office or on the Pittsburgh
division applied for same, and that in order to take care of the re-
quirements of the service it was necessary to assign a member of the
traveling force to it until a qualified employee could be procured.
An employee in the accounting office at Baltimore finally accepted
the position. The carrier states that when the position again became
vacant in September, 1920, it was bulletined in the regular way, and
Mr. Lamm was the only employee who bid for same; and that there-
fore when he decided to accept the position at Cumberland, it was
not considered necessary to rebulletin the position and a canvass of
the qualified employees available was made. On or about January 1.
1,
1921, an employee located at South Chicago, Ill., who had had
previous experience in the particular line of work required at another
division accounting office was assigned to the position.
The carrier contends that under these circumstances the rebulletin-
ing of the position in September, 1920, would only constitute a tech-
nical compliance with the rules of the agreement and that the em-
ployees have admitted that this is the basis of their request.
The employees contend that under the provisions of rule 12 of the
clerks' national agreement the position should have been bulletined
when Mr. Lamm, who had been awarded the position, decided to
accept another position at Cumberland, and request that the carrier
be required to bulletin same in accordance with said rule.
Rule 12 of the clerks' national agreement reads, in part, as follows:
New positions or vacancies will be promptly bulletined in agreed upon places
accessible to all employees affected *
*
Decision.-Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1047.-DOCKET 1892.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the application of the rules of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees to posi-
tion of ticket agent at Petersburg, Va.
Decision. The employees and the carrier having requested the
withdrawal of this dispute, the case is removed from the docket and
the file closed.
466
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1048.-DOCKET 1934.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southeastern Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of A. R. Scarce, messenger,
Richmond, Va.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having requested that the
case be returned to them for further joint investigation, it is there-
fore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1049.-DOCKET 2189.
Chicago, Ill., June 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Claim of Margaret Leonard for the right to exercise
her seniority to position in the freight office at Columbus, Ohio.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1050.-DOCKET 1306.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of R. McManus, switchman,
with pay for time lost.
Statement. An ex-parte submission was made by the employees,
reading as follows:
R. McManus, switchman, was dismissed from the service of the Illinois Ter-
minal Railroad Co. July 11, 1921, for reasons stated in letter addressed to him
by H. B. Ewing, trainmaster, reading as follows:
"On April 10, 1921, you were up for investigation on account of having taken
from 34 to 52 minutes away from your work while helping on the glass-house
crew for a period of some 15 days when a dinner check was kept on this
crew. You admitted some of these at the investigation.
You have been turned in by the yardmaster at Wood River for inefficiency,
saying you can not work on any crew in the Standard Oil Co. Your grade on
your examination on book of rules was far below what was required, and you
were found cheating when writing out your book.
"You are hereby dismissed from the service of this company.”
The agreement in effect between the carrier and the Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen reads:
ARTICLE NO. 32.
Investigation and hearings.-(a) When a complaint is made against a yard-
man it shall be put in writing and the accused furnished a copy of the charge
in order that he may have an opportunity to defend himself in accordance with
the terms of this agreement.
DECISIONS.
467
(b) Before a yardman is discharged or suspended for a definite term or
notation is made against his record for an alleged fault, he shall have a fair
and impartial trial, at which he may have a yardman of his choice selected
from the railroad's service to represent him, who will be permitted to examine
witnesses. He or his representatives shall be furnished with a copy of the
evidence brought out at such investigation, which will be the basis for the
discipline administered. When suspended for investigation, such investigation
shall be held within five days. If found innocent, he shall be paid regular
rates for time lost and reinstated. If detained more than five days awaiting
investigation he shall be paid for extra time in excess of five days whether
found guilty or not.
When notation is entered against the record of a yardman he will be fur-
nished with a copy and will receipt for it. If the notation against his record
is decided to be unjust, it will be eliminated.
(c) Any yardman included under the provisions of this agreement, who is
dissatisfied with the decision of any officer of the railroad, shall have the
right to appeal therefrom, individually or through the committee representing
the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
On receipt of the employee's ex-parte submission, the Labor Board
forwarded copies thereof to the carrier which placed said carrier
in possession of the employees' contentions.
The carrier replied as follows:
This company has no dispute with its employees. The rates of wages paid
to train and enginemen are in accord with Interpretation No. 2 to Decision
No. 119.
The Labor Board then advised both parties that hearing would
be conducted at 9 a. m., January 14, 1922. The carrier advised the
board that it would not be represented.
The employees contend that the rule quoted was violated by the
carrier in submitting evidence, but state that Mr. McManus informed
Trainmaster Ewing (his immediate superior officer) that he did not
care to transact business with him on account of personal reasons.
This arbitrary action on the part of Mr. McManus evidenced a breach
of discipline that could not be countenanced and absolved the car-
rier from carrying out its part of the agreement with its employees.
with regard to conducting hearings.
Decision. The Labor Board denies the employees' claim.
DECISION NO. 1051.-DOCKET 1307.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of P. J. Zimmerschied,
switchman, with pay for time lost.
Statement.-An ex-parte submission was made by the employees,
reading as follows:
P. J. Zimmerschied, switchman, was discharged July 11, 1921.
July 18, 1921, the joint committee representing the firemen and trainmen
met Vice President and General Manager H. H. Ferguson for the purpose of
discussing and producing evidence in support of the aforesaid case, but as
Mr. Ferguson positively declined to either consider or discuss his alleged charge
against Mr. Zimmerschied, and as Mr. Ferguson has also declined to join us
in preparing and submitting a joint statement of facts to the board, as will be
observed from copy of correspondence hereto attached, we are, therefore, sub-
mitting this case in accordance with section 307 of the transportation act, 1920.
468
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The following letter covering Mr. Zimmerschied's dismissal is
herewith quoted:
MR. P. J. ZIMMERSCHIED:
JULY 11, 1921.
On June 27 last, I requested you to come to my office for a conference at
7.30 in the evening. During the conversation the matter of a subscription list
for P. Purcell was discussed, and in answer to a question as to when you had
last seen Pat Purcell you stated you had not seen him for some two months
or more. You further stated that it was your intention to resign and go back
to farming.
At 4 p. m. Tuesday, June 28, you phoned to the office and asked for a con-
ference with me which time was set at 7.30 p. m. of same day. At this con-
ference Mr. Ewing was present with myself. During the conversation Mr.
Ewing asked if you stated the evening before that you had not seen or talked
to Pat Purcell for some two months past. You stated that you had made that
statement.
Mr. Ewing then asked if you were not seen talking to Pat Purcell in com-
pany with Glazebrook, Tuesday evening, June 24, between 7 and 8 o'clock, at
Broadway and Washington Avenues. You stated that you were not there.
Mr. Ewing then told you that he saw you there at that time on the day in
question and made a note of it in his book. You then became very angry,
jumped out of your chair and stated you wanted it understood that you were
not mixed up in any deal, and that as president of your organization you
would have a man come from the grand lodge and sift this matter out, but
you finally admitted that you did see and talk to Pat Purcell on the date
mentioned.
When you were in my office on the evening of June 27 the statements you
made to me were false. Again on the evening of June 28 the statements made
by you were untrue until you were finally forced to admit that you had falsi-
fied and told untruths.
The management of this company will not tolerate the practice of willful
lying on the part of its employees, and as you were notified on the evening of
June 6 the penalty will be dismissal from the company's service. Your services
are no longer required by this company, and you will be relieved of duty at
once.
Yours truly,
H. H. FERGUSON,
Vice President and General Manager.
The agreement in effect between the carrier and its employees
reads:
ARTICLE NO. 32.
Investigation and hearings.—(a) When a complaint is made against a yard-
man, it shall be put in writing and the accused furnished with a copy of the,
charge, in order that he may have an opportunity to defend himself in ac-
cordance with the terms of this agreement.
(b) Before a yardman is discharged or suspended for a definite term or
notation is made against his record for an alleged fault, he shall have a fair
and impartial trial, at which he may have a yardman of his choice selected
from the railroad's service to represent him, who will be permitted to examine
witnesses. He or his representative shall be furnished with a copy of the
evidence brought out at such investigation, which will be the basis for the
discipline administered. When suspended for investigation, such investigation
shall be held within five days. If found innocent, he shall be paid regular
rates for time lost and be reinstated. If detained more than five days awaiting
investigation, he shall be paid for extra time in excess of five days whether
found guilty or not.
When notation is entered against the record of a yardman, he will be fur-
nished a copy and will receipt for it. If the notation against his record is
decided to be unjust, it will be eliminated.
(c) Any yardman included under the provisions of this agreement, who is
dissatisfied with the decision of any officer of the railroad shall have the right
to appeal therefrom, individually or through the committee representing the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
DECISIONS.
469
Opinion. Evidence gathered by the Labor Board demonstrates
that Mr. Zimmerschied was not given a hearing, and further that
the managing officers of the carrier declined to discuss the case with
the representatives of the organization. It is self-evident that no
orderly conditions can prevail under methods of this character.
Decision. The Labor Board in view of all evidence before it de-
cides that Mr. Zimmerschied shall be reinstated with pay for time
lost, less any amount earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1052.-DOCKET 1308.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of O. E. Glazebrook, switch-
man, with pay for time lost.
Statement.—An ex-parte submission was made by the employees,
reading as follows:
O. E. Glazebrook, switchman, was discharged July 7, 1921.
July 18, 1921, the joint committee representing the firemen and trainmen
met Vice President and General Manager H. H. Ferguson for the purpose of
discussing and producing evidence in support of the aforesaid case, but as
Mr. Ferguson positively declined to either consider or discuss his alleged
charge against Mr. Glazebrook, and as Mr. Ferguson has also declined to join
us in preparing and submitting a joint statement of facts to the board, as will
be observed from copy of correspondence hereto attached, we are, therefore,
submitting this case, in accordance with section 307, transportation act.
Mr. Glazebrook, duly authorized general chairman of the trainmen's organi-
zation, Illinois Terminal Railroad Co., called on the vice president of the
carrier to discuss with him a discipline case; an audience was refused to
discuss the discipline case, whereon Mr. Glazebrook asked if he could be given
a letter to that effect and was informed he could obtain the letter on the
following day. Mr. Glazebrook called for the letter as agreed and instead of
receiving a letter, as agreed upon the previous day, he received one apprising
him of his dismissal reading as follows:
Mr. O. E. GLAZEBROOK, City.
ALTON, ILL., July 17, 1921.
DEAR SIR: On April 27 you were up for investigation on account of taking
more time for dinner than was allowed under the schedule. You stated that
you could not agree that you were taking more than the allotted time for
dinner. Investigation shows that you took 30 minutes or more for several days.
On July 6 I had John Simon in this office and asked him why he allowed his
men to take so much time for dinner, and he admitted that you did, and stated.
that some one should have called his attention to the matter.
On May 29 you were up for investigation on complaint of Car Inspector
Swager at Troy Junction that you were continually harassing him to join the
union until the annoyance became so general that the car inspector complained
by letter to this office. This statement you also denied.
On July 20 you were up for investigation on account of tank car being
derailed in the train on which you were rear brakeman on June 15. This tank
car was pulled on the ties for almost 2 miles-you were riding in the engine-
and when the engineer remarked to you that the train was pulling hard you
stated, "Oh, you have a big, heavy train," but you never made any effort to
look back over the train or otherwise ascertain if there was anything wrong.
This is purely gross carelessness, negligence, and inefficiency.
On June 23 you were rear brakeman on the local at Troy Junction. You
kicked two box cars into caboose and knocked it off center, breaking center
casting. The train left Troy Junction with no one of the crew in the caboose,
470
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and you discovered at Bluff Junction that caboose was off center. In spite
of the statement of Special Agent Clark, who was in the caboose when it was
hit at Troy Junction, you absolutely denied that you hit this caboose, and
attempted to prove by some people at Bluff Junction that it was not knocked off
center. You have made a practice to deny a charge that is placed against you
and simply falsify every statement you make.
Your services are no longer required by this company, and you will be
relieved of service at once.
H. H. FERGUSON,
Vice President and General Manager.
Opinion. In view of the evidence before the Labor Board, it
appears that the managing officers of the carrier violated the trans-
portation act, 1920. It is self-evident that no orderly adjustment of
differences can be had when officers refuse to meet representatives of
an organization to adjudicate existing differences, but on the con-
trary dismiss from service employees who seek such recognition.
Decision. After careful consideration of all facts in the case, and
in view of the foregoing statement, the Labor Board decides that
O. E. Glazebrook shall be reinstated with pay for time lost, less any
amount earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1053.-DOCKET 1309.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. O'Neil, switchman,
with pay for time lost.
Statement.-An ex-parte submission was made by the employees,
reading as follows:
J. O'Neil, employed as switchman, was dismissed from the service of the
Illinois Terminal Railroad Co. on July 15, 1921, without a hearing. The agree-
ment between the carrier and its trainmen reads as follows:
66
ARTICLE NO. 32.
Investigation and hearings.-(a) When a complaint is made against a yard-
man it shall be put in writing and the accused furnished with a copy of the
charge in order that he may have an opportunity to defend himself in accord-
ance with the terms of this agreement.
"(b) Before a yardman is discharged or suspended for a definite term or
notation is made against his record for an alleged fault, he shall have a fair and
impartial trial at which he may have a yardman of his choice selected from the
railroad's service to represent him, who will be permitted to.examine witnesses.
He or his representative shall be furnished with a copy of the evidence brought
out at such investigation, which will be the basis for the discipline administered.
When suspended for investigation, such investigation shall be held within five
days. If found innocent, he shall be paid regular rates for time lost and be
reinstated. If detained more than five days awaiting investigation, he shall be
paid for extra time in excess of five days whether found guilty or not.
"When notation is entered against the record of a yardman, he will be fur-
nished a copy and receipt for it. If the notation against his record is decided
to be unjust, it will be eliminated.
"(c) Any yardman included under the provisions of this agreement, who is
dissatisfied with the decision of any officer of the railroad, shall have the right
to appeal therefrom, individually or through the committee representing the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen."
DECISIONS.
471
The duly authorized committee endeavored to handle the case
with the vice president and general manager of the carrier, but the
officer refused to discuss the case or charges preferred against Mr.
O'Neil leading up to his dismissal.
The following letter was received by Mr. O'Neil from H. Ewing,
trainmaster:
MR. J. O'NEIL, Federal, Ill.
JULY 15, 1921.
DEAR SIR: You have been turned in by your foreman as being arbitrary and
indolent. You act like you don't want to do any work while on duty with your
crew. The yardmaster at Wood River also said you were not in your place on
your crew, and acted as if you did not want to work. You also let the crew
work short-handed while you took 20 minutes to eat your lunch. Now, a man
that displays that attitude can not work for this company. You are hereby
dismissed from the service.
H. EWING, Trainmaster.
On receipt of the employees' ex-parte submission, the Labor Board
forwarded copies thereof to the carrier, who replied to the Board
as follows:
This company has no dispute with its employees. The rates of wages paid
to train and enginemen are in accord with Interpretation No. 2 to Decision
No. 119.
On receipt of the above communication a hearing before the board
was set for 9 a. m., January 14, 1921. The carrier and employees
were given notice, but the carrier replied that it would not be repre-
sented.
Opinion. In view of the evidence before the Labor Board this
appears to be a case where managing officers of the carriers declined
to treat with its employees through representatives of organizations
or to carry out agreements entered into, but to summarily dismiss
employees without a hearing, as was done in this case.
Decision. After a careful review of the evidence obtained, the
Labor Board decides that J. O'Neil shall be reinstated and paid
for time lost, less any amount earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1054.-DOCKET 1310.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question. Request that W. Spellman, W. Pettifer, W. R. Hutch-
inson, W. E. Martin, E. Madison, J. J. Simon, William Easley,
J. L. Skelley, E. Knowles, E. Wassman, L. Boren, and S. B. Owens,
switchmen, who were displaced by junior employees, be restoreed to
their seniority and paid for time lost on account of such displacement.
Statement.-An ex-parte submission was made by the employees,
reading as follows:
I wish to call your attention to the fact that on July 28, 1921, our committee
representing the employees and myself called upon Vice President and General
Manager Ferguson for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not he had any
desire to continue to grant the employees the same consideration under article
No. 35 of the current agreement as he had always prior to that date considered
472
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the rights of the employees under the schedule effective April 3, 1920. We
were unable to get any satisfaction from Mr. Ferguson, for the simple reason
that we were very promptly informed that the men displaced were displaced
for the season that the company reserves the right to use its own judgment
as to who could give the best possible service, and so forth.
This statement was made regardless of article No. 35, which reads as follows:
"Seniority rights of yardmen shall commence from date of first time slip
upon which their name appears."
Carrier in communication to Labor Board states it has no dispute
with its employees.
Opinion. After reviewing the evidence, the Labor Board finds
that the managing officers have violated the carrier's agreement with
its employees, as well as violating the transportation act, 1920.
Decision. After careful review, the Labor Board decides that the
employees heretofore named shall be placed in their proper seniority
and paid for all time lost during the period of their displacement,
less any amount earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1055.-DOCKET 472.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of E. J. Juneau and 16
other mechanical department employees dismissed from the service.
Statement. The following appears in the employees' statement of
facts:
On October 5, 1920, Messrs. E. J. Juneau, E. Gilbert, and W. A. Warren,
boiler makers, and members of the Federated Shop Crafts committee, were
discharged from the service of the Illinois Terminal Railroad Co. by Mr.
Patterson, superintendent of motive power and equipment for the Illinois Ter-
minal Railroad Co.
On October 7 the following men were also discharged by Mr. Patterson: Ed-
ward Mawdsley, machinist (chairman of committee); Louis Bracht, machinist;
Harry Raymond, machinist; William Goddard, machinist helper; Archie
Hauser, machinist helper; Roland Brewer, machinist helper; Robert Snyder,
machinist helper; E. Ohley, boiler-maker helper; Jack Newton, boiler-maker
helper; Walter Mawdsley, boiler-maker helper; Jack Neely, blacksmith; Andy
Hausman, blacksmith helper; Gerald Dunbrow, carman.
The above-mentioned men were discharged without being given an investi-
gation or any opportunity to defend themselves, as provided for by rule 37
of the national agreement.
A complete copy of the submission was forwarded to the manage-
ment, but none of the statements contained therein were refuted.
The following communication was received by the Labor Board
from H. H. Ferguson, vice president and general manager, dated
August 1, 1921:
Replying to your favor of July 27, File M. C. 31.55, in regard to complaint
of the American Federation of Labor Railway Employees' Department request-
ing the reinstatement of some 16 employees who were removed from service,
beg to advise that this company has no reply to submit.
An oral hearing was scheduled in connection with this dispute of
which both parties thereto were duly notified. The following com-
munication, dated August 27, was received from H. H. Ferguson,
vice president and general manager:
DECISIONS.
473
Replying to your favor of the 25th in regard to Docket No. 472, on which
hearing will be conducted on Wednesday, August 31. Beg to advise that this
company will not be represented.
Basing its conclusion on the evidence that has been submitted, the
board renders the following decision:
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the employees in question shall be reinstated to their former
positions with seniority unimpaired and paid for time lost, less any
amount that may have been earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1056.-DOCKET 1878.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.
Question. (a) Was the management of the Illinois Terminal
Railroad Co. within their rights when they discharged 35 of their
employees and gave no reason for doing so, only intimating it was
because of union affiliation?
(b) Shall these employees be reinstated to their former positions
with seniority unimpaired and paid for all time_lost?
Statement. There has been duly filed with the Labor Board by
the above-named organization a dispute wherein it is alleged that
35 employees of the maintenance of way department were dismissed
from the service of the Illinois Terminal Railroad Co. The carrier
gave no reason for doing so, only intimating that it was because of
union affiliation. A copy of the employees' submission which was
in ex-parte form was forwarded to the carrier on June 17, 1921, and
an opportunity extended to present any evidence it might desire
in connection therewith. The carrier was traced for reply on July
8, 1921, but up to the issuance of this decision no information has
been filed cutlining the carrier's position.
An oral hearing was scheduled for and held on May 8, 1922, at
which hearing only the representatives of the employees were present,
the board having received the following letter, dated April 25, 1922,
from H. H. Ferguson, vice president and general manager of the
carrier:
Replying to your favor of April 20 in regard to hearing to be held May 8
next in connection with complaint of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
Beg to advise that this company will not be represented at this hearing.
The above constitutes the complete information received from the
carrier in connection with this case.
Decision. (a) No.
(b) The Labor Board decides upon the evidence sub-
mitted that the 35 employees shall be restored to their former posi-
tions with seniority unimpaired and paid for all time lost, less any
amount they may have earned in other employment.
474
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1057.-DOCKET 817.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad.
Question. The question submitted to the Labor Board was in re-
gard to the right of Grand Trunk System Federation No. 92 to
negotiate an agreement on the above property.
Decision. The submission having been made in ex-parte form and
request having since been received that the case be withdrawn, this
docket is closed.
DECISION NO. 1058.-DOCKET 1494.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Walter Shaw, formerly
employed as machinist at Clinto, Iowa, dismissed from the service
March 12, 1921.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case indicates that Walter Shaw had been employed by the
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. for approximately 25 years,
and that up to December 9, 1920, he was employed on the machine
side of the machine shop; that on December 9, 1920, he accepted a
transfer to the erecting side to fill the place of an employee who had
been laid off in force reduction.
Evidence before the Labor Board submitted by the respective
parties is conflicting with respect to the efforts of Mr. Shaw to re-
turn to the machine side when the forces were increased.
The direct charge leading up to Mr. Shaw's dismissal was that he
consumed 8 hours and 10 minutes in applying a piston to engine No.
1561, which work the management claims should not have consumed
more than 3 hours. The management further claims that Mr. Shaw
had been dilatory in his actions and had been admonished from time
to time; that he spent much of his time in conversation with other
men, which not only interfered with his own work but with the work
of other men around him; and that he was slow and dilatory in the
performance of his work.
The employees submit evidence to show that Mr. Shaw is afflicted
with a rupture which makes it difficult for him to perform heavy
work required on the erecting side and which was responsible for the
alleged slowness in the performance of his work after having been
transferred. The employees further claim that Mr. Shaw is an
efficient machinist, calling attention to certain improvements that
he has recommended on the machine side and which the company has
adopted. They also state that Mr. Shaw has served in the capacity
of foreman at various times.
There is no dispute that younger men in the service were placed on
the machine side when the force was increased, but it is the claim of
DECISIONS.
475
the carrier that Mr. Shaw did not indicate his desire to exercise his
seniority. As previously stated, there is a conflict in the statements
as to the action of the foreman and Mr. Shaw when the forces were so
increased.
Decision.-In view of Walter Shaw's service record and other cir-
cumstances surrounding this case, the Labor Board decides that he
shall be reinstated to his former position on the machine side at
Clinton, Iowa, but not paid for time lost.
In accepting reinstatement said Walter Shaw obligates himself to
perform service as efficiently and expeditiously as possible. Should
he be found guilty of dilatory tactics as previously charged by the
management he shall be subject to dismissal after proper procedure
has been taken in the handling of the case.
DECISION NO. 1059.-DOCKET 1699.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad.
Question.-Reinstatement of C. F. Moore and Herbert Hill, track
laborers.
Statement.-Messrs. Moore and Hill, track laborers, regularly em-
ployed under J. P. Kirk, section foreman, of section 27, Canon City,
covering the territory milepost 1593 to 1641, reported for work July
15 at 8 a. m., the regular established starting time. At about 2.30
p. m. a cloud-burst occurred between mileposts 162 and 167, resulting
in the track in places being covered from 1 to 5 feet with sand, gravel,
and rock, washed down from the mountain side, which had to be
shoveled off before trains could pass.
Section gang No. 27, consisting of Foreman Kirk and six laborers,
including Messrs. Hill and Moore, together with other section gangs
in the immediate vicinity to the total of 55 men, were used to clean
the tracks just sufficiently for trains to pass. Section Gang No. 27
returned to Canon City and was released at 3.30 a. m. the 16th.
This entire gang of section laborers failed to report for work at
& a. m., the regular starting time, for which failure they were dis-
charged.
Messrs. Moore and Hill considered themselves unjustly treated,
and made written request for a hearing before the district roadmaster,
Mr. L. A. Beckman, who sustained Section Foreman Kirk in his
handling. The case was appealed in succession up to the office of the
assistant to the general manager, the highest official designated to
handle such cases, reinstatement being declined with or without pay.
The position of the employees is quoted from the submission, as
follows:
Employees' position.-The position of the employees is that the men referred
to worked faithfully for 18 hours to clear the track for traffic and a further
emergency did not exist at that time, and having to walk some distance to their
homes to clean up and get their breakfast, should have been entitled to more
than four and one-half hours for rest, and that the punishment given them was
too severe. It is set forth that an emergency did not exist from the fact that
Foreman Kirk was not on his section with laborers until the fourth day after
20936°-23-31
476
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the washout had occurred. The only work done on Foreman Kirk's section the
day after the washout was done by Foreman Spear and his gang; the second
day after the washout both Foreman Kirk's and Foreman Spear's gang went
to Echo and unloaded material for a spur track; the third day after the washout
both gangs went to Echo, and Foreman Kirk did no work on his section until
the fourth day after the washout. If an emergency had existed Foreman Kirk
and his men could not have been held off his section for three days. We be-
lieve that the men should be reinstated in accordance with section (f) of the
agreement.
The position of the carrier is quoted from the submission, as
follows:
Carrier's position.-Notwithstanding that the men used on the night of the
15th, making repairs for the washout, were notified to report for work at the
regular hour on the 16th, the employees in question failed to ask permission to
absent themselves from duty and did not report for work at any time on the
16th. Repairs made on the night of the 15th were temporary and further work
was urgently necessary for the continued safe operation of trains.
Foreman Spear, of section No. 26, the adjoining section, together with his
laborers, also having headquarters at Canon City, and who were also used at
the washout the night of the 15th, working the same hours as Foreman Kirk
and his men, were used to make the necessary further repairs on Foreman Kirk's
territory with a work train leaving Canon City about noon on the 16th. Heavy
rains again occurred on the 16th and 17th in this territory, resulting in several
small wash-ins. Foreman Kirk accompanied Foreman Spear with his men to
Gorge and Sample, mileposts 164 and 167, where necessary repairs to tracks
and roadway were made.
It is the contention of the management that under the extreme conditions that
existed, of which the men were fully aware that their actions in absenting
themselves from duty without permission were unjustifiable and inexcusable.
Copies of the request for hearing made by Messrs. Moore and Hill, investiga-
tion held at Pueblo, the various appeals and the replies thereto, together with
letters of Section Foreman Kirk of September 15, Roadmaster Beckman of Au-
gust 5 and September 15, in connection therewith, are attached hereto as sup-
porting evidence.
Decision. After analyzing the written and oral evidence submitted
in this case, the Labor Board sustains the carrier's position.
DECISION NO. 1060.-DOCKET 1671.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.
Question. Request of carrier for application of Addendum No. 6
to Decision No. 222 of the United States Railroad Labor Board to
the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. in lieu of all rules
under which employees are now working.
Statement. The following appears in the statement of facts in the
joint submission filed with the Labor Board:
Statement of facts.-Concluding a conference held between the management of
the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co., A. W. Anderson, vice president
and general manager; F. M. Doar, general superintendent; and W. F. Kuhlke,
superintendent motive power; and the Federated Shop Crafts, represented by
R. G. Smith, president; S. W. Rowe, secretary; C. F. Heath; P. K. Tant; E. D.
Reese; L. F. Parker; and W. H. Conner.
The management asked that the rules and working conditions as set forth in
Decision No. 222, Addendum No. 6, Docket 475, be accepted as applying to the
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. in lieu of the rules now in effect.
This proposition the committee declined. Hence, it was agreed to disagree
and to submit the clear-cut issue to the Labor Board for a decision as to
whether the rules referred to should apply to the Charleston & Western Caro-
lina Railway Co. or not.
DECISIONS.
477
In conformity with the United States Railroad Labor Board's Decision No.
119, the management and a committee representing the shop crafts during the
latter part of June, 1921, made an effort to reach an agreement on rules and
working conditions, finally submitting to the board under date of June 22,
1921, the result of their negotiation and setting forth the differences that they
could not reconcile, and asked the board for a decision, which has not yet been
handed down, save in so far as decision in other cases may have affected the
questions raised in the differences submitted June 22.
The Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. is listed in De-
cision No. 222, which decision and addenda thereto was issued for
the purpose of deciding only the rules in dispute which had been duly
filed with the Labor Board after failure to agree in conference held
pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Decision No.
119. Therefore, Decision No. 222 and its addenda were only ap-
plicable to the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. with
respect to rules on which an agreement had not been reached in con-
ference.
Rule 138, agreed to in conference between the interested parties,
reads:
RULE 138. Should either the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. or
the organizations desire to revise these rules, a written statement containing
the proposed changes shall be given and conferences held within 30 days to
arrange details necessary to negotiate to a conclusion.
The following is the position of the respective parties as contained
in the joint submission filed with the Labor Board:
Carrier's position.-The Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. was
not a party to the so-called "southeastern agreement," entered into by the
southeastern roads and their shop crafts some time prior to 1918.
The Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. had an agreement with its
shop crafts which was not wholly changed by the administration's rules and
regulations, as were the southeastern agreement's rules; and therefore the
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. is to-day operating under more
than one rule in existence prior to 1918, under other rules issued by the United
States Railroad Administration, and also rules which were agreed to between
the management and the shop crafts in June, 1921.
Whereas the decision of the Labor Board, No. 222, Addendum No. 6, is
radically different from a number of the rules that were agreed to in June,
1921, and the new principles set forth by the board involve efficiency and more
economical operations, and as living conditions have been lowered, and as
the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway is still unable to make operating
expenses;
Therefore the management prays the board for an application of Decision
No. 222, Addendum No. 6, to its line in lieu of all rules under which we are
now working.
Employees' position.—The employees composing the Federated Shop Crafts
of the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. contend that Decision No.
222 and addenda thereto as a whole do not and were not intended to apply to
the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. and their employees of the
shop crafts, and has been so decided by your honorable body, under general
instructions, section 1, Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 (Docket 475);
that only such rules that were submitted to your body were under disagreement
on or about July 1, 1921, and we accept those rules as decided by you in De-
cision No. 222 and addenda thereto.
We contend that if the management of the Charleston & Western Carolina
Railway desires to change or revise the rules now in effect on this road, the
employees stand ready to comply with the transportation act and the decisions
of your honorable body regarding any and all disputes that may arise. We
contend that we did agree with the said management on a rule, similar to
your rule 183, Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, that reads:
"Should either the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. or the
organizations desire to revise these rules, a written statement containing the
proposed changes shall be given and conference held within 30 days to arrange
details necessary to negotiate to a conclusion."
478
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
We further contend that the rules that were agreed to by both parties to
this dispute should remain in effect until revised as per rule mentioned above,
and that we should not be forced to accept Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto as a whole in place of rules which both parties agreed were just and
reasonable July 1, 1921.
Decision. The request of the carrier is denied. If any change
in rules and working conditions is desired by either party, the pro-
cedure outlined in rule 138 agreed to in conference shall be followed.
DECISION NO. 1061.-DOCKET 1677.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-(a) Does rule 48 of Decision No. 222 give the right to
employees to submit claims for personal injury to the Labor Board
after all other efforts according to the rules have failed?
(b) Has the carrier the right to discharge an employee because he
brings suit to settle personal-injury claims after all efforts in com-
pliance with the rules have failed, and particularly when the rail-
road refuses to submit the case to the Labor Board?
Statement.—The above questions were submitted to the Labor
Board by the above-referred-to organization in ex-parte form.
Decision. The chief executive of the organization has requested
that the case be withdrawn and the docket closed.
DECISION NO. 1062.-DOCKET 1681.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
Question. The question submitted is in regard to the dismissal of
Fred Harms and F. J. Tilton, machinists, formerly employed at
Bogalusa, La.
Decision. This case having been presented to the Labor Board in
ex-parte form by representatives of the above-named organization,
who have now requested its withdrawal, the file on this subject is
closed.
DECISION NO. 1063.-DOCKET 1695.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Pennsylvania System.
Question.-Seniority claim of J. J. McNamara, formerly em-
ployed as car inspector in the shops at Toledo, Ohio.
Statement. This dispute was filed with the Labor Board in ex-
parte form by the chief executive of the organization herein referred
DECISIONS.
479
to. An opportunity was extended to the carrier to file evidence in
the case in support of its position, but said carrier took the position
that the dispute did not come within the purview of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, and did not submit any evidence in writing or at the
oral hearing scheduled for April 29, 1922, which was not held
account of the nonappearance of a representative of the carrier.
It is therefore necessary for the Labor Board to base its con-
clusions upon the evidence before it.
This evidence purports to show that Mr. McNamara, who was
employed as car inspector on October 11, 1917, was in continuous
service as such until January 1, 1921, on which date it is alleged he
was taken off the inspection job and placed on the repair track, while
men younger in the service were retained as inspectors; that on Jan-
uary 24, 1921, he was furloughed account of reduction in force, and
was called back to work on February 11 as car repairer; that on
February 25, 1921, he was injured; that on March 2, 1921, while he
was off duty account of said injury, he was again notified that he
was furloughed account of reduction in force; and that several weeks
later he was notified to and did report to the general foreman, who
agreed to place him on the repair track repairing box cars, but that
he would have to furnish an outfit of carpenters' tools. The em-
ployees claim that he was told that the position would probably be
temporary and hence he did not feel that he should invest $40 or
$50 in tools. Subsequently, in accordance with the employee's
request, his furlough was extended. On August 4, 1921, he was ad-
vised that his furlough was discontinued and that he was relieved
from the service as of that date.
It is the employees' claim that a number of other employees were
notified of the discontinuance of their furloughs who have since been
reinstated with full seniority rights, while Mr. McNamara, who
was chairman of the system council, American Federation of Rail-
road Workers, has never been recalled; further, that the carrier has
hired men who had no seniority standing whatsoever.
It is further stated that on November 1, 1921, the inspecting point
at M. C. North Toledo yard was reopened, this being the point at
which Mr. McNamara was previously employed as inspector and
which position was discontinued account of reduction in force; that
Mr. McNamara bid for the position, but was informed that it had
awarded three men, two of whom it is alleged were younger in the
service than he was.
Decision. The Labor Board is not in accord with the method that
it is indicated was pursued by the Pennsylvania System in canceling
the seniority of this employee, and decides that he shall be reinstated
to his former position at North Toledo yard with his seniority rights
unimpaired and paid for all time lost since November 1, 1921, less
any amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1064.-DOCKET 1885.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America v. Chi-
cago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question. Under the provisions of Decision No. 119 has the
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America
480
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the right to represent certain painters employed in the locomotive
and car departments of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway
Co. in agreement negotiations?
Statement. The dispute in this case is very similar to dispute
covered by Docket No. 735, Railway Employees' Department, A. F.
of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.,
which is covered by the Labor Board's Decision No. 227.
The Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America through its Chi-
cago, Milwaukee & St. Paul system organization claims the right
to negotiate an agreement for these painters on the basis that they
are carmen and have been recognized as part of that craft.
Decision.-The Labor Board refers the parties to this dispute to
Decision No. 227, above referred to, and decides that the system
organization of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America is
entitled to negotiate an agreement on rules and working conditions
that will include rules for the painters of said carrier, and it is
ordered that the parties proceed to negotiate such agreement.
DECISION NÓ. 1065.—DOCKET 1701.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Jacksonville Terminal Co.
Question. The question in dispute is relative to the interpretation
of seniority rules, and whether or not employees may hold seniority
rights on more than one railroad at the same time.
Statement.-The submission contained the following joint state-
ment of facts:
Statement of facts.-Machinist C. R. Cole was employed by the Seaboard
Air Line Railway Co. on February 11, 1920; Machinist A. H. Couper was em-
ployed by the Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. on August 27, 1919.
These men continued to work at the Seaboard West Jacksonville shops until
December 1, 1920, when these shops were temporarily closed down, and the
bulk of the forces, including these men, were laid off with seniority rights unim-
paired. A portion of the forces cut off were recalled on January 1, 1921, and
these two men were not reached with that call.
The Jacksonville Terminal Co. needed two machinists to augment its forces
during the tourist season-which is a temporary move made each year-and
employed Mr. Cole on January 13, 1921, and Mr. Couper on March 4, 1921.
The tourist season being over, the Jacksonville Terminal Co. reduced its forces,
laying off Machinist Couper on April 21, 1921, and Machinist Cole on April
30, 1921.
On July 1, 1921, the West Jacksonville shops of the Seaboard, where these
men still hold their original seniority, was opened and they were called back
to work. These shops were again closed on September 5, 1921, and both men
laid off. They were recalled with the opening of the shops on October 1, 1921,
and released December 3, 1921, being called back the last time on January 3,
1922; both men at the present time being at work in these shops.
The master mechanic of the Seaboard shops advises that the seniority of
both of these men has never been questioned by the Seaboard, and that they
are now working under their original seniority as of the date of their first
employment as herein indicated.
On December 10, 1921, after both of these men had been called to return to
the Seaboard shops and resume their original seniority, at least twice since
leaving the service of the Jacksonville Terminal Co., and which they did, the
Jacksonville Terminal Co. had need for a machinist to replace one of its
DECISIONS.
481
regular machinists who was temporarily incapacitated on account of illness,
the Federated Shop Crafts insisted that the Jacksonville Terminal Co. should
recall Machinist Cole, and in his failure to report, then Machinist Couper, to
do this work. The Jacksonville Terminal Co. insisted on its right to employ
any machinist properly qualified under the rules and that it was under no
obligations to recall Messrs. Cole or Couper, in view of the fact that they had
returned to their original seniority point on the Seaboard at least twice since
leaving the employ of the Jacksonville Terminal, and that the management did
not consider that they could hold seniority on two different railroads at the
same time.
At the time this request was made by the federated committee it will be
observed from the above statement of fact that neither of these men were
actually at work at the Seaboard shops, as these shops were closed down be-
tween December 3, 1921, and January 3, 1922. The Jacksonville Terminal Co.
thereupon put to work Machinist Pacetti, who had completed his four-year
apprenticeship with the Jacksonville Terminal Co. on June 15, 1921.
It is the claim of the employees that an employee who has been
laid off on account of reduction in force holds his seniority until he
is called back and neglects to report within a reasonable time, re-
gardless of where he was previously employed, or where employed
when laid off; further, that in order for an employee to hold
seniority on another railroad under these rules, it is not necessary
for him to notify the carrier laying him off that he gives up his
seniority, as he then is out of employment and perhaps may not
secure a position on another railroad before he would be called back
and thereby retain his seniority on the first railroad.
The carrier contends that rule 31 of the existing agreement, cover-
ing the seniority of the Federated Shop Crafts, specifically states
that the seniority of employees shall be confined to the respective
points where employed, and submits that this rule not only prohibits
the principle of an employee holding seniority on two different rail-
roads at the same time but even goes further and restricts him from
holding seniority at two different points on the same railroad.
The carrier further contends that if these men had intended to
make the Jacksonville terminal their permanent seniority point, it
was their duty to notify the Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. that
they had left its service and would not expect to claim further
seniority rights with that system as they were then accepting em-
ployment with the Jacksonville Terminal Co., and that their failure
to do this, beyond question, left them Seaboard Air Line Railway
Co. employees and did not give them the right to claim seniority on
the Jacksonville terminal.
Opinion. The past practice of practically all carriers having
agreements with their employees has been that when forces were
temporarily reduced, employees laid off in such temporary force re-
duction would retain their seniority with that carrier, and were
privileged to accept service elsewhere. However, when the forces
were again increased and after due notification an employee failed
to return to the carrier with which he was formerly employed, such
action canceled his seniority with that carrier.
The board feels that practically all employees regard some road
as their "home line" and on which they prefer to retain their
definite seniority status. In the particular case in dispute there
seems to be no question but that the employees considered the Sea-
board Air Line railway their "home line" and exercised their
seniority with that property each time that occasion arose, exercising
482
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
such seniority twice subsequent to their release from the Jacksonville
Terminal Co. and prior to increase in force by the Jacksonville Ter-
minal Co.; further, that they are now employed by the Seaboard
Air Line Railway Co., they having retained and exercised their
seniority on such property. The employment of the two men by the
Jacksonville Terminal Co. was only for a very short period of which
they were apparently apprised upon accepting service with that
carrier.
Under the circumstances as herein cited and in view of the fact
that the employees in question have recognized and accepted their
seniority status on the Seaboard Air Line Railway, and, further,
that subsequent to their release from the Jacksonville Terminal Co.
they returned to their "home line " in accordance with the seniority
standing of several years, the Labor Board arrived at the following
decision:
Decision. Based upon the particular question in dispute, the
Labor Board decides that the claim for seniority with the Jackson-
ville Terminal Co. is not justified and, therefore, denies the claim.
DECISION NO. 1066.-DOCKET 1709.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question.-Should the increase of 15 cents per hour specified in
section 2, Article III, of Decision No. 2, apply to M. Starkey, coal-
chute employee at Godfrey, Ill., and H. M. Miller, coal-chute em-
ployee at Varna, Ill., or should the increase of 10 cents per hour,
specified in section 8, Article III, of Decision No. 2 apply to these
employees?
Decision. (a) Employees who were classified and paid in accord-
ance with section (b), Article I, of Supplement No. 8 to General
Order No. 27, issued by the United States Railroad Administration,
should receive the increase specified in section 2, Article III, of Deci-
sion No. 2.
(b) Employees who were classified and paid in accordance with
section (a), Article V, of Supplement No. 7 to General Order No.
27, issued by the United States Railroad Administration, should re-
ceive the increase specified in section 8, Article III, of Decision No. 2.
DECISION NO. 1067.-DOCKET 1896.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Lines.
gang
Question.-Shall A. W. Lofton, formerly employed as signal
foreman and who was demoted to signalman, be paid for cooking
equipment purchased by him for use in company outfit?
DECISIONS.
483
Statement. The question that is before the Labor Board for de-
cision is based upon the contention of the employees that when Mr.
Lofton accepted the position as gang foreman of construction gang
it was necessary for him to expend between one and two hundred
dollars for cooking utensils, etc., for use in the company outfit
this, according to the employees' statement, being a requirement of
the position-and that account of being demoted from the position he
should be compensated for the amount that it is alleged he invested
in this equipment.
Mr. Lofton claims that the arrangement was unprofitable and that
he sustained considerable loss in the operation in addition to the
value of the equipment.
The evidence shows that this equipment is now in the possession
of Mr. Lofton.
The carrier contends that it is not a requirement for gang fore-
men to provide dishes and equipment; that the gangs who are being
taken care of by the foremen are being taken care of in that man-
ner as a matter of preference, and that as a result the foremen profit
by that arrangement; further, that where they have changed posi-
tions they have experienced no trouble in disposing of their equip-
ment to their successors.
Opinion. The Labor Board feels that the question of boarding
employees, as was done in this case, is a matter that has been, and
properly so, considered separate and distinct from any rules and
working conditions, and that while it was the general practice and
understanding that foremen in some instances would supply the
equipment and make arrangements with the men of their gangs as
to the furnishing of meals, the matter of charges, etc., was left en-
tirely in the hands of the foremen and was therefore considered an
outside operation in which the carrier was not financially interested.
Hence, the Labor Board feels that any question relative to the cost
of the equipment so used is not one that properly comes within the
jurisdiction of the board.
Decision. The case is dismissed and the docket closed.
DECISION NO. 1068.-DOCKET 1897.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Lines.
Question. Request for reinstatement of O. G. Faudres, formerly
employed as signalman, who was discharged from the service June
18, 1921.
Decision. At the oral hearing conducted in connection with this
case, it was agreed between the interested parties that the case be
withdrawn.
The docket is, therefore, closed.
484
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1069.-DOCKET 1950.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. New York Central Railroad Co. (West of Buffalo).
Question. Claim of A. C. Norcutt, Ashtabula, Ohio, for reinstate-
ment to position of section foreman on section 8, Carson, Ohio.
Statement.-The evidence submitted in this case indicates that
on September 1, 1915, Mr. Norcutt was appointed section foreman
of section 8 on the Franklin division with headquarters at Carson,
this being 41 miles from Ashtabula, at which point he resided. It
is shown that on March 16, 1921, due to reduction in forces, section
8 was abolished and Mr. Norcutt was transferred to section 27 as
foreman, where he remained until July 1, when he was displaced
by a senior foreman.
On August 1, 1921, all sections on this subdivision were rearranged,
eliminating 5 sections out of a total of 40. A new section 8 with
headquarters at Carson, but with different limits, was established.
All sections were put up for bid, and the foremen advised that the
successful applicant for each section would have to locate at the
section headquarters. Mr. Norcutt bid for section 8, but was not
given that section as he would not agree to reside at Carson, the
headquarters of section 8. Upon his refusal to accept the position
under the conditions outlined by the carrier, the section was given
to the next junior'foreman bidding for the position, who moved
to Carson.
The employees take the position that Mr. Norcutt had previously
had supervision over section 8 and had resided at Ashtabula, a dis-
tance of 43 miles from Carson; that he served in that capacity for
a period of five and one-half years; that he was laid off on account
of a reduction in forces; that four and one-half months after he was
laid off, the same section was restored; that the carrier had no right
to bulletin the position; and that Mr. Norcutt should have been
restored to his former position as section foreman on section 8.
The employees further contend that Mr. Norcutt was not given
an opportunity to return to his section, nor did he refuse to move to
Carson.
The carrier takes the position that it has long been the practice
to require section foremen to live at the headquarters of their section,
and that Mr. Norcutt was appointed to section 8 when he was living
at Ashtabula because no suitable man living at Carson could be ob-
tained. It is contended that the carrier made several efforts to have
him move to Carson, which he did not do, but continued to reside at
Ashtabula.
The carrier calls attention to the fact that as there is no direct
trolley service to Carson, and as very few passenger trains stop there,
the arrangement was very unsatisfactory, particularly on account of
being unable to get Mr. Norcutt out with his gang when needed in
an emergency, and that he was allowed to remain in charge of this
section on account of there being no one available living at Carson.
The carrier further contends that by the rearrangement of the sec-
tions as outlined new positions were established and were subject
to bulletin and bid, as provided in paragraph (g), Article III, of the
maintenance of way agreement. It is stated that Mr. Norcutt bid
DECISIONS.
485
for the position, but did not state that he would take up his residence.
at Carson, and that before appointing a foreman for this section the
supervisor interviewed Mr. Norcutt to ascertain if he would move to
Carson, but that he gave the supervisor no assurance that he would do
so, and a junior man was thereupon appointed to the position.
It is stated by the carrier that section 8 is a very busy section, cover-
ing a large number of vital tracks and one very important inter-
locking plant; that on emergency calls the laborers had to act on
their own initiative to protect the situation until the foreman arrived
from Ashtabula; and that ordinarily considerable time elapsed before.
a foreman could possibly reach his section from Ashtabula.
The carrier also contends that the position of section foreman at
Carson was offered to Mr. Norcutt upon the basis that he should
reside at Carson, and that he refused to accept it.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the carrier is justified under the circumstances cited in requiring
the foreman of section 8 to reside at Carson. The board, however,
decides in connection with this dispute that A. C. Norcutt shall be
extended another opportunity to accept section 8 with the provision
that he reside at Carson.
DECISION NO. 1070.-DOCKET 1953.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim for reinstatement of J. E. Shoemaker, general
chairman of the carmen, whose leave of absence was withdrawn by
the carrier.
Decision. It having been agreed by both parties to this dispute
that the case be withdrawn from the Labor Board, the docket is
closed.
DECISION NO. 1071.-DOCKET 1971.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Wm. F. Bihner for compensation account of
injury.
Statement. This case was filed in ex-parte form by the above-
named organization and the Labor Board is now in receipt of re-
quest from the organization that the case be withdrawn.
Decision. The docket in this case is closed.
DECISION NO. 1072.-DOCKET 2041.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Question.-Classification and rate of pay of Ray Morehouse, em-
ployed as lubricator filler, under the provisions of rule 6 of Ad-
dendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222.
486
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. It is agreed by both parties to the dispute that this
case be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1073.-DOCKET. 2080.
Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1922.
International Union of Steam and Operating Engineers v. Cincinnati, In-
dianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of Decision No. 2 to stationary engineers.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Prior to the issuance of Decision No. 2, stationary engi-
neers were paid $120 and $125 per month. Decision No. 2 gave these men an
increase of 13 cents per hour. The carrier gave them an increase of 13 cents
times 204 hours, or $26.50, making the rate for the head engineer $151.50, and
for the other two engineers $146.50. These men work on Sundays and holidays.
Employees' position.-The stationary engineers feel that the increase pro-
vided in Decision No. 2 and Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 2 was not
properly applied. In addition to the $26.50 granted them under Decision No. 2,
they feel that Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 2 also granted them an
increase of $17.35, or 84 cents times 204 hours.
Carrier's position.-It is the opinion of the carrier that when the Labor
Board handed down its Decision No. 256, International Union of Steam and
Operating Engineers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., is quoted in this decision
Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 2 only to set forth the manner in which
the increase provided for in Decision No. 2 was to be applied and was not to be
an additional increase in wages over the 13 cents per hour already granted.
The stationary engineers employed on the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western
Railroad have signed up an agreement on rules and working conditions and rates
of pay with the carrier. The relations between these employees and the car-
rier are of the best and everything is going along smoothly with the exception
of the above dispute; therefore, an early decision would be appreciated.
Decision-Based upon the evidence submitted, claim of the em-
ployees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1074.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., June 10, 1922—Effective July 1, 1922.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees,
et al.
Subject of the dispute.-Between each of the carriers named below
and the classes of employees represented by the organizations named
below, disputes have arisen as to what shall constitute just and rea-
sonable wages.
Conferences were held between each carrier and the accredited
representatives of its said employees, and said disputes, not having
been decided in such conferences, were referred to the United States
Railroad Labor Board for decision.
All the carriers named below are petitioning for a reduction in
the wages of said employees, and, on a considerable number of the
roads, the employees are requesting an increase in wages.
DECISIONS.
487
Both parties made a full presentation to the Labor Board of
their respective contentions, by testimony and argument, oral and
written.
Parties to the dispute.-The following carriers are parties to this
dispute:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Alton & Southern Railroad Co.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Pan Handle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
Atlanta Joint Terminals.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Belt Railway of Chicago.
Boston & Albany Railroad Co.
Boston & Maine Railroad and its subsidiaries.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Central Indiana Railway.
Central of Georgia Railway Co.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway.
Charleston Union Station Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Muncie Belt Railway.
488
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
:
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Denver Union Terminal Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
Erie Railroad Co.
Chicago & Erie Railroad Co.
New Jersey & New York Railroad Co.
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co.
Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad Co.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in United States).
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Keokuk Union Depot Co.
Lake Charles & Northern Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Long Island Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Minneapolis.
DECISIONS.
489
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Gulf Terminal Co.
Meridian Terminal Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
Nashville Terminals Co.
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines East and West).
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co. and its subsidiaries.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.
North East Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
Tamaqua, Hazleton & Northern Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Richmond Terminal Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
St. Paul Union Depot Co.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Savannah Union Station Co.
490
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Direct Navigation Co.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermillion Railroad Co.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad.
Southern Railway Co.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Burnside & Cumberland River Railway Co.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans Terminal Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and its subsidiaries.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Trans-Mississippi Terminal Railroad Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
The organizations which are parties hereto, representing the em-
ployees involved herein, and each of which has a dispute with one
or more of the above-named carriers, are as follows:
DECISIONS.
491
American Association of Engineers.
American Federation of Railroad Workers.
American Train Dispatchers' Association.
Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors.
Brotherhood of Dining and Sleeping Car Employees' Union.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees.
Dining Car Employees, Local No. 328.
International Brotherhood of Stationery Firemen and Oilers.
International Longshoremen's Association.
International Union of Steam and Operating Engineers.
Marine Culinary Workers' Association of California.
Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Association.
National Brotherhood of Dining Car Employees.
National Organization Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.
(Federated Shop Crafts.)
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers.
ANALYSIS OF DECISION AS APPLYING TO VARIOUS CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES
COVERED HEREIN.
The classes of employees covered by the wage readjustment of
this decision are as follows:
Group I. Clerical and station forces.
II. Stationary-engine (steam) and boilerroom employees.
III. Signal department employees.
IV. Floating equipment employees.
V. Train dispatchers.
VI. Dining car and restaurant employees.
VII. Miscellaneous employees.
After careful consideration of the evidence submitted, the Labor
Board is of the opinion that the nature of the work and the re-
sponsibility of train dispatchers to the carriers and to the public,
coupled with due consideration of the other factors set out in the
transportation act, are such as to warrant the maintenance of the
present rates. Of the 134 carriers covered by this decision only 26
are asking reductions in pay for the train dispatchers.
There are only four carriers asking for a reduction in the compen-
sation of dining-car stewards, and, after full consideration of the
law and the evidence bearing on the matter, the board has concluded
that the present rates on these carriers should not be reduced.
For similar reasons no reduction is made in the pay of the em-
ployees represented by the Marine Culinary Workers' Association
of California.
In the case of the floating equipment employees, disputes are be-
fore the Labor Board from only four carriers, and these affect only
a portion of the entire class. Presumably, the other carriers which
have employees of this class have reached a satisfactory wage agree-
ment with such employees. The board has, therefore, remanded these
20936°—23—32
492
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
disputes to the four carriers and the employees in question in order
that further negotiations may be had and, if possible, an agreement
reached.
It will be noted that telephone switchboard operators, previously
shown in section 5 of Article II (Decisions Nos. 2 and 147), are now
placed in a separate section. It was the continuation of a mistake
originating during Federal control which placed these employees in
said section. As this mistaken location of telephone switchboard
operators gave them a smaller increase under Decision No. 2 and a
larger decrease under Decision No. 147 than many of the clerks
received, the board has, to a certain extent, created an offset by
fixing the minimum wage at $85 per month, with the understanding
that the wages of switchboard operators that may be higher than
that amount are not to be reduced.
The reductions made for clerical employees are lighter than for
some other classes, because this class suffered considerable loss as a
result of certain changes in their rules and because they have never
been highly paid compared with other classes. It will be noted that
a greater reduction has been fixed by the board for clerks with ex-
perience of one year and less than two, than for clerks with experi-
ence of two years or more. The reason for this is that the majority
of junior clerks are beginners and apprentices and have not as yet
assumed family responsibilities, and many of them are still living
with their parents.
Common labor in and around stations, storehouses, and ware-
houses was reduced 1 cent less than similar labor in the maintenance
of way department because a much greater percentage of this class
live in large towns and cities, and consequently incur a higher cost
of living. Moreover, many of the common laborers in the mainte-
nance of way department are furnished living quarters by the car-
riers free of charge or at a low rate.
In the light of all the facts the Labor Board is of the opinion
that there should be no reduction in the rates of the supervisory
forces of the signal department employees, but that their duties and
responsibilities are of such a character as to warrant the present
rates.
In deciding upon the reductions of employees of the signal de-
partment covered by sections 2, 3, and 4, Article IX of Decision No.
147, due consideration was given to the similarity of these employees
and the shop crafts, but a smaller reduction was considered advisable
in the case of signal department employees because their rule as to
the payment of punitive overtime is much less favorable than that of
the shop employees.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
The provisions of the transportation act, 1920, which govern and
guide the Labor Board in its deliberations upon the matters herein
involved, are:
SEC. 307. (d)
In determining the justness and reasonableness of
such wages and salaries or working conditions the board shall, so far as ap-
plicable, take into consideration among other relevant circumstances:
(1) The scales of wages paid for similar kinds of work in other industries;
(2) The relation between wages and the cost of living;
(3) The hazards of the employment;
DECISIONS.
493
(4) The training and skill required;
(5) The degree of responsibility;
(6) The character and regularity of the employment; and,
(7) Inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the result of previous
wage orders or adjustments.
Besides the specific elements or factors above mentioned, the act
provides that the board in determining wages shall consider "other
relevant circumstances." Referring to this language,
this language, "other
relevant circumstances," the board in Decision No. 2 said:
This, it understands, comprehends, among other things, the effect the action of
this board may have on other wages and industries, on production generally,
the relation of railroad wages to the aggregate of transportation costs and
requirements for betterments, together with the burden on the entire people of
railroad transportation charges.
The consideration of all these matters presents, and has presented
ever since the Government handed the roads back to private manage-
ment, the most complex labor problem ever imposed upon a public
tribunal.
The artificial conditions that had been built up during the war
around every business and industry in this country were particu-
larly accentuated in the case of the railroads by reason of their tre-
mendous importance in the conduct of our country's military opera-
tions, which resulted in Federal control. The difficult problems in-
herited from the war period by every industry were enormously
multiplied and magnified in connection with railway transportation.
The labor problems of this industry were more complicated than
those of any other industry and involved vastly more to the public.
In this post-war period of readjustment, with its fluctuating con-
ditions, its inflated and profiteering prices, its high cost of living,
and its extravagance and wastefulness, the readjustment of wages
for 2,000,000 men in the country's most essential industry has been
a task of appalling magnitude.
Add to these conditions the pressure of an unsettled, discon-
tented, and sometimes misinformed public sentiment harassed by
high freight rates, the vigorous and insistent appeals of the rail-
roads for financial help, and the zealous desire of powerful labor
organizations to protect what they conceived to be the rightful in-
terests of the employees, and the task has not been diminished.
Surrounded by such abnormal conditions, the Labor Board has
not been permitted to deal with the question of what constitutes just
and reasonable wages and working conditions in the same undis-
turbed and uncomplicated manner as would have been possible in
normal times. And, yet, the wisdom and justice of settling these
questions by adjudication rather than by industrial war have been
demonstrated, both from the standpoint of the parties and the pub-
lic. While it can not be said that no mistakes have been made in the
awards handed down by the Labor Board, a substantial degree of
social and economic justice has been attained and that without the
enormous loss and suffering to the carriers, the employees, and the
people at large, necessarily resultant from settlements by force.
The extreme utterance of partisan bias to the effect that the board
does not give full consideration to the evidence submitted to it would
be discouraging were it not for knowledge of the fact that such
utterances evince merely a spasmodic relapse into the old system of
494
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
bluff and bluster that entered so largely into the adjustment of rail-
way labor disputes before adjudication supplanted force.
In 1920, by Decision No. 2, the Labor Board increased the wages
of railway labor by an average of approximately 22 per cent. This
was just and overdue, for the railroad labor had not profiteered
during the war, as a portion of the public has been misled to be-
lieve.
In 1921, the board rendered Decision No. 147, decreasing wages
an approximate average of 12 per cent. If nothing but the dimin-
ished cost of living had been considered, that decrease could rea-
sonably have been made greater.
In 1922, by a series of decisions, the present among the number,
the board has reduced the wages of certain classes of employees,
has left others unmolested, and in one minor instance has made an
adjustment equivalent to an increase.
The Labor Board can not venture too far into the realms of
economic prophecy, but it is generally conceded to be fairly plain
and certain that our country has entered upon an era of gradually
increasing business prosperity which will be liberally shared by
the carriers. That the carriers shall have a fair opportunity to
profit by the revival of business in order that they may expand
their facilities is absolutely indispensable to their efficient service
to the American public. Their unpreparedness now to cope with
any greatly increased traffic is notorious. Every facility of railway
transportation has been skimped for the last several years, and,
as to mileage, there has been an actual decrease instead of an in-
crease.
This statement, in the connection used, must not be misconstrued
to mean that the employees should be called upon to bear the cost
of railway rehabilitation, improved service and reduced rates. It
simply means that it is only patriotic common sense and justice
that every citizen, including the railway employee, should cooperate
in a cordial spirit, should bear and forbear, until the carriers are
back on their feet.
When this accomplishment is safely under way, it will then be
possible for the Railroad Labor Board to give increased considera-
tion to all the intricate details incident to the scientific adjustment
of the living and saving wage, with enlarged freedom from the
complications of the "relevant circumstances" of the abnormal
period which is now approaching its end.
LABOR NOT A COMMODITY.
In this connection it should be said that the Labor Board has
never adopted the theory that human labor is a commodity to be
bought and sold upon the market, and, consequently, to be reduced
to starvation wages during periods of depression and unemployment.
On the other hand, it is idle to contend that labor can be completely
freed from the economic laws which likewise affect the earnings of
capital.
That the board has never fixed wages upon a commodity basis.
has been amply demonstrated during the past year by the ease with
which the carriers have obtained labor under the contract system
for less than the wage established by Decision No. 147.
DECISIONS.
495
In this connection it must be remembered that the carriers are at
liberty to pay to any class of employees a higher wage than that
fixed by this board whenever the so-called labor market compels,
provided, as the act states, that such wage does not result in increased
rates to the public.
The average hourly earnings and their purchasing power as ap-
plied to certain classes of employees covered by this decision are
shown in the following tables:
Average hourly earnings and their purchasing power as applied to certain
classes of employees.¹
1

Time for which figures
are shown or com-I,secs. 1
parisons made.
labor,
Clerks
(Group
Signal- Station-
men
Common
ary fire-
main-
tainers
and 2a).
station
stores
(Group
and
assist-
ants
men
and
engine-
room
oilers
I, sec.
9).
(Group
III,
sec. 3).
(Group
II,
sec. 2).
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Average hourly rates.
December, 1917.
34.5
22.3
32.8
21.8
January, 1920.
54.5
43.6
64.3
46.6
May, 1920.
67.5
52. 1
77.3
59.6
July, 1921.
61.5
43.6
69.3
51.6
Under this decision.
58.5
39.6
64. 3
49.6
Per cent. Per cent.
Per cent. Per cent.
Percentage increase in average hourly January, 1920.
rates over December, 1917.
58.0
95.5
96.0
113.8
May, 1920.
July, 1921..
95.7
133.6
135.7
173.4
78.3
95.5
111.3
136.7
Increase in cost of living over December, January, 1920..
1917.
Under this decision..
69.6
77.6
96.0
127.5
40.0
May, 1920.
July, 1921
52.0
26.7
March, 1922 2.
17.2
January, 1920.
12.9 |
39.6
40.0
52.7
May, 1920...
28.8
53.7
55.1
79.9
July, 1921..
40.7
54. 3
66.8
86.8
Under this decision.
44.7
51.5
67.2
94. 1
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
9.0
12.5
13.0
10.0
Percentage increase in purchasing power
of earnings of subsequent dates com-
pared with December, 1917.
Decrease in hourly rates under present
decision compared with Decision No. 2.
Percentage increase in purchasing power
of present earnings compared with those
under Decision No. 2.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.
12.3 -1.4
7.8
7.9
1 Owing to the manner in which the carriers were required to render their reports to the Interstate Com-
merce Commission during December, 1917, in which wage data covering heterogeneous classes of employees
were grouped rather than separated in accordance with their duties, responsibilities, experience, etc., it is
impossible to obtain actual figures from which average hourly rates for the above classes could be com-
puted. The figures shown in table for December, 1917, are therefore approximations, although assumed
to be very close approximations. For this same reason it is impossible to separate the average rates of
clerks between those in section 1 and section 2 (a), and the rates shown above are the averages for all clerks
in these two classes. The average rate for common labor for December, 1917, is perhaps a little high due
to the fact that the carriers reported all station service employees in one group, and the rate shown herein
for December, 1917, is the average for the group.
2 Latest availablé Government data.
[-Decrease.]
The foregoing table prepared by the statistical force of the Labor
Board is based on the cost-of-living figures issued by the United
States Department of Labor.
These figures show that applying the wages fixed by this decision
to the present cost of living, the purchasing power of the hourly
wage of the respective classes here named has increased over the
496
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
purchasing power of the hourly wage of December, 1917 (prior to
Federal control), as follows:
Clerks
Common labor around stations, etc….
Signalmen (maintainers and assistants)
Stationary firemen and engine-room oilers_
Per cent.
44. 7
51.5
67.2
94. 1
The table also shows that with one slight exception the purchasing
power of the hourly wage of each class of these employees is greater
under the present decision than it was under Decision No. 2 which
granted the 22 per cent increase.
BUDGETS.
The Labor Board has given careful consideration to the testimony
bearing upon family budgets and standards of living. That exist-
ing standards will not be lowered by this decision is shown with sub-
stantial satisfaction by the above statistics.
This matter of living standards constitutes an interesting and
important study, but much that is said on the subject is highly the-
oretical and of but little value.
When the Railway Employees' Department presents figures to
show that the sum of $2,636.97 is necessary for the minimum com-
fort budget of the average family, it has propounded an economic
impossibility.
It is stated upon authority that the total income of the people
of the United States is now but little more than $40,000,000,000. If
the 25,000,000 families of this country were expending for living
costs the sum of $2,600 each, it would total $65,000,000,000 which
would be $25,000,000,000 in excess of the country's total income.
Of course, living costs can not be standardized any more than
men can be standardized. One man will consume his income and
find himself continually in debt while another man with the same
income and under identical conditions will live in equal comfort
and accumulate savings.
In this connection it can hardly be considered a digression or
a gratuitous preachment to say that one of the principal troubles
with the people of this country to-day is the abandonment of the
old-fashioned ideas of thrift and economy and the indulgence in
wastefulness and extravagance.
These loose habits of living were acquired during the inflated
period engendered by the war and, like many other ills of similar
origin, are slow to depart. Increased expenses do not always mean
a higher standard of living nor do diminished expenses necessarily
mean a lower standard of living.
In the settlement of these questions, it is the profound desire of
the Labor Board to do justice to the parties directly concerned,
placing the human and social consideration above the purely eco-
nomic, and, finally, to establish wages and conditions that will largely
meet the hopes and aspirations of the employees, that will prove
satisfactory to the carriers, and that will impose no unnecessary
burdens on the public. This is not a Utopian conception in America.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
1. That each of the carriers party to this dispute shall make deduc-
tions from the rates of wages heretofore established by the authority
of the United States Railroad Labor Board for the specific classes
DECISIONS.
497
of its employees named or referred to in Article II in amounts here-
inafter specified for such classes in Article I.
2. That the scope of this decision is limited to the carriers named
under Article II, to such carriers as may be included hereafter by
addenda, and to the specific classes of employees named or referred
to under each particular carrier.
3. That the reduction in wages hereby authorized shall be effective
as of July 1, 1922, and shall be made in accordance with the following
articles, which establish the schedule of decreases, designate the car-
riers and employees affected, and prescribe the method of general
application.
ARTICLE I.-SCHEDULE OF DECREASES.
For the specific classes of employees listed herein and named or
referred to in connection with a carrier affected by this decision, use
the following schedule of decreases per hour:
NOTE. For the specific classes of employees listed herein, for which no
decreases have been provided, reference to article and section numbers has
been omitted, and no decrease shall be made by any of the carriers for said
classes of employees.
GROUP I.-CLERICAL AND STATION FORCES.
SECTION 1. Storekeepers, assistant storekeepers, chief clerks, foremen,
subforemen, and other clerical supervisory forces___
SEC. 2. (a) Clerks with an experience of two (2) or more years in rail-
road clerical work, or clerical work of a similar nature in other industries.
or where their cumulative experience in such clerical work is not less than
two (2) years__
(b) Clerks with an experience of one (1) year and less than two (2)
years in railroad clerical work or clerical work of a similar nature in other
industries, or where their cumulative experience in such clerical work is
not less than one (1) year.
SEC. 3. (a) Clerks whose experience as above defined is less than one
(1) year
(b) Clerks without previous experience hereafter entering the service will
be paid a monthly salary at the rate of $60 per month for the first six
months, and $70 per month for the second six months.
SEC. 4. Train and engine crew callers, assistant station masters, train
announcers, gatemen, and baggage and parcel room employees (other
than clerks).
SEC. 5. Janitors, elevator operators, office, station and warehouse watch-
men, and employees engaged in assorting way bills and tickets, operating
appliances or machines for perforating, addressing envelopes, numbering
claims and other papers, gathering and distributing mail, adjusting dicta-
phone cylinders, and. other similar work___
:
SEC. 6. Office boys, messengers, chore boys, and other employees under 18
years of age filling similar positions, and station attendants___
SEC. 7. Station, platform, warehouse, transfer, dock, pier, storeroom,
stock room, and team-track freight handlers or truckers, and others simi-
larly employed__.
SEC. 8. The following differentials shall be maintained between truckers
and the classes named below:
(a) Sealers, scalers, and fruit and perishable inspectors, 1 cent per hour
above truckers' rates as established under section 7.
(b) Stowers or stevedores, callers or loaders, locators and coopers, 2 cents
per hour above truckers' rates as established under section 7.
The above shall not operate to decrease any existing higher differentials.
SEC. 9. All common laborers in and around stations, storehouses, and
warehouses not otherwise provided for…….
SEC. 10. Telephone switchboard operators will be paid at the rate of not
less than $85 per month, with no reduction in higher existing rates.
Cents.
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
498
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
GROUP II.-STATIONARY ENGINE (STEAM) AND BOILER-ROOM EMPLOYEES.
SEC. 1. Stationary engineers (steam)
SEC. 2. Stationary firemen and engine-room oilers_
SEC. 3. Boiler-room water tenders and coal passers-
GROUP III.—SIGNAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.
Cents.
2
2
2
NNN
SEC. 1. Signal foremen, assistant signal foremen, and signal inspectors,
No decreases.
SEC. 2. Leading maintainers, gang foremen, and leading signalmen_-_.
SEC. 3. Signalmen, assistant signalmen, signal maintainers, and assistant
signal maintainers_
SEC. 4. Helpers
GROUP IV. FLOATING EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES.
Such disputes as are before the board under this article are remanded to
the parties for further conference and attempt to make an agreement.
5
5
LO CO
6
GROUP V.-TRAIN DISPATCHERS.
SEC. 1. Train dispatchers_
No decrease
GROUP VI.-DINING-CAR AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES.
SEC. 1. Dining-car stewards__.
SEC. 2. Culinary workers on ferry boats in San Francisco harbor,
GROUP VII.-MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES.
No decrease.
No decrease.
SEC. 1. For miscellaneous classes of foremen and other employees, not spe-
cifically listed under any section of the various groups, who are properly
before the Labor Board and named in Article II in connection with a carrier
affected by this decision, deduct an amount equal to the decreases specified
for the respective classes to which the miscellaneous classes herein referred
to are analogous.
ARTICLE II.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
The group and section numbers used in connection with a carrier
refer to the corresponding group and section numbers in the schedule
of decreases, and in determining the classes of employees affected on
each carrier the following rules shall govern:
(a) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
without naming the classes, all classes of employees named in the
corresponding section numbers of the schedule of decreases are
affected.
(b) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier.
and specific classes of employees are named, only the same classes
of employees named in the corresponding section numbers of the
schedule of decreases are affected.
(c) Where section numbers are omitted in connection with a car-
rier, the classes of employees named in the corresponding section.
numbers of the schedule of decreases are not affected.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Alton & Southern Railroad Co.
Group I---- Sec. 1. Storekeeper.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Group VII- Sec. 1. Yard clerks.
DECISIONS.
499
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
(a) Group I Sec. 1. Chief clerks, foremen, subforemen, and other
clerical supervisory forces.
Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
(a-Grand Canyon Railway Co. and Sunset Railway Co.
included for secs. 7, 8, and 9 of Group I only.)
(b) Group II.___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
(b) Group III Secs. 2 and 4.
(b-Excluding Sunset Railway Co.)
Atlanta Joint Terminals.
Group II___ Sec. 1.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II- Secs. 1 and 2.
Group III. Secs. 3 and 4.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railway Co.
Group I----. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Group II-
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Sec. 1.
Group III__ Sec. 2.
Sec. 3. Signalmen, assistant signalmen, and signal main-
Sec. 4.
tainers.
Group VII Sec. 1. Chief engineer (chief engineer at power plant,
Grand Central Station, Chicago, Ill., only).
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III- Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Cooks (in bridge and building department only).
Belt Railway of Chicago.
Group I__. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group III. Sec. 3. Signal maintainers.
Sec. 4.
Boston & Albany Railroad Co.
Group I---- Sec. 1. Chief clerks, foremen, subforemen, and other
clerical supervisory forces.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Sec. 4. Train and engine crew callers, train announcers,
gatemen, and baggage and parcel room em-
ployees (other than clerks).
Secs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Sec. 2. Gang foremen (electrical and mechanical only).
Sec. 3. Signal maintainers and assistant signal main-
Sec. 4.
tainers.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Foremen signal equipment, locking foremen, lock-
ing machinists, assistant foremen, foremen,
maintainers, wire chiefs, wiremen, linemen,
electricians, electrical tower maintainers, me-
chanics, machinists, wheelmen, baggage and
mail porters at Worcester, Springfield, and
Pittsfield.
500
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Boston & Albany Railroad Co.-Continued.
(Employees in groups III and VII included in this car-
rier's agreement with signalmen, except wheelmen and
baggage and mail porters at Worcester, Springfield, and
Pittsfield.)
Boston & Maine Railroad and its subsidiaries.
Group I____.Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
:
Sec. 4. Train and engine crew callers, train announcers,
gatemen, and baggage and parcel room
ployees (other than clerks).
Secs. 5 and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II____ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group VII__ Sec. 1. Baggage and mail porters.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 4. Train and engine crew callers.
Sec. 5. Janitors.
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8 and 9.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Group I-___-Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Central Indiana Railway.
I___
Group I----- Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
em-
Sec. 7. Station freight handlers or truckers, and others
similarly employed.
Group II___-Sec. 1.
Sec. 3. Water tenders.
Group VII__. Sec. 1. Common laborers, platform.
Central of Georgia Railway Co.
Group III- Secs. 3 and 4.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers.
Group II____. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__-Sec. 2.
Sec. 3. Signalmen, assistant signalmen, and signal main-
tainers.
Sec. 4.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Group I.Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8 and 9.
Group II___. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway.
Group II___. Sec. 2.
Charleston Union Station Co.
Group I____. Secs. 2, 3, 4, and 9.
Group II__--Sec. 2.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group III__-Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Sec. 2.
Group III
Sec. 2. Gang foremen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
DECISIONS.
501
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Group II Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 4. Train and engine crew callers, train announcers,
gatemen, and baggage and parcel room employees
(other than clerks).
Secs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group III Sec. 2, 3, and 4.
Group VII
Sec. 1. Café, buffet, dining car, and restaurant employees
(except dining-car stewards) and train porters.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group III Sec. 3. Signalmen and signal maintainers.
Sec. 4.
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1 and 2.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Co.
Group I____ Sec. 1. Chief clerks.
Chicago, Milwaukee
Group II
Group III
Secs. 2 and 3.
Sec. 5. Jauitors.
Sec. 7.
& St. Paul Railway Co.
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Gang foremen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Group I____
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group I__
Group II.
Group III
Sec. 2. Gang foremen.
Group VII
Chicago, St. Paul,
Secs. 3 and 4.
Sec. 1. Train porters, office and private-car porters and
attendants.
Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Group VII
Sec. 3. Signalmen, signal maintainers.
Sec. 4.
Sec. 1. Helper apprentices (signal department only).
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Group II Sec. 2. Stationary firemen.
Group III Sec. 3. Sigual maintainers.
Sec. 4.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Muncie Belt Railway.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
(a) Group III__ Sec. 2. Leading maintainers and leading signalmen.
Sec. 3. Signalmen and signal maintainers.
Sec. 4.
(a-Excluding Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute
Railway Co.)
502
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1 and 2.
Group VII- Sec. 1. Chefs, cooks, waiters, and buffet porters.
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Sec. 1. Chief clerks, foremen, subforemen, and other cleri-
cal supervisory forces.
Group I
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Denver Union Terminal Co.
Group I
Secs. 2 and 3.
Sec. 4. Train announcers, gatemen, and baggage and par-
cel room employees (other than clerks).
Secs. 5, 6, 7, and 10.
Group III Sec. 2. Leading maintainers.
Sec. 4. Helpers (maintainers' helpers only).
Group VII Sec. 1. Elevator maintainers, mail-room employees (other
than clerks).
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1 and 2.
Group III
Group VII
Erie Railroad Co.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Sec. 1. Business-car porters, waiters in charge, chefs, sec-
ond cooks, third cooks, waiters, and pantrymen.
Chicago & Erie Railroad Co.
New Jersey & New York Railroad Co.
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co.
Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad Co.
I--
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Group I
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Stationary firemen.
Grank Trunk Railway System (lines in United States).
Group I
Group II__
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2 and 3.
Great Northern Railway Co.
Group I___. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
DECISIONS.
503
Gulf Coast Lines.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
(a) Group I__. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
(a—Excluding Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.)
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Group I___. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II__ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Group II___
Group III
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 2 and 3.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad.
Group I___
Sec. 5. Janitors.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Sec. 8a. Sealers.
Sec. 8b. Stowers or stevedores, callers and coopers.
Sec. 9. Common laborers in and around stations.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group III Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 9 and 10.
Group II__- Secs. 1 and 2.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Group I
Group II_
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___
Group III
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 2. Leading maintainers and leading signalmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Keokuk Union Depot Co.
Group I___ Secs. 2, 5, and 10.
Lake Charles & Northern Railroad Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
504
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Group I Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Sec. 5. Janitors and elevator operators.
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8 and 10.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers.
Sec. 9. Common laborers in and around stations and
warehouses.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 10.
Group II
Group III
Sec. 3.
Group VII Sec. 1. Car riders and trimmers (at Perth Amboy only).
Long Island Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Stationary firemen.
Sec. 3.
Group III Sec. 2. Leading maintainers.
Sec. 3. Signal maintainers.
Sec. 4.
Group VII Sec. 1. Float-bridge motormen, float-bridge men.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Group I
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Group VII Sec. 1. Platform men.
-
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
II__
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Minneapolis.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
(a) Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
(a-Excluding Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Min-
neapolis.)
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II__
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Group VII Sec. 1. Dining-car cooks, pantrymen and waiters, buffet
porters and sleeping-car porters.
DECISIONS.
505.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Minnesota Transfer
Group I____
Group II__
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8. 9, and 10.
Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Missouri, Kansas &
Texas Lines.
Group I
Group II__
Group III
Group I___
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Group II___ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Group VII
Sec. 1. Special agents.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Gulf Terminal Co.
Meridian Terminal Co.
Group I Sec. 4. Baggage and parcel room employees (baggage and
mail handlers only).
(a) Group II___
Group III
Sec. 5. Janitors.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Sec. 8b. Stevedores and callers.
Sec. 9.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Group VII Sec. 1. Station porters, sweepers, matrons, stationary
heating plant engineer (stationary heating
plant engineer at Meridian, Miss., only).
(a)-(Excluding Gulf Terminal Co. and Meridian Terminal Co.)
Monongahela Railway Co.
Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Group I
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Group I
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
Sec. 4. Train announcers, gatemen, and baggage and par-
cel room employees (baggage and mail handlers
only).
Sec. 5. Janitors, elevator operators, and office, station,
and warehouse watchmen.
Sec. 6. Office boys, messengers, and chore boys.
Sec. 7. Freight truckers.
Sec. 8b. Stowers.
Group II Sec. 1. Stationary engineers (steam) (engineers at Nash-
ville, Atlanta, and Hollow Rock Junction shops
only).
Secs. 2 and 3.
Group III. Sec. 2. Leading maintainers.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Group VII__ Sec. 1. Signal construction foremen, train porters, cooks
(maintenance of way and construction depart-
ments only), assistant cooks (construction sub-
department only).
Nashville Terminals Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
506
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines East and West).
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group I
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Secs. 2 and 3.
Group I I.
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Sec. 5. Janitors and elevator operators.
Secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Central New England Railway Co.
Group I
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 4. Train and engine crew callers.
Secs. 5 and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Group I
Sec. 1. Foremen, subforemen, and other clerical super-
visory forces.
Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II
Secs. 2 and 3.
Group III
Secs. 3 and 4.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2 and 3.
Group I
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1 and 2.
Group III Secs. 2, 3 and 4.
-
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Group I -
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group I
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Pere Marquette Railway Co. and its subsidiaries.
Group I --- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Group III
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.
Northeast Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
DECISIONS.
507
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.-Continued.
Tamaqua, Hazleton & Northern Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
Group I___- Secs. 2 and 3.
Sec. 4. Train and engine crew callers, train announcers,
gatemen, and baggage and parcel room em-
ployees (other than clerks).
Sec. 5. Janitors, office, station, and warehouse watchmen,
and employees engaged in assorting waybills and
tickets, operating appliances or machines for
perforating, addressing envelopes, numbering
claims and other papers, and other similar work.
Secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Operators of office or station equipment devices
and other similar work, matrons, porters,
boiler cleaners, and firemen helpers.
Group II__. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__. Sec. 2. Leading maintainers and leading signalmen.
Secs. 3 and 4.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Co.
Group I
Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II__ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Group I---- Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.
Group I___ Secs. 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II__ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Richmond Terminal Co.
Group I____ Sec. 4. Baggage-room employees (porters and truckers
Rutland Railroad Co.
only).
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II
Group III
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Secs. 3 and 4.
St. Paul Union Depot Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Group II. Sec. 1.
Savannah Union Station Co.
Group I____ Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Group I___
Group II
Southern Pacific Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Sec. 2.
(Pacific System).
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group I
Group II
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Group VII
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Sec. 1. Dining-car, café-car, and business-car chefs, cooks,
waiters, porters, dishwashers, bus boys, police
department employees, red caps, chefs, technical
engineers, and drafting-room employees.
20026°-23-33
508
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Direct Navigation Co.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Co.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co.
Iberia & Vermillion Railroad Co.
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co.
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co.
Group I
(a) Group II_
(a) Group III__
(a) Group VII
Southern Railway Co.
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Sec. 1. Dining-car chefs, second, third, and fourth cooks,
waiters, and pantrymen.
(a-Excluding Direct Navigation Co.)
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Burnside & Cumberland River Railway Co.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co.
New Orleans Terminal Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
(a) Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
(b)
(b)
(b)
Sec. 5. Janitors.
Secs. 7 and 8.
Sec. 9. All common laborers in and around storehouses
and warehouses (except such of these em-
ployees as are covered by other agreements).
Group III- Secs. 3 and 4.
(b) Group VII_. Sec. 1. Porters (except at passenger stations). All
common laborers in and around freight sta-
tions and stock rooms (except such of these
employees as are covered by other agree-
ments).
(a-Excluding St. Johns River Terminal Co.)
(b--Applies to Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Rail-
way Co. only.)
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II__ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
Group III Sec. 3. Signal maintainers.
Sec. 4.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Signal helper apprentices.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and its subsidiaries.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II
Group III
Sec. 1.
Sec. 2. Stationary firemen.
Sec. 3.
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Group I---- Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group III__ Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Group I
Secs. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Group II- Sees. 1, 2, and 3.
DECISIONS.
509
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
(a)-Group II___. Secs. 1 and 2.
(b)-Group II___ Sec. 1.
Group III Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
(a-Excluding Zanesville & Western Railway Co.)
(b-Applies to Zanesville & Western Railway Co.)
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group VII- Sec. 1. Signal repairmen, special agents, and watchmen.
Trans-Mississippi Terminal Railroad Co.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___. Sec. 2. Stationary firemen.
Group VII__ Sec. 1. Policemen, instrument man, and rodman.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railway Co.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Wabash Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II___. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III__. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Group I____. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Group I Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
Group III Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.
Group I____ Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Group II__ Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III
Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
Group VII Sec. 1. Police-department employees, civil engineer, rod-
man, lineman, and draftsmen.
ARTICLE III.-GENERAL APPLICATION.
The general regulations governing the application of this decision
are as follows:
SECTION 1. The provisions of this decision will not apply in cases
where amounts less than $30 per month are paid to individuals for
510
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
special service which takes only a part of their time from outside
employment or business.
SEC. 2. Decreases specified in this decision are to be deducted on
the following basis:
(a) For employees paid by the hour, deduct the hourly decrease
from the hourly rate.
(b) For employees paid by the day, deduct eight times the hourly
decrease from the daily rate.
(c) For employees paid by the month, deduct 204 times the hourly
decrease from the monthly rate.
SEC. 3. The decreases in wages and the rates hereby established
shall be incorporated in and become a part of existing agreements
or schedules, or future negotiated agreements or schedules, and
shall remain in effect until or unless changed in the manner pro-
vided by the transportation act, 1920.
SEC. 4. It is not intended in this decision to include or make de-
creases in wages for any officials of the carriers affected except
that class designated in the transportation act, 1920, as "subordi-
nate officials," and who are included in the act as within the juris-
diction of this board. The act provides that the term "subordi-
nate officials" includes officials of carriers of such class or rank as
the Interstate Commerce Commission shall designate by regulation
duly formulated and issued. Hence, whenever in this decision words.
are used, such as "foremen," "supervisors," etc., which may apply
to officials, such words are intended to apply to only such classes
of subordinate officials as are now or may hereafter be defined and
classified by the Interstate Commerce Commission as "subordinate
officials" within the meaning of the transportation act, 1920.
ARTICLE IV.-INTERPRETATION OF THIS DECISION.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employ-
ces of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision,
which can not be decided in conference between the parties directly
interested, such dispute shall be referred to the United States Rail-
road Labor Board in the manner provided by the transportation act,
1920.
SECTION 1. All such disputes shall be presented in a concrete and
joint signed statement setting forth:
(a) The article of this decision involved.
(b) The facts in the case.
(c) The position of the employees.
(d) The position of the management thereon.
Where supporting documentary evidence is used it shall be attached
to the application for decision in the form of exhibits.
SEC. 2. Such presentations shall be transmitted to the Secretary of
the United States Railroad Labord Board, who shall place same
before the Labor Board for final disposition.
DISSENTING OPINION.
:
The undersigned dissent from the majority decision for the follow-
ing specific reasons:
DECISIONS.
511
1. The bases upon which the decision rests are not in themselves
sufficient to justify the action taken. The Labor Board has gone into
considerations which affect the issues only indirectly, if at all, and
has ventured upon ground which indicates a very free interpretation
of the "other relevant circumstances" provision in the transporta-
tion act. It has considered the effect of its decisions upon wages in
other industries, extending its own "sphere of influence" beyond the
transportation industry. It has taken into consideration that part
of the duties of the Interstate Commerce Commission which has to do
with railway profits and the need for railway expansion. It has con-
sidered the effect of rates charged shippers and then decided what
wages should be paid the railway workers.
2. The reasons offered for the decisions not only go far beyond
the provisions of the transportation act but they also deny the valid-
ity of one of the specific provisions contained in the act. The cost
of living is brushed aside, because the only basis upon which it can
be computed is a more or less hypothetical budget. If the introduc-
tion of external considerations is difficult to justify, then the exclu-
sion of a vital section of the law under which the board operates is a
matter calling for most expert casuistry. The condemnation of the
use of cost-of-living budgets amounts to a rejection of a method
found practical by other governmental agencies, and a fundamental
disagreement with the United States Department of Labor.
3. The wages as now fixed do not insure the continuance of pre-
vious standards of living. The statement that the wages constitute
an improvement over 1917 does not take into account the very low
standards then prevailing, nor the much higher standards of earlier
and later periods. It selects the year which, of all those for which
data is available, puts the workers' standard at the lowest point. The
use of 1917 figures to justify new reductions is neither just nor rea-
sonable.
4. The basing of wages upon rates paid in outside industries, one
of the "relevant circumstances" referred to in the transportation act,
does not provide reason for the reductions made by the board at this
time. In so far as any evidence was introduced into the hearings
upon this point, especially with reference to employees covered in
Group I of Article I, it seemed rather to call for a wage increase than
a decrease.
5. The wages fixed by the majority decision are such as to con-
demn these railway workers to lives of extreme poverty. It is too
much, perhaps, to expect that the full meaning of this action should
be clear to men not in close contact with the workers. It may be
asking too much to urge that human life is in a class by itself, not
to be listed indifferently among the costs of transportation. But
certainly it may be fairly and rightfully expected that the social
cost of poverty is enough to induce a public body to proceed most
cautiously in reducing the standards by which the workers must live.
The wages most recently determined are in some cases less than 50
per cent of the amount needed for a fair standard of living. Main-
tenance and expansion costs of the railways must be paid, and with
the "cordial " and "patriotic" cooperation of the workers; the
"maintenance costs" of the workers are considered theoretical,"
when they are considered at all. Such is the basis for the series of
wage decisions now being made.
66
512
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON PRESENT WAGE DECISION.
Among the relevant circumstances which influenced the majority
in making the reductions now being announced, several seem to merit
comment in this opinion. There can be no question that very great
pressure has been brought to bear upon the Labor Board from dif-
ferent sources, making it difficult to consider the cases upon their
own merits, and in what has been styled an "uncomplicated manner."
The relevant circumstances enumerated under the heading "Gen-
eral observations" include the effect of the action of the board on
other wages and industries, on production generally, and on the re-
lation of railroad wages to the aggregate of transportation costs,
including expansion, together with the cost of railroad transporta-
tion to the entire country. This, as is well said, aids in making the
problem very complex.
Among the relevant circumstances specifically named in the trans-
portation act is "the relation between wages and the cost of living."
Attention should be called to the readiness to go afield under the
broad provision "other relevant circumstances," to justify wage-cut-
ting, and the equally assiduous search for a means of qualifying the
specific cost-of-living provision mentioned. The net effect has been
to interpret out of the law the clause relative to the cost of living,
and to read into the act new bases probably never contemplated by
those responsible for its passage.
In view of the social responsibility of the Railroad Labor Board,
the nature of the circumstances influencing this decision merits spe-
cial consideration. To state that the present decision is based on
the probable effect on other wages and industries can mean nothing
else but that reasons affecting less essential industries have altered
the status of the railway workers. The other reasons offered relate
primarily to the financial status of the roads. The workers are
called upon to cooperate in a cordial spirit in the patriotic task of
providing a surplus for reinvestment in the railways. The recent
decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission was based upon
figures showing railway earnings; the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion is charged with responsibility for regulating railway income.
The single fact that substantial rate reductions were ordered indi-
cates that they are discharging this function and that in their opin-
ion at the present time, at least, the railways are not greatly em-
barrassed by financial considerations.
The lack of any statement which might indicate that human be-
ings are to live narrower lives by virtue of the decision handed down.
is a clear indication that the majority has taken over the typical
employer's approach to the problems of the workingmen. Despite
the magnanimous statement that human labor is not a commodity,
there seems to be very little basis for saying that it has not been so
considered. Lengthy statements dealing with transportation costs,
economic laws, "the vastness of the problem," and " fair opportunity
to profit," can mean but little to the worker faced with the necessity
of providing food and clothing for his family. If American work-
ers are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it
should surely be part of the responsibility of government to patriot-
ically insure that the pursuit shall not be carried on at a hopelessly
DECISIONS.
513
long distance. It is said that "every facility of railway transporta-
tion has been skimped for the last several years," and it should not
be thought facetious to remark here that if the railway workers had
been given the generous consideration accorded those facilities, some-
thing of the skimping going on under thousands of American roofs
might have been eliminated.
Finally, "economic laws" have been offered as a reason for the
decision of the Labor Board. In the natural evolution of industry
the operation of those economic laws has acted to bring into being
organizations of workingmen powerful enough to check the de-
structiveness of the "captains of industry." That power was exer-
cised through the right of the workers to stop working whenever
they desire. The Railroad Labor Board was designed to act as a
substitute for the conflicts which arose under the unregulated opera-
tions of economic laws. Its function is not to free the workers from
economic laws but to so limit the operation of those laws as to
render industrial conflict unnecessary in the securing of just wage
settlements. In promulgating a modified "laissez faire" policy
the majority returns to the era when workers were unorganized and
industry was in chaos. If organized labor has been able to make
substantial progress in the face of "economic laws," then the Rail-
road Labor Board, planned as a substitute for the strike, should
and must function in the direction clearly contemplated by the law,
in establishing and maintaining decent standards of living.
THE MEASURE OF WAGE ADEQUACY.
The discussion of budgets in the majority report questions the
economic soundness of the standard of living proposed by the Rail-
way Employees' Department of the American Federation of Labor.
The budget is called "highly theoretical and of but little value."
No absolute claims have ever been made for standards-of-living
budgets. At best they can be only approximations. In the case of
the employees covered in Group I of Article I, the union concerned
based its argument upon the budget published by the United States
Department of Labor. That budget, while of course theoretical, has
in several cases proven practical enough for other governmental
wage-fixing bodies. It is described by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
as follows:
Finally, after long consideration it was decided to use as a working basis a
budget level which can be best expressed perhaps by the phrase "a standard of
health and decency." The phrase is not entirely precise in meaning. No phrase
of the kind can very well be wholly satisfactory. The budget here suggested
is intended to give the average family, consisting of husband, wife, and three
children below the age of 14 years:
1. A sufficiency of nourishing food for the maintenance of health, particularly
the children's health.
2. Housing in low-rent neighborhoods and within the smallest possible number
of rooms consistent with decency, but with sufficient light, heat, and toilet
facilities for the maintenance of health and decency.
3. The upkeep of household equipment, such as kitchen utensils, bedding, and
linen, necessary for health, but with no provision for the purchase of additional
furniture.
4. Clothing sufficient for warmth of a sufficiently good quality to be econom-
ical, but with no further regard for appearance and style than is necessary to
permit the family members to appear in public and within their rather narrow
social circle without slovenliness or loss of self-respect.
514
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
5. A surplus over the above expenditures which would permit of only a
minimum outlay for such necessary demands as (a) street-car fares to and from
work and necessary rides to stores and market; (b) the keeping up of a
modest amount of insurance; (c) medical and dental care; (d) contributions
to churches and labor or beneficial organizations; (e) simple amusements, such
as the moving pictures once in a while, occasional street-car rides for pleasure,
some Christmas gifts for the children, etc.; and (f) daily newspaper.
It needs to be emphasized that the budget level adopted in the present study
is in no way intended as an ideal budget. It was intended to establish a bottom
level of health and decency below which a family can not go without danger
of physical and moral deterioration. This budget does not include many com-
forts which should be included in a proper "American standard of living."
Thus no provision is directly made for savings other than insurance, nor for
vacations, nor for books and other educational purposes. On the other hand,
a family with the items listed in this budget should be able to maintain itself
in health and modest comfort. It would have a sufficiency of food, respectable
clothing, sanitary housing, and a minimum of the essential sundries.
No wage-fixing body and certainly no governmental wage-fixing
body, could ask for better economic or statistical authority than the
United States Department of Labor.
On the basis of that budget, the cost of living in the United
States to-day is $2,133 per year, as nearly as can be computed.
Under the decision now rendered, the highest-paid employees un-
der Group I of Article II will receive $357 less than that amount.
The lowest paid in the group will receive $1,197 less than enough
to live on the scale outlined by the Department of Labor.
With all due allowance for the fact that the budget is of neces-
sity not as precise as could be desired, it is still the result of careful
study by some of the best trained investigators and sociologists of
the country. There is assuredly a margin of error to be allowed
for; but when a wage rate is fixed at only 44 per cent of the amount
necessary to keep a family in "health and decency," there develops
a radical difference of opinion between the United States Department
of Labor and the majority of the Railroad Labor Board. The
minority sees no other course but the acceptance of the work of the
Department of Labor.
Below is a table showing the amount by which wages of em-
ployees coming under Group I of Article I fall short of the cost of
this American standard of living:
Comparison of earnings before and after wage cut with cost of health and
decency budget in the United States as a whole.


Class of employees.
Clerks (a)
Clerks (b)
Clerks (c).
Mechanical device operators.
Truckers..
Common laborers..
Cost of Annual
health earnings
and before
decency wage
Annual
Annual Annual
deficit
earnings
deficit.
after
after
wage
budget.
wage
cut.
cut.
cut.
$2,133
$1,851
$282
$1,776
$357
2, 133
1,524
609
1, 420
713
2, 133
1,269
864
1, 165
968
2, 133
1,314
819
1,215
918
2, 133
1, 134
999
1,034
2, 133
1,099
1,035
1,098
936
1, 197
The decision rendered would operate to thrust the workers into
deeper poverty, and bring with it an intensification of the ills that
always accompany an inadequate wage.
1
DECISIONS,
515
CHANGES IN PURCHASING POWER OF RAILWAY WAGES.
We must again enter an emphatic protest against the use of the
relation between wages and living costs in December, 1917, as the
basis for the present wage decision. The use of that period is most
unfair, and the decision ignores conclusive evidence of the injustice
of that method of wage determination.
There can be no question as to the nature of wage movements
from 1914 to 1917, and from 1917 to 1921. They followed the same
course as wage movements during preceding business cycles. From
1914 to 1917 the cost of living rose rapidly; wages increased only
slightly. In 1917, as the mid-year of every cycle for which wage
figures are obtainable, wages had fallen far behind living costs.
The wage increases made subsequently compensated the workers in
part for increases in living costs, but gave no consideration to the
great losses in purchasing power suffered during 1914 to 1917.
"
The year 1917 saw the standards of living of the railway work-
ers at the lowest point ever reached. The decision of the majority
states that the wage now being established is "just and reasonable
because it does not quite throw the employees back to the utterly in-
defensible standard of that year. The absolute minimum of fair-
ness would prescribe 1914 or 1915 as the basis for wage fixing. The
selection of the very date when the workers were at the lowest depth
to which they had ever been forced was a most remarkable co-
incidence.
An attempt to explain this coincidence is made in the phrase "just
prior to governmental control of the carriers." The railroads were
in operation, the workers were employed upon them, wages were
being paid, food was being bought, and labor controversies had been
carried on before governmental "control of the carriers." Govern-
mental control, in so far as it affected the matters now under con-
sideration, was unique only in that it introduced a sense of social
responsibility for the condition of the workers. That condition is
the only factor that has changed with the end of governmental con-
trol of the roads, in so far as this decision is concerned.
THE WAGE SITUATION 1915-1917.
In 1914 the average earnings of clerks employed on the railroads
of the United States were $865. In 1917 the average earnings had
increased to $931, 12.5 per cent more than the wage received in 1914.
During that same period the cost of living in the United States had
increased 38.3 per cent; the standard of living of the clerks had
fallen 19 per cent. The railway clerks had never lived on so meager
a scale as was made necessary by the wages paid during 1917.
From 1917 on wages increased more rapidly; in 1920 they were
nearly as high in terms of the cost of living as they had been in
1914. The first half of 1921 was the only period when the railway
clerks were able to maintain as high a standard of living as they
had in the period from 1895 to 1900. During the second half of
1921 another setback was administered to these workers; the pur-
chasing power of their wages became only 87.9 per cent of the 1914
purchasing power.
516
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The decision now rendered takes away 7 per cent of the wages
of the clerks, and reduces them to a standard 12 per cent below that
of 1914.
The following table shows the changes in annual earnings, cost of
living, and purchasing power of wages for the railway clerks:
Comparison of retail prices of food and wages of railway clerks, 1914-1921,
showing changes in standard of living.

1914.
1915.
1916..
1917.
•
1918
1919
1920...
1921 (December).
Year.
Wage
Cost-of- Standard-
index.
living
of-living
index.
index.
$100.0
$100.0
$100.0
94.6
102.0
92.7
100.2
114.8
87.3
112.5
138.3
81.4
147.8
169.3
87.3
154.9
182.1
85.1
181.1
199. 1
90.0
148.8
169.3
87.9
WAGES IN OUTSIDE INDUSTRIES.
In this decision, as in the preceding ones, the Labor Board an-
nounces that "in its opinion" wages are still above those paid in
outside industries. This statement, in particular, seems not to be
based upon a consideration of the evidence before the board.
No evidence was introduced to show that the wages of clerks in
outside industries were lower than those of railway clerks. The
carriers stated specifically that because of the difficulty of compar-
ing railway clerks with those outside the transportation industry, no
such comparison was being made.
The representative of the western carriers stated in his submission:
It is not possible in many cases to make comparison between the office forces
on the railroad and the office forces in outside industry.
Later on the statement was repeated:
We did not make a recapitulation of rates for clerks. We attempted to,
but we found there was such a variety of rates for this class on both the rail-
roads and the industries, and also such a variety in the industrial length of
day and overtime provisions that it was impracticable to summarize the infor-
mation, as it would be so voluminous as to be practically a rewrite of
Form 2.
In this connection you will recall that our brief covering clerks called atten-
tion to the great variety of rates for clerks and office employees and pointed
out that it was not possible to make definite comparisons as between the
office employees of a localized industry and the work performed by railroad
employees in the different units of an extensive basic industry.
The representative of the eastern carriers, in his submission, made
this statement:
It has been found to be extremely difficult to make direct comparisons
between the duties of these classes of employees upon the railroads and those
in the other industries. For the supervisory and chief clerks, even on the
railroads, there are rather pronounced dissimilar conditions attaching to the
various individual positions; that being the case on the railroads, it must be
obvious that it is still more difficult to make direct comparisons with similar
positions in the industries. We have, however, submitted such information as
we have been able to obtain for such use as the board may be able to make of it.
DECISIONS.
517
The closest comparison that can be made is in the case of govern-
mental clerks. Those clerks are receiving from 8 to 46 per cent more
than railway clerks for similar work. The only other evidence sub-
mitted was in an exhibit filed by the carriers, which showed that the
wage of clerks in outside industries had been reduced on the average
of 5.8 per cent, as compared with the 12 per cent reduction in the
rates paid railway clerks as authorized by Decision No. 147 of the
Labor Board.
In the case of the railway truckers, the evidence introduced by
the carriers was shown to be entirely untrustworthy. Its collection,
compilation, and presentation were proven to be equally inaccurate
and misrepresentative. Very little evidence on the wages of com-
mon labor, comparable to station and warehouse labor, was intro-
duced. That evidence was so scattering and so slight as to be
valueless.
The information on wages in outside industries, in so far as it
concerned the clerks, proved only that the railway clerks are paid
less than employees elsewhere for similar work. With respect to
truckers and common labor, no foundation was laid upon which
the opinion could have fairly rested. Even if it were the purpose
of the board to decide closely on the rate paid in outside industries,
there must have remained grave doubt on the question of whether
railway employees were better paid than those in outside industries.
But it is the announced purpose of the Labor Board to avoid
close following of outside wages. The majority has said:
The board is not in sympathy with the idea that a governmental tribunal,
empowered to fix a just and reasonable wage for men engaged in serving the
public in the transportation industry, should be controlled by the one considera-
tion of the low wages that may be paid to other labor in a period of temporary
depression and unemployment.
With that intention avowed and the evidence presented, it is
difficult to reconcile the "opinion" and action of the board with its
statement that the conclusions are "just and reasonable under the
law and the evidence."
CHANGES IN PURCHASING POWER OF SIGNALMEN'S WAGES.
In the case of the railroad signalmen, as in the case of other
classes of railroad workers, the use of the purchasing power of
wages received in 1917 as the basis for the present wage decision
is unjust.
The purchasing power of the annual income of the signalmen
was at its lowest in 1917. The purchasing power of the wages paid
to signalmen and signal maintainers at that time was 19 per cent
below the 1914 level. During the same period the wages of helpers
fell 13 per cent in purchasing power. The facts are the same in
the case of other workers covered in that section of the decision.
Although their income increased in dollars between 1914 and 1917,
it fell to a very great extent in purchasing power, reaching its lowest
level in 1917.
During 1917 the annual wages were not only the lowest in pur-
chasing power but were also far below the amount necessary to live
on what the United States Department of Labor describes as "the
minimum level of health and decency."
518
DECISIONS UNITED STATES. LABOR BOARD.
In 1914 the cost of living on this prescribed basis was $1,316.85
for the country as a whole. The wages of gang foremen, leading
signalmen, and leading signal maintainers were $356 less than this
living-wage level. Wages of signalmen and signal maintainers were
$476 below this level, and the wages of helpers fell $716 short of
reaching this living-wage level.
The wages of all these groups failed to increase as fast as the
cost of living, with the result that in 1917 the signal department
workers were very far below the living-wage standard set up by the
United States Government. During this period, the wages of gang
foremen, leading signalmen, and leading signal maintainers were
$740 below this "health and decency" level. This amount is over
twice the difference that existed in 1914. The deficit in the wages
of signalmen and signal maintainers had increased to $860, or ap-
proximately 45 per cent of the cost of living. The helpers fared the
same. They were over $1,100 below the living-wage standard in
1917. In 1921 this condition was altered slightly, the wages being
closer to the minimum health and decency standard. The follow-
ing table indicates the amount that the workmen of the signal de-
partment fell below the minimum standard of living in 1914, 1917,
and 1921, and the amount they will fall below under the present wage
decision:
Wages of signalmen and helpers in 1914, 1917, December, 1921, and under the
new decision, with the purchasing power expressed in terms of the 1914
wage.
1914..
1917..
December, 1921
July, 1922...
Date.
Signalmen and signal
maintainers.
Helpers.

Yearly
wages.
Purchas-
ing power
of wages.
Yearly
wages.
Purchas-
ing power
of wages.
$840
$840
$600
$600
960
694
720
521
1,650
975
1,080
638
1,541
951
957
591
These facts indicate conclusively that 1917 could not have been
fairly used as a base for a wage determination. Not only was the
purchasing power of the workers the lowest during this period, but
they were very far below the minimum health and decency standard
of living. It is necessary to note that we are not setting up the year
1914 as the ideal one to use as a base in determining wages for sig-
nalmen. That year is used merely to show that in the disparity that
existed between the cost of living and wages, 1917 was abnormal
and no proper basis for a wage determination.
WAGES OF SIGNALMEN AND COST OF AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING.
Under the decision for signalmen and other employees in the same
group, wages for these workers will be, as with other groups, far
below the amount required for a decent standard of living.
The principal subdivision of this group would receive under the
new rates approximately $1,540 per year, based on their December
earnings. With the cost of living, on the level of the Department
DECISIONS.
519
of Labor budget, amounting to $2,133, the deficit of these workers
is to be nearly $600-38 per cent short of the wage required. In the
case of the helpers, the deficit will amount to $1,177; the wage rate
fixed by the board will provide only 45 per cent of the food, cloth-
ing, and other necessities considered essential in the Department of
Labor budget.
ADEQUACY OF WAGES PAID TO STATIONARY-ENGINE AND BOILER-ROOM
EMPLOYEES.
These employees provide no exception to the general rule that
railway labor is to be paid a wage sufficient to maintain a decent
standard of living. The reductions contained in the decision are
slight, but coming to wage rates already far below the level neces-
sary for a living wage, they aggregate a bad condition.
Under the new rates, stationary engineers fall short by over $300
of the amount required to live on the "health and decency" level in-
dorsed by the United States Department of Labor. Stationary-en-
gine firemen and oilers are to receive a wage of $619 below the cost
of the minimum standard of living. The laborers included in this
group are to receive only $913 per year. The wages of these laborers
will buy for them only 43 per cent of the commodities the Depart-
ment of Labor considers necessary for a "health and decency"
standard of living.
WAGE LOSS.
The following tables show the decrease in the earnings of the
classes of employees covered by this decision as a result of decisions
of the Labor Board affecting rules and wages, also account of the
reductions in force. The information as shown in the different
tables is predicated upon the number of employees of each class em-
ployed at or about the time the decisions became effective (depend-
ing upon available data). This method is adopted in order to avoid
duplication in the consideration of the loss in earnings of the em-
ployees account of reductions in force.
Savings to carriers.

Cause of wage loss.
Clerical and
station forces.
Signal
department
employees.
Stationery
firemen,
oilers, etc.
Total.
Decision No. 147..
Decisions Nos. 630, 707, 725
Loss in earnings account reduction in force....
$56, 789, 890
4,823, 525
24, 336, 317
39, 422, 376
$2, 319, 537
500,000
1,532, 428
4,790, 568
$1,493, 280
100,000
551, 955
$60, 602, 707
5,423, 525
26, 420, 700
44, 212, 944
125,372, 108
9, 142, 533
2, 145, 235
136, 659, 876
Present decision ¹.
Total decrease in earnings of employees..
1 Based on December, 1921, January, 1922, and February, 1922.
The actual wage reductions per annum resulting from the Labor
Board's Decisions Nos. 147, 630, 707, and 725, based on the number
520
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
of employees in the service of the carriers as of December, 1917, fol-
lows:
Savings to carriers.

Cause of wage loss.
Clerical and
station
forces.
Signal
department
employees.
Stationary
firemen and
oilers.
Total.
Decision No. 147 1
This decision 2
$61, 779, 992
40,673, 254
$2,815, 200
2,267, 400
$1,493, 280
$66,088, 472
551, 955
43, 492, 609
Decisions Nos. 630, 707, 725 ³
Total decrease in employees' earnings
account of wage and rules decision.
Reduced pay roll account of reduction in force..
102, 453, 246
5,032, 600
4,823, 525
500,000
2,045, 235
100,000
109, 581, 081
5,423, 525
107, 276, 771
5,582, 600
2, 145, 235
115, 004, 606
39, 422, 376
4,790, 563
44, 212, 944
Total wage loss to these classes of em-
ployees...
146, 699, 147
10,373, 168
2, 145, 235
159, 217, 550
1 Wage Series Report No. 3, December, 1917, basis.
2 Based on number of employees, December, 1917.
› Approximated by board's statistical staff.
As stated in previous decisions the decrease in the pay roll appears
in such strong contrast to the increasing prosperity of the carriers
that it should not be passed without comment. Attention is directed
to pages 40 and 41, Decision No. 1036, wherein this situation is
clearly depicted.
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF LOW WAGES.
These statements with respect to the social effects of low wages
are not exaggerated, nor do they lack the support of those best
qualified to speak authoritatively on crime, child labor, and kindred
problems. The committee on crime of the Chicago City Council
reported in 1915 that:
The pressure of economic conditions has an enormous influence in producing
certain types of crimes. Insanitary housing and working conditions, unem-
ployment and wages inadequate to maintain a human standard of living in-
evitably produce the crushed or distorted bodies and minds from which the
army of crime is recruited. The crime problem is not merely a question of
police and courts; it leads to the broader problems of public sanitation, edu-
cation, home care, a living wage, and industrial democracy.
*
*
The Illinois Health Commission reported in March, 1919, that:
There is a close relation between low family incomes and sickness and
premature death.
Numerous investigations have been made of the
amount of sickness in relation to family income or wages. All of these in-
vestigations have shown that low wages and inadequate incomes are accom-
panied by an excessive amount of sickness.
*** The investigations made for this commission showed that there is
an excessive amount of sickness among the families with the smallest income
relative to the need of incomes to provide the necessaries of life. Among the
wage-earning families best off in this respect disabling sickness occurred in
63.4 per 100; among those less well off, in 73.0 per 100; among those least well
off, in 76.0 per 100.
In pointing out the effects of low wages on mortality rates, Dr.
A. R. Perry, in a study made for the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics in 1919, reported that:
The far greater bulking of tuberculous decedents at the lower end of the
income scale in the 15-44 age group than in the age group 45-64 would seem to
indicate that low income is an antilongevity factor and especially so in con-
nection with tuberculosis.
DECISIONS.
521
Even more significant is the effect of low wages upon children.
Reporting on a study of child labor made in Waltham, Mass., in
1917, the United States Department of Labor states:
*
*
Over one-third of the boys and nearly one-third of the girls gave economic
need as the primary reason for leaving school
*. This showing as to the
large proportion of children who go to work in Waltham because their families
need their earnings agrees with the findings in the Commonwealth at large
and in other communities where child labor has been investigated.
Child delinquency, too, may be directly traced to low family in-
comes. A report by S. Breckenridge and E. Abbott shows the con-
ditions in Chicago:
It may be said again that such data as we have gathered show that the de-
linquent children in our court belong to families in which the struggle to make
both ends meet is acute. A study of the homes and families of these children
shows much more clearly than any tables of statistics how easily poverty in
itself brings the children into court *
* When we see all the wide back-
ground of deprivation in their lives
it is not hard to understand how
the simple fact of being poor is many times a sufficient explanation of delin-
quency.
The greatest test of any civilization is the protection given to chil-
dren and to motherhood. The effect of the all-too-prevalent-poverty
of American workmen upon their wives and children is best proven
by the statistics of infant mortality.
The Children's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor
supplies all the testimony needed as to the effect of low wages upon
the death rate of the workers' children:
Infant mortality rates decreased progressively for the higher-earnings group-
reaching the low point of 59.9 for babies whose fathers comprised the higher-
earnings groups. The lowest-earnings group, comprising over one-fifth of all
births, had an infant mortality of 201.9. In the families of the very poor, 20
babies out of every 100 born alive died before reaching their first birthday. In
the higher-earnings group only 6 out of every 100 babies born alive died under
one year of age.
We have already pointed out, in the dissenting opinions in the
maintenance of way and shop crafts cases, that by any standard ever
set up the wages fixed by the Railroad Labor Board are insufficient;
that is as true of the rates set in the latest decision. The workers
will be forced, in the event that these decisions stand, to exist on a
level even lower than the "slave-owners' standard." When human
beings were considered chattels, they were cared for well enough to
prevent physical deterioration. The food and clothing now allowed
to the workers will not provide enough of the basic necessities of life
to keep up health and strength. The slave owner had an investment,
and his business judgment urged the advisability of preventing its
depreciation. There is no such limit to the employer to-day; now
workers are always available to take the place of those broken by the
combined pressure of overwork and undernourishment. Human de-
preciation does not find its way into the railroad balance sheet.
HUMAN FACTORS IN WAGE DECISIONS.
The vital question in wage determination has again been ignored
in the decisions now rendered. The Railroad Labor Board is not a
profit-regulating body, nor a tariff-fixing body; it has not to deal
with abstract considerations of commodity schedules or the earning
522
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
power of an overcapitalized road. Wage-fixing has to deal with
human values, with the lives of men, women, and children. The
power to set wages is the power to shape the life of the worker
affected.
No other "relevant circumstance" can be greater than this.
Human life must be given precedence over every other consideration.
A body charged by the Government with the responsibility of wage
fixing should have as its primary standard the relation of its action.
to the lives of the workers concerned.
To explain a wage cut on the plea that workers in other, and
unregulated, industries are as poverty stricken, is matched only
by the excuse that at one time in the past the workers concerned
have led a more precarious existence than that now prescribed.
Neither of these reasons can even partially absolve the board for
its failure to consider the living conditions it has set for the railway
employees.
The decision of the Labor Board has not only these human-
itarian aspects; it is not only the demands of justice and humanity,
sufficient though they should be, that condemn the utterly in-
adequate standards set for the workers. If a proper respect for
human life were not in itself enough to motivate the fixing of a
living wage for the railway employees, then, at least, a wise public
policy, based on the measurable effects of poverty, should have
dictated a standard higher than the one established. Some public
officials are passing laws to punish and restrain criminals; other
public officials are fixing wages that must multiply crime. Public
health organizations try to eliminate disease; wage-fixing bodies
lay down living conditions that mean overcrowding, undernourish-
ment, inadequate clothing-breaking down the power of the worker
and his family to resist disease, and inevitably raising the mortality
rate among the thousands of people affected. Clergymen, philan-
thropists, lawmakers, and sociologists work with every means at
hand to lessen child labor; the Railroad Labor Board fixes the wage
of the parents at a point where the children must be taken from
school and must themselves seek employment. One section of society
works through every available agency to remedy social conditions;
another, supposedly responsive to the same influence, compounds
the evils growing out of the poverty of the wage earners.
MAJORITY ADMIT INABILITY TO GIVE JUST WAGE.
As pointed out by President Willard, of the Baltimore & Ohio Rail-
road Co., in the words which we embodied in our previous minority
opinion, the transportation act aimed to substitute for the strike
such just and reasonable wages as would render resort to a strike
unnecessary. If this tribunal, created to determine such wages,
admits that under existing circumstances it can not fulfill this func-
tion, obviously, the employees must use such power as they have
to influence the labor market, which is henceforth to be the deter-
mining factor in their wages. The majority state clearly that:
* * the Labor Board has not been permitted to deal with the question
of what constitutes just and reasonable wages and working conditions in the
same undisturbed and uncomplicated manner as would have been possible in
normal times.
DECISIONS.
523
Such statement is an admission on the part of the majority that
they have been unable to separate themselves from the partisan
struggle long enough to perform the function for which they were
appointed and consequently it tends to absolve the employees from
any limitations which the existence of a judicial board was intended
to impose. As a matter of fact, the Labor Board has had nearly
two years in which to make such studies as we feel to be essential
to the establishment of the just and reasonable wages required
by the transportation act, 1920.
The mere use of such words as "partisan bias," "bluff," "bluster,"
etc., to describe statements to the effect that the merits of the case
were not considered in these decisions does not answer the array of
facts and figures with which such statements were supported.
Let us consider for a moment the grounds which the majority
suggest as having influenced them in arriving at the rates of pay set
forth in these decisions.
The major justification offered for the low rates of pay created
is the fact that:
* our country has entered upon an era of gradually increasing busi-
ness prosperity which will be liberally shared by the carriers. That the carriers
shall have a fair opportunity to profit by the revival of business
*
The paragraph containing this statement will bear careful analysis.
The first implication is that the carriers can not share in the
profits of business revival without a reduction in the wages of their
employees until their purchasing power is on a par with or below
that of the pre-war period. A glance at the recent report of the
Interstate Commerce Commission with reference to reduction of
railroad rates will show clearly the fallacy of this idea. The commis-
sion states:
Under the adverse conditions of 1921 the net railway operating income of
class I carriers of the United States totaled $614,810,531. Based upon the sub-
normal traffic of that year, the wage rates, and the prices of materials and sup-
plies, prevailing at the end of the year, the carriers in their constructive year
estimated an aggregate net railway operating income of $907,693,630; equal
to 4.72 per cent upon the valuation used by us as adjusted by carriers to cover
class I roads only, including additions and betterments since January 1, 1920,
amounting to $778,499,045. Adopting the ratio of net railway operating income
of all carriers to that of class I carriers in 1915 and 1916 as being approximately
correct for 1921, the net railway operating income in the carriers' constructive
year would be for all carriers $923,783,340, or 4.89 per cent upon the valuation.
We do not accept the adjustments made by carriers in their constructive year
as correct or complete. We have indicated that further adjustments are neces-
sary in order better to reflect probable expenditures for Federal income tax,
fuel, and materials and supplies. Reductions in rates will carry with them
reductions in operating expenses of carriers through lessened transportation
charges paid by them on their fuel and materials and supplies. Thus it is esti-
mated that a reduction of 10 per cent in transportation charges on coal would
effect a saving of over $7,000,000 on the amount of coal consumed by class I
carriers in 1921.
The net railway operating income of all carriers has exceeded $900,000,000
in only two years-1916 and 1917. In 1916. the most prosperous year in the
history of the railroads, it aggregated $1,051,543.860, and during the three
years of the test period the average for class I carriers was $906,524,492,
approximately the amount which accrued as annual rental to the carriers
under Federal control.
The figures heretofore given include no estimate for increased traffic over
that of 1921, which clearly was subnormal. We do not anticipate return to the
tonnage of 1920 for some time to come, but there are many indications of
greater tonnage than in 1921. The car-loadings for February and March, 1922,
20936°-23--34
524
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
exceeded those of the corresponding months in 1921 by 11.7 per cent and 19.9
per cent, respectively. During the first three months of 1922 car loadings ex-
ceeded those of the same period of 1921 by 11.9 per cent.
Any additional tonnage realized should be handled under a favorable operat-
ing ratio. It appears that under present rates, and with an increase of 10
per cent or more in traffic over that of 1921, not only would the net railway
operating income of the carriers as a whole for the next 12 months be sub-
stantially in excess of the fair return herein determined, but it would greatly
exceed the corresponding figure for any year in the history of railroad
operation.
The expectation of the commission is being rapidly realized, as is
shown by the report of 201 class I carriers for the first four months
of this year. During the four months the net operating income of
these railroads amounted to $211,278,394 compared with $57,409,900
for the same period of 1921. In other words, net earnings are
to-day running at a rate nearly four times the rate in 1921. In spite
of the continued coal strike the increase in traffic is being steadily
maintained. The most recent report of freight-car loading received
from Washington by the Railway Age reads as follows:
The number of cars loaded with revenue freight showed another large
increase during the week of May 27 to a total of 801,121, as compared with
795,335 in the corresponding week of last year and 898,169 in 1920. This was
an increase of 28,000 in a week. With a normal coal movement the total
would have been greater than that for 1920.
Clearly any increase in business such as is indicated will mean far
larger profits to the carriers than they have ever enjoyed in the past.
It is evident then that the majority must have taken over the idea
from railroad propaganda that the carriers were in desperate need of
profits, and this propaganda has been demonstrated in numerous
instances to be not in accord with the facts.
The second implication of the above-noted assertion is that this
necessity of the carriers for profits constitutes a just ground under
the transportation act for a reduction in wages. This would clearly
make of the transportation act an iniquitous measure. That it was
completely contrary to the purpose of the congressional framers of
the act appears from testimony submitted to the board as to the
attitude of Chairman Cummins of the Senate Committee on Inter-
state Commerce. He said:
The view that the Labor Board, I suppose, takes at least, it ought to be
the view they take-is that wages of the men who are employed in a service
of that kind ought not to depend upon the profits of the enterprise in which
they are engaged. In other words, men are entitled to fair wages, no matter
whether the enterprise is profitable or not. (Hearings, pp. 1527–1528.)
The third implication in this paragraph is that the railroads have
not been maintained during the abnormal years in such shape as to
be able to meet the demands of increasing business. This would seem
to indicate that the majority have drawn their opinions from the
press statements of the railroads rather than from such authoritative
utterances as those of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the
former director general.
The Interstate Commerce Commission rejected this contention of
the carriers as unproved. The following quotation illustrates their
weighing of evidence:
In-
The carriers generally seem to have taken the fact of under-maintenance
during 1921 for granted rather than to have undertaken to prove it.
dividual carriers have proved its existence in their own properties. Main-
DECISIONS.
525
tenance charges of class I roads aggregated $2,017,700,867 in 1921 more than
in any preceding year except 1920, when the total was $2,623,985,448. The
decrease of 1921 under 1920 was $606,248,581, or 23.1 per cent. The volume of
traffic in 1921, as measured by ton-miles, was about 25 per cent less than in 1920,
Unusual features in the operations of 1920 make that year unreliable as a
measure of what the annual outlay for maintenance should be. It was a period
of peak prices, when the greatest ton-mileage and passenger-mileage in the
history of the railroads moved under most adverse conditions. Moreover, labor
and material costs were lower in 1921 than in 1920. In relation to total op-
erating expenses, maintenance charges in 1921 were almost the same as in
1920, the percentages being 43.6 and 44.1, respectively.
The record does not disclose whether the actual quantities of material ap-
plied were as great in 1921 as in previous years. It does not appear that,
taking the country as a whole, such applications in 1921 compare unfavorably
with those of 1920, or of the test period. Returns from carriers representing
more than half of the tie and rail applications for 1920 indicate that their
1921 applications are within 1 per cent of those of 1920, the East and South
being greater than in 1920, and the West being less. In a year in which the
movement of traffic is light, somewhat less maintenance is required than in
years of heavy traffic, although it would be in the public interest if surplus
from prosperous years were expended on maintenance in years of light traffic.
When we consider the conditions which prevailed during 1921, the carriers'
contention that current maintenance was deferred may have basis, but they
have not supported their contention with such facts of record as would warrant
us in making a definite finding of to the extent to which it was deferred.
Carriers could not and did not escape the compelling influences which affected
other forms of industry during that lean year. The number of their employees
was reduced by a fifth, sometimes more; outgo was pared and upkeep skimped
where possible; the bad-order figures cover an increasing number of cars
requiring heavy repairs, as well as the obsolete and obsolescent, which were not
being replaced to the requisite extent; and, in brief, we are left with the
abiding, if composite, impression that, on the whole, the railway plant of the
country was not at the end of 1921, and is not now, in as good condition as it
should be, and is far from ready to meet the demands which will come with
resumption of general business activity. There are, of course, some notable
exceptions.
Speaking of the period immediately preceding 1921, former Di-
rector General Hines said:
Now I want to turn to the much-discussed matter of alleged underma inte-
nance of properties. An extraordinary fiction has been developed that the rail-
roads were turned back by the Government to the railroad companies in a
broken-down condition.
This is an extraordinary distortion of the real situation. If it had been
the case, I take it the first men who would have fully appreciated it would
have been the regional directors. They were practical men with long railroad
experience, and honestly interested in the properties, right on the point of
going back to their companies, and it would be impossible, if it had been a fact
that the railroads were in a broken-down condition, that the regional directors
would not have commented on the fact in their utterances and in their annual
reports.
But their reports will be searched in vain for any statement of such a con-
dition. They show a generally satisfactory maintenance of the properties, ex-
cept they point out as to some of the roads there were some shortages of ties,
rails, and ballast. But the reports are such that they show a satisfactory con-
dition, and they deal with the matter in a perfectly matter-of-course way
* (Senate Committee in Interstate Commerce Commission record,
p. 1616.)
#
Mr. Hines then proceeds to quote from such executives as Vice
President Hardin, of the New York Central Railroad Co., and
former Regional Director Aishton, of the northwestern region, who
is at present president of the American Railway Association. He
quotes Mr. Aishton as follows:
526
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
•
Maintenance of properties has been watched very closely, and the same
policies as were practiced prior to Federal control were continued, resulting
in the maintenance of properties in about the same condition as they were
maintained by the railroads. (Ibid., record, p. 1617.)
.Mr. Hines also quotes Mr. Hale Holden, president of the Chicago,
Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., and Regional Director Bush, of
the southwestern region, to the same effect.
Mr. Hines then shows by quotations from President Rea, of the
Pennsylvania System, and President Gray, of the Union Pacific
System, that as a matter of fact the railroads were in bad condition
prior to Federal control and that the succeeding years were years
of actual improvement.
The fact that such evidence has been in existence for nearly six
months now would seem to indicate that the majority have based
their assertions on the propaganda of the railroads rather than on
the statements of these competent railroad executives and of the
Interstate Commerce Commission, which has probably made the
most exhaustive study to see whether these charges of undermainte-
nance could be maintained.
MAJORITY ATTEMPT TO AVOID IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR DECISION.
As a matter of fact, the correctness or incorrectness of the deduc-
tion of the majority as to the present condition of the carriers or as
their crying need for profits is unimportant because the whole mat-
ter is irrelevant to the consideration of just and reasonable human
standards, which, according to Senator Cummins, is the special func-
tion of the Labor Board.
The majority attempt to avoid the implication of their announced
basic consideration by the further comment:
This statement, in the connection used, must not be misunderstood to mean
that the employees should be called upon to bear the cost of railway rehabilita-
tion, etc.
But they can not so easily avoid the clear results of their decision.
The employees will look to the substantive part rather than to the
covering words. In order to harmonize the statement just quoted
with the rates of pay which will result from these decisions, the
majority are forced to add a hasty qualification which amounts to
a contradiction of the assertion. It is to the effect that the railway
employees must "bear and forbear, until the carriers are back on
their feet."
Interpreted in terms of rates of pay awarded, this can mean
nothing unless it means that railway employees must bear unjust
wages until the carriers are willing to admit they have secured the
rehabilitation which they demanded.
The meaning of the majority is clarified by the statement which
follows:
When this accomplishment (the rehabilitation of the carrier) is safely under
way, it will then be possible for the Railroad Labor Board to give increased
consideration to all the intricate details incident to the scientific adjustment
of the living and saving wage
The employees may well consider this an ultimatum to the effect
that justice to them and their families, a real consideration of their
human needs, must await complete satisfaction to ownership. In
DECISIONS.
527
their assertion the majority admit all that we have pointed out in
our former opinions; they admit that they have not considered the
matter on its merits, but have been driven along by the necessities
of the carriers. And they have taken as the measure of those
necessities not a balanced view of the evidence offered by the parties
to the case but the extreme statements of one party in its propa-
ganda.
At least the vagueness is cleared. The public and the employees
know that a full consideration of the merits of the case from the
employees' standpoint must await the prior claim of increased profits.
demanded by the railroad owners.
With the text of the act before us, interpreted by its author,
Senator Cummins, entirely aside from our connection with one
party to the case, we can not assent to such a miscarriage of justice
under the law.
LABOR AS A COMMODITY.
The majority see clearly the implication of their decision in an-
other direction and attempt to meet criticism there too. Anyone
viewing the rates of pay established for the great army of labor
knows that such rates are practically the same as those paid in in-
dustries where labor is treated as a commodity. So the majority
hasten to assert that "the Labor Board has never adopted the theory
that human labor is a commodity.'
""
The majority, however, in the next sentence admit the influence
of the market value of labor upon its decision by the statement that:
It is idle to contend that labor can be completely freed from the economic
laws which likewise affect the earnings of capital.
This, in the opinion of the minority, is a very important qualifica-
tion, for, in the first place, it places the livelihood of human families,
the provisions for children who will form the coming generation, in
the same impersonal category as profits. And, in the second place, it
immediately sweeps away all the sentiment about identity of interest
between employers and employees. This, the decision does, not only
here, but throughout its entire text.
In other words, the employee will ask "What is it that is pre-
venting me from receiving enough to support my family in decency?"
He will look to the decision and answer "Profits the need of the
railroad for profits." The economic laws which the majority feel to
be so unchangeable are neither God-given nor man-made. They are
simply a description of the way in which business and industry have
worked to date, and they have worked out very badly for human
life. The results appear in the high infant mortality rates in the
majority of centers of industry. Mortality rates rise to shocking
heights where families have the lowest incomes.
Frank A. Vanderlip, director in a score of financial and indus-
trial corporations of the first magnitude, has forcibly described the
long-time effects of such a policy in his book entitled "What Hap-
pened to Europe." He says:
On the whole the forces tending to keep down wages proved, for 20 years
prior to the war, almost as strong as the forces tending to raise them, and
the result has been during that period that with a somewhat increasing cest
of living the standard of living of the laborer has certainly not much advanced,
528
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and I believe on the whole has retrograded. Whatever the statistics of index
numbers may show, at least two great broad facts are evident. One of these
is the deterioration in physique. *
*
A visit to the mill towns of the cotton-spinning districts, for example, shows
almost another race of people compared to the well-fed Englishmen we know
in London, a race undersized, underfed, underdeveloped, and undereducated.
Lloyd George's famous utterance that you could not build an A-1 nation out
of a C-3 population has sunk deep into the English mind. The statistics of
physique which the military annals produce show that one-third of the male
population of fighting age was unfit for military effort.
**
The other great outstanding fact indicating in British industry a wage scale
insufficient for what is regarded as a minimum standard of living is found in
the great national housing problem. The brutal truth is that England's labor
has been so underpaid during the last generation that it has been unable to
keep a roof over its head, and to-day there is urgent need for homes for a
million workingmen's families.
It is admitted on every hand that the deterioration and crowding in houses has
gone to a shocking point-has gone so far that nothing short of national aid can
rescue English labor from an intolerable position. * * *
In order successfully to compete in neutral markets British industry has
made a red-ink overdraft on the future, an overdraft on the physique of her
citizens, an overdraft that has consumed her house facilities; that overdraft
must now be made good at the expense of the nation (pp. 34-36).
These so-called economic laws create a situation in which the low-
est wages for which the requisite skill and industry can be bought
are considered good for capital and bad for labor. Hence, the
struggle, which the majority decries, has been a mere expression of
the so-called economic law, and it will continue unless adjudication
by a scientific tribunal can adopt methods which will amount to
establishing new laws. These new laws must mean a response to
something other than manipulation by interests with varying
degrees of control in the market.
LABOR EMPLOYED BY CONTRACTORS CITED.
In order to prove that the rates of pay established by these deci-
sions were not fixed on the commodity basis, the board refers to the
fact that the carriers were able to contract for work at much lower
rates of pay than those established under Decision No. 147.
In making this statement the majority failed to inform the public
that the so-called contractors simply took over the management of
the carriers' property, on a cost-plus basis; that the employees of
the carriers became the employees of the so-called contractor; that
the employees believed these carriers had violated the provisions of
their agreement, the decisions and rules of procedure of the Labor
Board, and the provisions of the transportation act, 1920; that they
would obey the law, submit the dispute to the board, and pending a
decision they would remain at work under protest; that these dis-
putes were properly before the board long before the carriers pre-
sented their request for wage reductions; that these important cases,
with their prior claim, are still pending, excepting only the Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad, affecting the least number of men involved
in any of the contract " disputes; that failing to get a decision on
these important questions, the employees finally decided to change
their procedure in the case of the Western Maryland Railway Co.,
and when this carrier attempted to transfer its shops and other
equipment over to an alleged contractor, discharging practically all
DECISIONS.
529
of the shop, maintenance of way, signal department, and stationary
engine forces, these employees notified the Labor Board of the car-
rier's action and of their intention to declare a strike, which strike
is now in progress; and that subsequently, the Missouri, Kansas &
Texas Railroad decided to contract out certain of its car shops and
discharged several hundred employees. These employees also sub-
mitted this dispute to the board, which for the first time assumed
jurisdiction and restored the conditions as of a date prior to the
alleged contract.
Throughout the long period of propaganda the railroads have
constantly used the equipment companies and the subcontracted
work as evidence that the Railroad Labor Board was maintaining
unnecessarily high rates of pay for railroad employees. This con-
tracting of work was used not only to induce a public opinion which
would coerce the board, but also as direct pressure on the board.
The following quotation from the recent submission of the Buffalo
& Susquehanna Railroad shows clearly this attitude:
The Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad really expects your board to put into
effect the rates proposed by it and your failure to do so can have only one
of two results-the sending away of the work to other shops where cheaper
labor is employed, or in leasing the shops to outside parties with the require-
ment that the total cost including overhead will not be more than the wages
as proposed by the railroad. Therefore, an adverse decision of the United
States Railroad Labor Board can have one of two effects-that of either throw-
ing these employees totally out of work, or reducing their wages from 10 per
cent to 30 per cent more than is proposed by the railroad in order to absorb
the overhead.
It should be gratifying to the carriers to find out that the Railroad
Labor Board has given their propaganda an authoritative note in
this matter.
Investigations conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission
showed clearly that the lower wages paid by the contracting con-
cerns did not mean lower, but instead much higher costs.
CARRIERS TO BE PERMITTED TO ADJUST RATES.
In the next paragraph the majority give the carriers specific per-
mission to adjust rates, as follows:
In this connection it must be remembered that the carriers are at liberty to
pay any class of employees a higher wage than that fixed by this board, when-
ever the so-called labor market compels, provided, as the act states, that such
wage does not result in increased rates to the public.
Do the majority realize the nature of the principle of wage pay-
ment contained in that statement? It is that employees are to look
for improvement of their wages to the compulsion of the labor mar-
ket, and that such adjustment upward may be made by the carrier
independently of the board, provided the carrier does not transmit
such upward revision of rates to the public in increased rates of pay.
The orderly structure brought out of the chaos of railroad wage
payment which existed before the war is to be abolished when and
where the carriers choose. As we enter the period of rising business
prosperity we may expect to see carriers which tend to earn a large
profit, making wage adjustment upward, while the wages on other
lines remain stationary.
530
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
One result will be a steady increase in labor turnover. Labor
turnover is a very expensive matter. The cost of hiring a new
mechanic is variously estimated from $50 to $300. The experience
of every country during the war demonstrated the economy of energy
and money involved in standardizing wages for all employees com-
ing under the same general classification. Bidding for men by em-
ployers creates a labor force which is constantly shifting after slight
increases. In the long run this represents a very poor use of man
power and should be discouraged.
DECISION ENCOURAGES STOPPAGES WHICH THE LAW IS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT.
Employees will also take this as a permission to go out and get
such wages as they can command. If they feel that they can com-
mand higher wages by withholding their services, either separately
or in numbers, that will not be a strike against the order of the
board, it will merely be the carrying out of the board's suggestion
as to the method of wage adjustment about to come.
But the real conclusion from this statement, coming at the be-
ginning of a new period of prosperity, will naturally be that the
carriers had the Labor Board created to regulate labor during the
critical period just coming to an end. Under its cover they were
able to carry through a program which would have been impossible
without the practical prohibition of striking. Whenever the board
decided in favor of the employees, the roads either defied the board
or found some method of evasion.
66
MAJORITY SHY AT BUDGETS.
The majority agree with the representatives of the carriers in
considering much that is said about living standards as being
highly theoretical and of but little value." They do not point out,
however, why these budgetary studies, which express various levels
of wages in quantitative terms, are more theoretical than money
wages, the inability of which to supply a family fluctuates and does
not appear on the surface. To the employee a money wage is
theoretical; what he can buy in the way of goods is concrete and real.
It is a simple matter to take the current price of various com-
modities and from these determine just how much of each can be
bought with a given hundred dollars. Surely to say, "Now these
men will have so many dollars per month to spend," and then to
ask, “How much can they get for them at current prices?" does not
sound theoretical to the untutored mind. The theory must come in
when men try to decide what families can get along without.
Budgets are not theoretical; it is the point of view of the men
who call them so toward the livelihood of others that is theoretical.
They can not envisage the spending of such low earnings ai. SO
they dismiss the spending side as theoretical. We, the minority,
agree that these budgets are in a sense theoretical, because they
'proceed in a negative fashion. The majority of them aim to show
what is the least that men can get along on, what they can do with-
out.
DECISIONS.
531
This is the basis of the National Industrial Conference Board
budgets which carefully eliminate all but the coarsest, simplest foods,
which reduce clothing to the limits of the law, and which are
throughout planned to show how low are the earnings on which a
man may survive.
In a democracy such budget making is theoretical. It is therefore
interesting to find the majority, which have established rates of pay
for hundreds of thousands of men averaging about two-thirds of
these lowest budgets, choosing as a basis for demonstrating the
theoretical nature of budgets, that presented by the Railway Em-
ployees' Department, which shows a need almost twice as great per
family as that shown by the Conference Board of Manufacturers.
Presumably, if the various persons who term such budgets theoretical
were forced to live on one of the two they would consider the prop-
osition that they live on the Railway Employees' Department budget
far less theoretical of the two. The section man may with justice
contend that the Labor Board has forced him to live on a theoretical
budget. A practical minimum budget would call for at least 50 cents
per hour.
The majority have not met the challenge of these budgets by point-
ing out the goods which must be cut out to make them "practical."
As a matter of fact the majority have said nothing about the
Railway Employees' Department budget that the representatives
of the employees were not careful to point out themselves. They
pointed out that the budget was not a minimum subsistence budget,
claiming that the families of skilled mechanics should not be re-
quired to meet a minimum set at the subsistence level. They de-
voted pages of argument to demonstrate that the productive effort
of the country did not to-day prove sufficient to meet the demand
which would arise if such a wage were made general among all
families. But they also showed clearly why this was the case and
pointed to the fact that a redirection of the country's energy away
from the waste of commercial militarism toward producing to meet
the need of the population would automatically make good the
present deficit in income.
They submitted much evidence tending to show that the present
inability of the country to provide adequately for its citizens was
due to the very attitude which expresses itself in the present series
of decisions, the attitude which places profits before the sustenance
of human life. This policy requires ever lower standards in order
to enable capital to secure an ever larger share. It mortgages the
wage earner to all eternity. And the result is a steady decrease in
the production of national income for division.
The paragraph following this blanket criticism of budgets points
clearly to the social theory underlying this whole decision. It recom-
mends a life of Spartan severity to the drudges of society in order
that business may have its satisfactions. It lays a criticism on lal or
which is as unjust as it is insulting. The majority say:
that one of the principal troubles with this country to-day is the
abandonment of the old-fashioned ideas of thrift and economy and the indul-
gence of wastefulness and extravagance.
These loose habits of living were acquired during the inflated period en-
gendered by the war and, like many other ills of similar origin, are slow to
depart. Increased expenses do not always mean a higher standard of living
nor do diminished expenses necessarily mean a lower standard of living.
532
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Is this the apology of the majority for decisions which in im-
portant instances mean lower purchasing power? Give up your
loose living, they say, and you will be able with a lower purchasing
power to maintain the same standard.
""
to
In order to avoid the charge that we are indulging in "bluff'
and "bluster," we will allow the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
one of the great owners of railway securities in the country,
answer this accusation in its Statistical Bulletin for November 1920.
It said:
In our bulletin for May, we commented upon the effect of the high cost of
living upon the public health. We observed that, although increasing wages
had not quite kept pace with increased prices of essential commodities, the
On the
health of the industrial population had not been adversely affected.
contrary, the low levels attained by the death rates for tuberculosis, pellagra,
and other diseases which are indices of the material welfare of the population,
showed that wage workers were better off than at any time in the history of
public health in the United States and Canada. The explanation of this anomaly
can be found, we believe, in the absence of unemployment during the period
of mounting prices. Wage earners, during this time, were always certain of a
full pay envelope each week. This gain was apparently more than enough to
offset the disparity between prices and wages.
""
จ
Despite popular misconception that wage earners spent their higher income
in wasteful ways, the real evidence is that much of the increased income was
Depart-
expended wisely in securing a more wholesome home environment.
ment-store records show that wage earners bought heavily such useful goods
as furniture, bedding, carpets, and other lines of household equipment. Both
industrial and ordinary insurance companies report unprecedented scales of
"industrial
higher-priced plans of insurance to wage earners. The
or weekly
ordinary
premium applicant became a candidate for "intermediate" and "
insurance. Savings banks reported record-breaking deposits from this group
of the population. Lodges and other fraternal associations gained largely in
membership. Vacation resorts gave testimony that the wage earner took ad-
vantage of his increased earnings to provide healthful outdoor recreation for
his family. Skilled medical and nursing care became available to many persons
who heretofore relied upon free clinic and hospital facilities. All these factors
helped to lower the death rate of the industrial population of the United States
and Canada.
This contradicts the opinion of the majority at every point. It
shows that the higher earnings consequent upon steady employment
were not spent in extravagance but rather in life-sustaining channels.
The lowered death rate is directly attributed to this fact. It shows
that thrift did not diminish, but increased. Increased saving-bank
deposits and life-insurance policies demonstrate that fact.
The majority of the board are, then, in a thoroughly insecure
position, when they must depend for justification of their decisions
upon principles which either contradict the clear purpose of the
act under which the Labor Board is created or upon misinterpre-
tation of fact. It is the opinion of the minority that such pitfalls
could be avoided by a clear, sincere attempt to approach the problem
of wages from the point of view of the humble worker who must
spend his wages to support his family. Wage adjustment will be
theoretical until statesmen appear with enough human sympathy
to place themselves in the other fellow's position.
A. O. WHARTON.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
SUPPORTING OPINION OF THE MAJORITY.
It is not incumbent upon the six members of the board concur-
ring in this decision to follow the minority into a partisan contro-
DECISIONS,
533
versy which partakes more of the characteristics of impassioned ad-
vocacy than of calm adjudication.
INCENDIARISM.
In so far as the dissenting opinion distorts the sentiments of the
majority, misquotes their language and reflects upon their desire.
and disposition to do justice, we will refrain from comment. We
prefer to believe that these improprieties crept into that part of
the document which was drafted by the employees in the head-
quarters of the Railway Employees' Department of the American
Federation of Labor, and that they were overlooked by the dis-
senting members. As an example of the looseness with which the
statements of the decision were handled in the dissenting opinion,
reference might be made to the following quotation from the dissent:
In this decision, as in the preceding ones, the Labor Board announces that
"in its opinion wages are still above those paid in outside industries.
As a matter of fact, the statement in question is not contained.
in this decision.
""
There is one feature of the dissenting argument, however, which
is so unusual that it should not be passed over without notice, and
that is the portion wherein the two dissenting members advise the
employees to strike against the decision of the board.
It is quite natural for the representatives of labor on the board
to resist all reductions in wages. This course is in harmony with
the policy of the organizations, and it was pursued in connection.
with the reductions in the year 1921 as well as those of the present
year.
It is something new, however, for labor members of the board
to issue incendiary arguments to employees in favor of striking
against a decision of the board. The giving of advice of this kind
has heretofore been left to outsiders, who were not under the of-
ficial obligations imposed by the transportation act, the main purpose
of which is to prevent railway strikes and protect the public from
their dire effects.
One of the passages referred to is as follows:
*
the transportation act aimed to substitute for the strike such just
and reasonable wages as would render resort to a strike unnecessary. If this
tribunal, created to determine such wages, admits that under existing circum-
stances it can not fulfill this function, obviously the employees must use such
power as they have to influence the labor market, which is henceforth to be
the determining factor in their wages.
That is to say, if the board makes such admission, the employees
must strike.
Then the dissenting members proceed to remove the "if" and to
assert that the board has made the admission which renders a strike
necessary. After quoting a statement from the decision of the ma-
jority, which was separated from the context for the purpose, the
dissenting opinion proceeds as follows:
Such statement is an admission on the part of the majority that they have
been unable to separate themselves from the partisan struggle long enough to
perform the functions for which they were appointed and consequently it tends
to absolve the employees from any limitations which the existence of a judicial
board was intended to impose.
534
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Not only do the minority step down from the judicial position,
which they occupy, to advise a strike, but they obviously distort
and misconstrue the language of the majority in order to provide
the condition which they pronounce a justification.
This is not the only place in the dissenting opinion where the
suggestion is made to the employees to strike.
NO INJUSTICE TO EMPLOYEES.
As a matter of fact, the entire dissenting opinion constitutes a
strained and exaggerated effort to inflame the employees by the belief
that they have been grossly outraged by this decision.
A fair statement of the facts will convince any disinterested man
that no injustice has been done to these employees by the present
decision, and that the decrease in their wages is conservative and is
based upon the law and the evidence.
THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES:
In the decision the majority quoted from Decision No. 2 what the
board there said in regard to the "relevant circumstances" referred
to in the transportation act. No detailed comment was made on the
quoted matter. The minority in their dissent savagely attack the
statements so quoted from Decision No. 2, and, in effect, overestimate
any consideration that the majority may have given any portion of
it. And yet the records of the board show that the dissenting mem-
bers voted for the adoption of the decision containing the language
in regard to "relevant circumstances," and they did not seek to ex-
clude it. This, be it remembered, was a decision increasing wages 22
per cent, and the present minority were then of the majority. It
would therefore appear that the relevant circumstances mentioned
were to be considered by the present dissenting members in relation.
only to wage increases but not decreases.
PURCHASING POWER OF WAGE.
The dissenting members criticize the tables offered by the majority
to show the trend of the purchasing power of the wages of the em-
ployees covered by this decision, on the ground that the year 1917 is
an unfair year to adopt as a basis or starting point. The inference
is rather plainly drawn that the selection of said year was the result
of a deep and sinister design on the part of the majority. This sug-
gestion is far-fetched, as the dissenters are well aware that the wage
reports of this board have begun with the year 1917, and both of
them have twice concurred in this arrangement. It was therefore a
natural course for the board to make use of the wage series which it
had prepared and published.
The minority suggest that either the year 1914 or 1915 should have
been adopted as the basic year for these tables.
The year 1914 can not be safely adopted, because the carriers then
reported their clerical forces in groups and classes different from
the method since used, beginning with 1915. The use of the year
1914 as the basic year would admittedly require the making of an
estimate, the accuracy of which would necessarily be doubtful. If
DECISIONS.
535
the figures for the basic year were doubtful, then those for all sub-
sequent years would be of uncertain accuracy and value. We will
therefore adopt 1915, the other year pronounced satisfactory by the
minority, and will demonstrate indisputably the changes that have
taken place in the wages of these employees and in the purchasing
power thereof, based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics as to living
costs.
The following table was prepared by the statistical force of this
board at the request of the minority and furnished to them, but does
not seem to have suited their purpose, as it was not used. The in-
creases in purchasing power of earnings under the present decision
over 1915 are as follows:
Percentage of increase in purchasing power of earnings under present de-
cision over 1915.
a. EMPLOYEES IN GROUP I.
Supervisory clerks and clerks with experience of two years or more.
Clerks with experience of one year and less than two years___
Clerks with less than one year experience__
Per cent.
8.8
¹1.1
4. 2
Train and engine crew callers, train announcers, gatemen, baggage and
parcel-room employees
15.0
Office boys, messengers, chore boys, and others under 18 years__.
Janitors, elevator operators, watchmen, employees assorting waybills,
etc..
2.0
1.4
Freight handlers and truckers..
17.5
Sealers, scalers, and fruit and perishable inspectors_.
20.2
Stowers, stevedores, callers or loaders, locators, or coopers.
22.9
b. EMPLOYEES IN GROUP II.
Stationary engineers (steam)
Stationary firemen (steam)
Boiler-room water tenders-
Engine-room oilers___
Coal passers, boiler room.....
C. EMPLOYEES IN GROUP III.
70.0
42. 1
25.9
42.1
25.9
Leading maintainers, gang foremen, and leading signalmen_.
Signalmen, signal maintainers, assistant signalmen, and assistant signal
maintainers
5.0
6.5
Helpers
12.7
The foregoing table is based on the flat daily rate.
TABLE BASED ON ACTUAL EARNINGS.
There is a table on page 516 (dissenting opinion) which gives the
wage index number of clerks between 1914 and 1921, cost-of-living
index number, and standard-of-living index number. The board's
statistician reports that he is unable to ascertain from what source
the wage index numbers were obtained, particularly in view of the
fact that in 1914 the carriers reported only general office clerks in a
grouping exclusive of other classes of railroad employees.
The statistician of the board has worked out a table based upon
the Interstate Commerce Commission's reports of the average
monthly earnings of all clerks from the year 1915 to the last six
1 Decrease.
536
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
months of 1921 and has used hours worked by this class in the last
six months of 1921 to determine a rate under the present decision.
This table is given below. It is also tied up with the cost of living
index number in order to reflect a trend of standard of living. From
these figures it will be seen that the standard of living for all clerks
under the rates prescribed by the present decision is 12.1 per cent
above 1915:
Comparison of living costs and wages of railway clerks, 1915–1921, showing
changes in standard of living.

Year 1915.
Year 1916.
Year 1917.
Year 1918.
December, 1919.
Fourth quarter, 1920.
Last 6 months, 1921.
Period.
Index
Average number, living
monthly average
earnings.
Cost-of- Standard-
of-living
index
earnings.
number.
index
number.
$69.36
100.0
100.0
100.0
73.55
106.0
112.5
94.2
77.65
111.9
135.5
82.6
102.60
147.9
165.9
89.1
114.59
165.2
189.6
87.1
145.91
210. 4
190.7
110.3
131.58
189.7
165.8
114.4
123.45
178.0
1158.8
112. 1
Last 6 months, 1921, at new decision rates.
1 March, 1922.
This 12.1 per cent increase in the standard of living of clerks in
the last seven years, based on an increase in wages of 78 per cent
and an increase in living costs of 58.8 per cent, indicates remarkable
progress. This class of employees should feel that their official
representatives have rendered them notable service in the effectu-
ation of this result. It certainly affords grounds for satisfaction
and encouragement rather than for inflammatory appeals for strikes.
There is no class of labor covered by this decision to which the
dissenting discussion of pauperized labor with its physical and
social deterioration and its propagation of crime has any application.
THEORETICAL LIVING STANDARDS.
It appears that a portion of the employees covered herein have
presented a family budget of $2,636.97 and others have offered a
family budget of $2,133. The latter is presumably based on the
budget set out in December, 1919, Monthly Labor Review, published
by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, as the dissenting
opinion quotes at length from that publication the Bureau of Labor's
explanation of the budget. This quotation is prefaced by the state-
ment: "It (the budget) is described by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
as follows." With this identification of the budget used, we desire
to quote another passage from the same article as follows:
This report presents the result of a study made by the United States Bureau
of Labor Statistics to determine the cost of maintaining the family of a Govern-
ment employee in Washington at a level of health and decency.
Let the significant fact be noted that the budget is for a Govern-
ment employee in Washington and that when Washington was the
most congested city in the United States with an abnormally high
cost of living, as a result of the great temporary increase in popula-
tion resulting from the war expansion of all governmental depart
ments.
DECISIONS.
537
Whether the budget of $2,133 is identical with that set out in
said Government publication, as it purports on its face to be, or
whether it is one of the several other budgets heretofore submitted
to the board, the figures are practically the same as those in the
Government publication, the latter being $2,288.25.
The dissenting members seem to have temporarily abandoned
their budget of $2,636.97.
In the decision in this case, it was shown that this budget of
$2,636.97 if given to every family impartially would require a sum
$25,000,000,000 in excess of the total income of all the individuals
and industries in the United States.
The budget of $2,133 now relied upon is open to the same fatal
criticism.
If the country's 25,000,000 families were guaranteed an income
of $2,133, the total income of the entire country would be exceeded
by the sum of $13,225,000,000.
In the face of this absurdity, page after page of the dissenting
opinion is devoted to an attack on the board's decision upon the
ground that the wages fixed for some of the employees do not reach
the amount of this mythical, visionary budget. The advanced pur-
chasing power of the railway employee's wage, the relative great
increase of that wage, the improved social and economic condition
of the employee, are all ignored, and a vitriolic denunciation of the
board's decision is indulged in because every individual employee
is not granted this impossible sum of money.
Let us see what would be the result of adopting either of these
budget theories on the railroads and requiring that no employee
should receive less than $2,133, according to one contention, or less
than $2,636.97, according to the other. The following table throws
light on this question:
$5,509,035,259
Total revenue of roads, 1921.
Increase in aggregate pay of employees if minimum wage,
$2,636.97, were paid on basis of Decision No. 147_
1,834,778,865
Increase in aggregate pay of employees if minimum wage,
$2,133, were paid on basis of Decision No. 147.
1,063,081,640
The net income of the carriers for two other years prior to the
war was as follows:
$673,611,198
697,185,309
1914
1915
It is quite obvious that the net income of the roads for the years
named, and, it may be added, for any other year in history, would
have been consumed by the recognition of either of the above bud-
gets, and the carriers would have shown a loss of hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars each year. This shortage would have had to be
paid by some form of taxation on the public, presumably freight
rates, which would have added to the burdens of every individual
in the country, rich and poor.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that the dissenting
opinion finds fault with the majority decision, because it states that
"it is idle to contend that labor can be completely freed from the
economic laws which likewise affect the earnings of capital."
The soundness of this axiomatic proposition is right well exem-
plified by the theory of the minority above discussed that no wage
538
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
can be made so high as to constitute an unbearable. burden on an
industry. Because those concurring in the decision recognize the
existence of some of the old-fashioned economic laws quite familiar
to the ordinary business man, those dissenting affect to believe that
the majority place the consideration of profits above the welfare of
the workers. This is a gratuitous assumption. This board has
never taken the position that the claims of the employees for a just
and reasonable wage must await the prior demands for increased
profits, nor does it take such position in this decision. It is a waste
of time to make detailed defense to all these overdrawn and imagina-
tive assertions.
It is well enough to remember, however, that the time will never
come in this country or any other country when the ordinary rules
of common sense and business, call them economic laws, if you wish,
can be absolutely ignored in the conduct of any industry. The latest
instance in which these laws have been thrown overboard and re-
placed by finespun socialistic theories, both in railway and other
industries, is found in Russia, and the result there is not one that
this country desires to emulate.
The minority are sowing some of the tiny seeds that have germi-
nated and blossomed into industrial anarchy in Russia when they
make such statements as this: "They (the economic laws) are simply
a description of the way in which business and industry have worked
to date, and they have worked out very badly for human life."
It will be readily conceded that our social and industrial system
has not invariably produced perfect results, but, upon the whole.
it has demonstrated its superiority to every experimental substitute
that has been offered. And the fact must not be overlooked that this
great industrial Republic has rewarded labor with its largest degree
of liberty, prosperity, and happiness. It is well not to hold its
minor imperfections so close to the eye as to obscure its benefits.
PERMISSION TO ADJUST RATES.
The dissenting opinion stated that the decision gives the carriers
specific permission to adjust rates, because it says that the carriers.
are at liberty to pay higher wages than those fixed by the Labor
Board.
The board did nothing of the kind. It gave the carriers no per-
mission to adjust rates. There is nothing in the transportation act
that prevents a carrier from paying higher rates, unless such higher
rates would result in increased rates to the public. The statute con-
templates that the carrier would not have to coerce the employee into
the acceptance of a higher rate. This does not mean that the Labor
Board construes the transportation act to mean that the carrier may
impose a lower rate on the employees or the employees impose a
higher rate on the carrier.
The suggestion by the minority that the employees will take this
as permission to "go out and get" such wages as they can command
is entirely absurd. If they should do so, it would be the result of
the minority's suggestion and not of the language of the decision.
Finally, let it be reiterated that the majority, in arriving at this
decision, considered every phase of the evidence and provision of
DECISIONS.
539
the transportation act, and that their minds rest easily upon the
reasonableness and justice of their conclusions, in the light of all
the circumstances and conditions shown to exist at this time.
DECISION NO. 1075.-DOCKET 601.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question. Has the carrier the right to contract work, formerly
done by extra gangs engaged in maintenance work, and regular sec-
tion laborers, at rates of pay less than those established by the Labor
Board?
Statement. The representatives of the employees state that on
or about April 9, 1921, the laborers in extra gang No. 1 on the east-
ern division of the Chicago Great Western Railroad were dis-
charged, and that the work they had been performing was placed
in the hands of a contractor who employed laborers at the rate of
30 cents per hour; that since that time and until May 21, 1921 (the
date of appeal to the Labor Board), from three to five gangs had
been placed on each of the four divisions of the railroad, and paid
at the rate of 30 cents per hour, working 10 hours per day; and that.
the regular section laborers who were laid off during the latter part
of year 1920 on account of force reductions are being deprived of
reemployment on that account.
The employees contend that the foregoing is a violation of the
national agreement in effect at that time under the provisions of the
Labor Board's Decision No. 2, and also a violation of section 301 of
the transportation act, 1920, as the carrier and the employees failed
to agree in conference on a reduction in rates of pay, and should
have awaited a decision from the Labor Board before putting any
reduction into effect. It is further contended that the men em-
ployed by the contractor should be paid at the rate of 481 cents per
hour, the rate formerly paid for that class of work, retroactive to
the time of entering the service, and that the regular section men
should be paid for time lost in proportion to the number of men
who displaced them.
The representatives of the carrier did not appear at the hearing
of this case, which was held on October 15, 1921, and the position of
the carrier is stated in a letter addressed to the Labor Board under
date of October 5, 1921, reading in part as follows:
The Chicago Great Western Railroad Co. is having certain work done by
contractors because at the present time it can have such work done cheaper
in that way than the corporation can do the same work for itself. It is the
position of the company that no jurisdiction has been vested in the United
States Railroad Labor Board to determine when and under what circum-
stances the railroad company may employ independent contractors to do work
for it. That is the real question set for hearing on the 15th inst., and all will
agree that it is a noncontroversial question.
Opinion. Many of the statements contained in the opinion of the
Labor Board in Decision No. 982, Railway Employees' Department,
A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v. Indiana Harbor Belt Rail-
road Co., apply in this case. While the question of piecework is not
20336°—23—35
حمد
540
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
involved in this docket, there are other principles involved which
are similar to those in the contracting case above referred to, and the
Labor Board having previously made them public does not deem it
necessary to repeat them, but desires to state that they have been
carefully considered before arriving at the decision which follows.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides:
(a) That the carrier acted in violation of the transportation act,
1920, in removing certain of its employees from the application of
said act, and that the changing of wages and rules governing work-
ing conditions of said employees is in violation of Decision No. 2
of the Labor Board.
(b) That the maintenance of way employees in question on the
Chicago Great Western Railroad are under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board and subject to the application of the transportation
act, 1920, and decisions rendered by the Labor Board in which it is
shown that the parties to this dispute were included.
The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the matter
of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee or
his representative.
DECISION NO. 1076.-DOCKET 1219.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question. Is the leasing of repair tracks at South St. Paul, Minn.,
to A. S. Hecker Co. by the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co., to
avoid working conditions and rates of pay prescribed by the Labor
Board, a violation of the transportation act, 1920, and the several
decisions of the Labor Board?
Statement.-A few days prior to June 18, 1921, the superintendent
of the northern division advised the employees at the South Park
shops at South St. Paul that owing to the financial condition of the
carrier the shops in question would be closed down unless the em-
ployees there employed in the repairing of freight cars would agree
to work piecework.
On June 18, 1921, the shops at South St. Paul were closed down
and, effective as of that date, all men there employed were laid off.
On July 1, 1921, the general manager requested a conference with
the representatives of the employees at which time he advised them
that unless the employees in the mechanical department would agree
to work piecework where it was considered practical, it would be
necessary to lease the facilities of the carrier to a contractor who
would install piecework.
The employees took the position that inasmuch as the question of
piecework was a matter of controversy, and had, under date of June
1, 1921, been properly presented to the Labor Board for decision,
they were not in a position to discuss the question unless or until the
joint submission then before the board was withdrawn.
On July 25, 1921, the South Park shops at South St. Paul were
opened under the name of A. S. Hecker Co. The general foreman
DECISIONS.
541
and the assistant foreman formerly employed by the carrier were
retained by the contractor, and some other employees who were em-
ployed by the carrier prior to June 18, 1921, were notified by the
foreman that they could return to work on July 25, provided they
were agreeable to working for the contractor, and would work on a
piecework basis.
The representatives of the employees contend that this carrier was
a party to Decision No. 119, issued by the Labor Board on April 14,
1921; that in accordance with the provisions contained therein did,
on May 11, 1921, enter into conferences which were concluded on
May 28, 1921; and that the results of said conferences were submitted
to the Labor Board under date of June 1, 1921. The result of the
conferences was that 41 rules governing working conditions were
agreed upon and 106 rules were disagreed on. Among the disagreed
rules was one in which the carrier contended that the system of piece-
work should be permitted. Furthermore, on June 27, 1921, Ad-
dendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was issued by the Labor Board,
directing that in lieu of rules not agreed upon as a result of con-
ferences under Decision No. 119, the rules of the former so-called
national agreement should be continued, except in so far as payments
for overtime were concerned, until the rules in controversy had
been considered by the Labor Board and a decision rendered thereon.
The representatives of the employees further contend that the
carrier has violated the spirit of the transportation act, 1920, in
that Congress in creating the act contemplated that each carrier
would continue to operate its property normally-i. e., continue to
operate the facilities in the same manner and on the same basis as
they were operated prior to the effective date of the transportation
act, 1920; that the subterfuge resorted to by the carrier in leasing
certain facilities was for the purpose of eliminating employees re-
quired to operate the facilities from the protection of certain rules.
governing working conditions and certain rates of pay afforded by
the transportation act and the decisions of the Labor Board. The
employees also contend that prior to the notice of reduction in ex-
penses on June 18, 1921, there were approximately 100 shop em-
ployees at the South Park shops, all of whom were laid off on that
date; that on July 25, 1921, some of the men who had been laid off
were requested to return to work with the advice that the shops were
being operated by A. S. Hecker Co. under the following conditions:
The contractor, A. S. Hecker Co.. would furnish the men, and the
carrier, Chicago Great Western Railroad Co., would furnish the
material; that nine hours would constitute a day's work; that 60
cents per hour would be paid for carmen until the few cars partially
repaired, but not completed prior to the lay off on June 18, 1921,
had been repaired, after which time the carmen would be paid on a
piecework basis.
The representatives of the employees request, in view of the fore-
going statements, that the Labor Board direct that the employees
who were working in the South Park shops on the date they were
closed, June 18, 1921, be permitted to return to work on an hourly
basis and at rates of pay as prescribed by the Labor Board in its
decisions applicable to this carrier, until such time as the board
may decide the disputed rule in controversy with regard to a dif-
542
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ferent basis of payment, as the contractor is not, in its relationship
to this carrier and the work in question, a bona fide independent
contractor. The contractor, as stated, did not supply its own fore-
men; it simply took over from the carrier the same men who had
supervised the work theretofore and employed them in the identical
positions formerly held. Therefore it is submitted that the carrier
should not be allowed to set up its interpretation of its duties to the
public as a reason for separating certain groups of employees from
others and putting them in a position where they may not have the
same standards of wages and conditions under which the others work.
The representative of the carrier did not appear at the hearing of
this case held on December 21, 1921, but, in answer to notice of hear-
ing, filed with the Labor Board a letter reading, in part, as follows:
Without intending to show the slightest disrespect to the Labor Board or any
of its members, and for the purpose of preserving in the best way its legal rights
as it understands them, on behalf of the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
I (general counsel) beg to advise you that the company does not believe that
any jurisdiction has been vested in the United States Railroad Labor Board in
the premises and that, therefore, the Great Western will not attend or be rep-
resented at the hearing.
Opinion. The contentions of the interested parties in this docket
are similar to those involved in Docket 850, which was closed by
Decision No. 982, Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.
(Federated Shop Crafts), v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., and
other principles set forth in that case are also involved here on ac-
count of their similarity, so it may be said that what is stated as the
opinion of the Labor Board in the case previously referred to may
to a large degree be repeated as applicable to this case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Chicago Great
Western Railroad Co. and A. S. Hecker Co. for the operation of its
facilities for repairing cars at its South Park shops at South St.
Paul, Minn., is in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far
as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove certain em-
ployees from the application of said act, and that the provisions of
the contract affecting the wages and working rules of the employees
involved were in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147, all of
which were issued by the Labor Board; and
(b) That the shop employees of the said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of
the transportation act, 1920, and Decisions Nos. 147 and 1036.
The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the matter of
reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee or his
representative.
DECISION NO. 1077.-DOCKET 1260.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Are the clerks, foreman, freight checkers, stowers,
stevedores, and truckers now employed on the transfer platform at
DECISIONS
543
Oelwein, Iowa, keeping records and handling excessive freight for
the carrier, subject to the provisions of the transportation act, 1920,
and should they be considered railway employees coming within the
purview of the transportation act, 1920, and paid in accordance with
the decisions of the Labor Board?
Statement. The representative of the employees states that prior
to July 5, 1921, the carrier operated a freight transfer platform at
Oelwein; that a working force ranging from 25 to 60 employees had
been maintained for several years; that the employees were com-
pensated in accordance with the rules and orders of the United
States Railroad Administration and later in accordance with Deci-
sions Nos. 2 and 147 of the Labor Board. On or about July 1, 1921,
the employees were notified by the foreman in charge that effective
July 5, 1921, the handling of freight would be discontinued and the
platform closed until further notice. On October 3, 1921, the trans-
fer platform was reopened, and the same service was performed that.
had been in effect prior to July 5, 1921. The former employees were
notified on or about October 1, 1921, by their foreman that they
would be permitted to report for duty on October 3, 1921, in the
positions which they previously held, but that they were to consider
themselves as employees of A. S. Hecker Co.
The representative of the employees further states that the em-
ployees were advised that the organization of which they were mem-
bers would not be recognized and neither would the schedule govern-
ing the employees of the carrier be applied to those employed on the
Oelwein transfer platform; that a 10-hour day was established;
and that rates of pay were reduced. The employees, however, after
protesting the action of the carrier agreed that they would resume
their former positions pending adjustment of the grievance under
the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, but they were unable
to secure conference with the carrier as it claimed no dispute existed
and denied knowledge of having any employees working at the
Oelwein transfer platform.
Claim is made by the employees of the platform for the applica-
tion of the Labor Board's decisions covering this class of employees
and for back pay to October 3, 1921.
The representative of the carrier did not appear at the hearing
of this case held on December 21, 1921, but the position of the car-
rier was stated in a letter to the Labor Board in connection with
another contract case, and read in part as follows:
The Chicago Great Western Railroad Co. is having certain work done by
contractors because at the present time it can have such work done cheaper
in that way than the corporation can do the same work for itself. It is the
position of the company that no jurisdiction has been vested in the United
States Railroad Labor Board to determine when and under what circumstances
the railroad company may employ independent contractors to do work for it.
That is the real question set for hearing on the 15th instant, and all will agree
that it is a noncontroversial question.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides:
(a) That the carrier acted in violation of the transportation act,
1920, in removing certain of its employees from the application of
said act, and that the changing of wages and rules governing work-
ing conditions of said employees is in violation of Decisions Nos. 2
and 147 of the Labor Board.
544
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(b) That the clerical and station employees in question on the
Chicago Great Western Railroad are under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board and subject to the application of the transportation act,
1920, and decisions rendered by the Labor Board in which it is shown
that the parties to this dispute were included.
The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the matter of
reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee or his
representative.
DECISION NO. 1078.-DOCKET 852.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.
Question. The question in dispute has reference to the right of
the carrier above named to enter into a contract for the cleaning of
passenger-train cars at Brownsville, Tex.
Statement.—Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this dispute indicates that on March 15, 1921, a conference was
held between representatives of the employees and representatives of
the carrier, at which the carrier advised the representatives of the
employees of its desire to make a reduction in wages and certain
changes in the working conditions of car cleaners. This proposal
was not accepted by the employees, resulting in the case being ap-
pealed to the Labor Board for decision in conformity with the pro-
visions of the transportation act, 1920.
It is further shown that on April 1, 1921, the carrier entered into
a contract with Jesus Barron, formerly employed as a car cleaner.
Mr. Barron, it is shown, was later replaced as a party to the contract
by Mr. Balthazar Solis. The contract provides in part that the car-
rier shall pay the contractor the sum of $15 per day (out of which
the contractor pays the employees) and furnish said contractor with
all tools and material necessary for the performance of the car-
cleaning work. It is shown that the contractor is allowing cm-
ployees a rate of pay less than that provided in decisions of the Labor
Board and has established working conditions less favorable than
those provided in the Labor Board's decisions.
It is the contention of the employees that the contractor is not an
independent contractor, but a mere agent: First, he has no other
work; secondly, his prior position with the company and smallness
of his pay prevents him from being independent; and thirdly, the
railroad foreman frequently instructs the contractor's alleged em-
ployees what work to do and how to do it, without intervention. The
employees further contend that the purpose of the carrier in making
this contract was to evade the provisions of the transportation act
and the decisions of the Labor Board.
It is the contention of the carrier that it is within its rights, and
that no wage order or agreement has been violated by reason of
entering into a contract covering the cleaning of passenger coaches at
Brownsville or any other point it might desire. Further, that no
part of the national agreement prohibits the practice of letting out
work under contract, and it has been the practice of all railroads for
DECISIONS,
545
a number of years to do so from time to time; that to prohibit same
would impose unreasonable and very burdensome method of opera-
tion; that no violation of wage orders can exist, as contracting par-
ties do not come under the terms of the transportation act and are
outside of the jurisdiction of the United States Railroad Labor
Board, and therefore no change of present method of handling
should be made.
Opinion. The Labor Board has definitely outlined its position
with respect to the general principle of contracting work. (See De-
cision No. 982, dispute between the Railway Employees' Department,
A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v. Indiana Harbor Belt Rail-
road Co.). While the dispute covered by this decision affects a differ-
ent class of employees and embodies different conditions pertaining
to the provisions of the contract, the general principle is nevertheless
the same, and the opinion referred to represents the views of the
board with respect to this principle.
The carrier has made particular reference to practices alleged to
have been in effect for years, and recognized and followed by all
roads with respect to the right of contracting its work. In this con-
nection it should, however, be borne in mind that these precedents
have been robbed of their potency by the enactment of the transpor-
tation act, 1920.
Decision. The Railroad Labor Board decides:
(a) That the contracts entered into between the St. Louis, Browns-
ville & Mexico Railway Co. and Jesus Barron, later succeeded by
Balthazar Solis, for the cleaning of passenger coaches at Browns-
ville, Tex., are in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far
as they purport or are construed by the carrier to remove said em-
ployees from the application of said act, and that those provisions of
the contracts affecting the wages and working rules of said em-
ployees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor
Board.
(b) That_the_car cleaners of said contractor are under the juris-
diction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of the
transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the matter
of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee or
his representative.
DECISION NO. 1079.-DOCKET 854.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contract covering the maintenance of track and
right of way, which has been made by the above-named carrier, in
violation of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and rule
decisions of the Labor Board; and does said contract remove from
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board employees, who, under
said contractors, are performing track-maintenance work for the
carrier?
546
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement.-On March 23, 1921, the carrier posted a notice ad-
dressed “to all laborers" that there would be a meeting on March
26, 1921, to discuss reduction in wages to be effective April 1, 1921.
On March 26, 1921, several of the section foremen were notified by
letter that effective March 26, 1921, their gangs were to be placed
under contract with Colianni & Dire. Other section foremen were
so advised between March 26 and April 1, and during that period
the employees affected were verbally advised of the contracting of
this work. Between March 26 and April 1 a number of track
laborers were discharged, and, on April 2, 43 men were discharged.
The foremen were retained in the employ and under the direction
of the carrier for a period of time after the contract became effec-
tive, but were later turned over to the contractor. It is stated by the
carrier that the contractor does not receive 5 per cent on the fore-
men's salaries under section 8 of the contract. This exception does
not appear in the contract, but is taken care of according to the
carrier's statement by an understanding."
(C
The contract entered into between the carrier and Colianni & Dire
is in words and figures following:
This agreement, made this 30th day of April, 1921, by and between Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad Co., hereinafter called the "railroad," and Paul V.
Colianni and Jos. Dire, copartners, doing business as Colianni & Dire, herein-
after called the contractor;
Witnesseth:
Whereas, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein-
after set forth, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
First. The contractor agrees to make necessary track repairs and do other
work on the right of way of the railroad ordinarily done by track gangs, at
such places as the railroad may now or hereafter designate, in accordance
with instructions of the roadmaster of the railroad or his authorized assistant.
No repairs may be made except as authorized by the said roadmaster.
Second. Tools, equipment and supplies necessary to carry on said work
shall be furnished by the railroad.
Third. The railroad will maintain and own the material stock, it being un-
derstood that such material will be subject to supervision and inspection of
the railroad's storekeeper.
Fourth. All scrap and other materials released from tracks or other facilities
in connection with the work being done by the contractor shall belong to the
railroad and shall be loaded from time to time by the contractor as the road-
master of the railroad may direct.
Fifth. All labor necessary to properly maintain the tracks and right of way
on the sections above designated, or which may hereafter be designated by
the railroad, shall be carried on the pay rolls of the contractor and paid by
said contractor, reimbursement to be made by monthly collection bill against
the railroad. The contractor shall keep accurate accounts of the services and
expenses in a manner satisfactory to the railroad, to which accounts the rail-
road shall have access at all reasonable times for purposes of verification.
Sixth. The men in the employ of the contractor shall be required to famil-
iarize themselves with the rules of the railroad in so far as they pertain to
their work, such as protection of track and safety rules generally that are
now in effect or may hereafter become effective, of which due and timely notice
will be given.
Seventh. The railroad shall indemnify and save harmless the contractor
from any and all claim or claims for injury to or death of persons in any way
arising or growing out of the work performed by such contractor, whether such
injury or death shall be due to the negligence of the railroad, the contractor,
or otherwise. If any suit be commenced against the contractor separately, or
against the contractor and railroad jointly upon any claim or claims in respect
to which the railroad has herein agreed to indemnify and save harmless the
DECISIONS.
547
said contractor, then the railroad shall upon notice of the pendency of such
suit assume the defense of such suit and save the said contractor harmless from
all loss and from all costs by reason thereof.
Eighth. As compensation to the contractor in return for the work performed
and for the use of his working capital, there shall be added to each monthly
bill for labor charge an addition of five per cent. The remuneration, as herein-
before provided, shall be accepted by the contractor in full payment for work
performed by his employees under this agreement.
Ninth. This agreement cancels the two existing agreements dated March 18
and March 31 existing between the said parties.
Tenth. This agreement may be terminated by either party on 30 days' written
notice.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be ex-
ecuted the day and year first above written.
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD Co.,
By GEO. HANNAUER.
JOE DIRE.
PAUL V. COLIANNI.
Under date of March 31, following the action of the carrier in
contracting this work, the representatives of the employees filed
protest with the general manager, which was acknowledged, and sub-
sequently sought conferences in which to consider the grievances of
the employees arising from their discharge and the reduction in the
rate of pay. No response was made to their communications and
the employees, through their organization, filed an ex parte submis-
sion with the Labor Board.
Opinion. The employees contend:
(a) That the contracts involved herein are not in good faith but
are merely subterfuges designed to evade the provisions of the trans-
portation act and the decisions of the Labor Board; and
(b) That, even if the contracts are in good faith, they are in viola-
tion of the transportation act, 1920, and in conflict with the decisions.
of the Labor Board.
The board is of the opinion that the employees failed to sub-
stantiate their contention that the contracts are actually fradulent
and that they are mere subterfuges contrived to evade the transpor-
tation act. Obviously, they do evade the act but the carrier con-
tends that it is not in violation of the law.
In a previous decision, Decision No. 982, dated May 9, 1922, the
Labor Board expressed its opinion in regard to the general principles
involved in the contracting of work by carriers and the opinion as
therein expressed applies in this case.
Decision.-The Railroad Labor Board decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Indiana Harbor
Belt Railroad Co. and Colianni & Dire for the maintenance of track
and right of way is in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in
so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove said
employees from the application of said act, and that the provisions
of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of said em-
ployees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board.
(b) That the employees performing track-maintenance work of
said contractor are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board, and
subject to the application of the transportation act, 1920, and Deci-
sion No. 147.
548
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the matter of
reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee or his
representative.
DECISION NO. 1080.-DOCKET 2012.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Rail-
way Co. of Texas.
Question.-Is the contract which the Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Railway Co. and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. of Texas
(through C. E. Schaff, receiver) has entered into with A. S. Hecker
Co. for the operation of its railway shops at Sedalia, Mo., Parsons,
Kans., and Denison, Tex., in violation of the transportation act, 1920,
and of the wage and rule decisions of the Labor Board, and do said
contracts remove from under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board the
employees who, under said contractor, would be required to perform
work for the carrier?
Statement.-On or about January 19, 1922, the car shops operated
by the receiver of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. and the
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. of Texas at Sedalia, Mo.,
Parsons, Kans., and Denison, Tex., were closed and remained closed
for several months. Near the middle of March, 1922, negotiations
were entered into between representatives of the receiver and several
outside contracting firms for the purpose, on the part of the re-
ceiver, of letting out or contracting for the repair of freight and
passenger car equipment.
As a result of these negotiations a contract dated April 12, 1922,
was entered into between the A. S. Hecker Co. and the receiver, under
which the receiver leased to the A. S. Hecker Co. car shops, ma-
chinery, and appliances at Sedalia, Mo., and Parsons, Kans, under
which contract the contractor agreed to make repairs to the receiver's
cars and rolling stock. A copy of this contract was submitted in
evidence by the receiver. A separate contract between the receiver
and the A. S. Hecker Co. was entered into and dated April 22, 1922,
covering the leasing of the receiver's shops at Denison, Tex., and the
repairs of cars thereat by the contractor. A copy of this contract
was also filed by the receiver.
The evidence shows that a bulletin was posted at Sedalia by the
receiver, through William Walker, shop superintendent, on or about
April 19, 1922, to the effect that at 11.59 p. m., Sunday, April 23,
1922, all jobs then working at Sedalia car shops would be abolished.
A notice was also posted by the A. S. Hecker Co. on or about April
20, 1922, stating that on April 24, 1922, the A. S. Hecker Co. would
assume complete operation of the Sedalia car shops, and would give
preference to former employees of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Railway Co. engaged in such work.
Credible information coming to the hands of the Labor Board
resulted in the following telegram being addressed to a representative
of the carrier:
DECISIONS.
549
W. E. WILLIAMS,
Assistant to Chief Operating Officer,
CHICAGO, ILL., April 26, 1922.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co., St. Louis, Mo.:
Credible information having come to the board that a dispute exists between
the M., K. & T. road and its shop-craft employees, growing out of the alleged
contracting by said carrier of its work in certain shops, the discharge of a large
number of its employees, and the placing of certain of its shop work on a piece-
work basis, which action of the carrier the employees contend is a violation of
the law and the decisions of the Railroad Labor Board, but which the carrier
contends is legal and not in violation of the rights of employees; and, it ap-
pearing to the board that said dispute is likely substantially to interrupt com-
merce, and it further appearing that disputes involving this same question are
now pending before the board and will be decided at an early date, the Rail-
road Labor Board therefore assumes jurisdiction of said dispute and sets same
for hearing May 4 at 10 a. m.
This action must not be construed as indicative of the board's position on the
merits of this or similar controversies now pending before it.
The parties will maintain the status quo as of the date prior to the alleged
contract until the dispute is passed upon by the board.
By order of the U. S. R. R. Labor Board.
1
L. M. PARKER,
Secretary.
On May 4, 1922, the hearing was conducted as scheduled at which
time representatives of the respective parties were present. It de-
veloped that upon receipt of the Labor Board's telegram, arrange-
ments were immediately made by the receiver with the contractor
not to attempt to operate under the contract and to maintain the
status quo in existence prior to the date of the contract as directed
by the board.
The carrier in its presentation before the Labor Board made the
statement that "knowing the hostile attitude and unalterable oppo-
sition of employees to service under a piecework basis, it was de-
termined to adopt the contract plan for the handling of such work
in the carrier's car-repair shops."
The contracts so entered into for the points herein named provide
that the carrier will compensate the contractor on the basis of the
piecework schedule in effect as of December 31, 1917, plus 12.75 per
centum.
The employees registered vigorous protest as to the carrier's con-
templated action, and upon this protest the hearing was conducted
by the Labor Board on May 4, 1922.
The contentions of the employees have been briefly summarized as
follows:
The employees take the position that the action on the part of the
carrier is in violation of the provisions of the transportation act,
1920, and the rules laid down by the Labor Board. They call spe-
cial attention to that portion of Decision No. 222 of which this car-
rier is a party which reads:
This rule is intended to remove the inhibition against piecework contained in
rule 1 of the shop crafts' national agreement and to permit the question to be
taken up for negotiation on any individual railroad in the manner prescribed
by the transportation act.
Further, the employees claim that the management of the Mis-
souri, Kansas & Texas Railroad, instead of negotiating with the em-
ployees in the manner prescribed by the board, decided to evade this
550
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
rule by contracting out certain of its shops. Another portion of
rule 1 quoted by the employees reads:
Eight hours shall constitute a day's work. All employees coming under the
provisions of this agreement, except as otherwise provided in this schedule of
rules, or as may hereafter be legally established between the carrier and the
employees, shall be paid on the hourly basis.
The employees contend that according to that portion of the rule
quoted above, piecework may be reestablished, provided it is "legally
established between the carrier and the employees," and that other-
wise payment on the hourly basis should remain in effect.
They further contend that the carrier is under obligation, legal
or equitable, to obey the transportation act and the decisions and
rules of the Labor Board established thereunder; that in this specific
case the carrier is under obligation to pay the employees on an
hourly basis, unless, by agreement with the employees or by a fur-
ther decision of the Labor Board, some other basis of pay is estab-
lished; that this obligation is, however, subject to the condition that
the employees remain the employees of the carrier; that this was a
circumstance or condition within the control of the carrier; and that
the carrier, through a purely legal technicality, prevented the main-
taining of this condition by letting out the shops on contract, and
therefore this action on the part of the carrier was wrongful and
contrary to the spirit and equities of the labor provisions of the
transportation act.
The contentions of the carrier have been briefly summarized as
follows:
The carrier takes the position that, although the receiver, respond-
ing to citation of the board, arranged with the contractor for a
suspension of operations under the contract and for the maintenance
of the status quo, and appeared before the Labor Board at the hear-
ing May 4, 1922, the Labor Board is wholly without jurisdiction,
under section 307, or any other section of the transportation act, to
determine this controversy.
The carrier denies that it is fraudulently contracting out the re-
pairing of cars at Sedalia, Parsons, and Denison in order to evade
the payment of the rates of pay and the rules and regulations in
connection therewith established by the Labor Board, and asserts
that it has the legal right to make such a contract; that the con-
tracts were made in good faith and for a lawful purpose and in
the interest of honest, efficient, and economical management as re-
quired by the transportation act; that the circumstances and facts
leading up to the making of said contracts completely demonstrate
that said contracts were not made for an ulterior purpose, but in
good faith; that there is no dispute before the Labor Board be-
tween the carrier and its employees; that the A. S. Hecker Co. is
not a dummy, tool, or agent of the receiver, but is an independent
contractor; that under said contracts the men employed by said
contractor would be the employees of the contractor and not em-
ployees of the carrier; and that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction
over the A. S. Hecker Co. or over any of the men employed by
said company, or over the wages or conditions of employment
which may be agreed upon between the said A. S. Hecker Co. and
its employees.
DECISIONS.
551
The carrier further denies that said contracts and the discon-
tinuance and abolishment by the receiver of the repair of cars oper-
ated by it, violate the transportation act, 1920, or any order, rule,
regulation, or decision of the Labor Board, or contract of employ-
ment between the receiver and his employees.
9.
Opinion. While not identical, the question in dispute in this
case is similar to and involves the same general principle as that
contained in Docket 850 disposed of by the board's Decision No.
982. The Labor Board clearly outlined its position with respect to
the question of the carrier contracting its repair work formerly
performed at its own shops and by its own employees; for that
reason it will not here reiterate the position so clearly set forth in
said Decision No. 982, but will refer the parties to this dispute to
that decision.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
(a) That the several contracts entered into between C. E. Schaff,
as receiver of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway and the
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas, and the A. S.
Hecker Co. for the operation of railway shops at Sedalia, Mo.,
Parsons, Kans., and Denison, Tex., are in violation of the transpor-
tation act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are construed by the
carrier to remove said employees from the application of said act,
and that those provisions of the contracts affecting the wages and
working rules of said employees, would, if placed into effect, be in
violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the shop employees of said contractor would be under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application
of the transportation act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1081.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., June 24, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.; Texarkana &
Fort Smith Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute arising out of schedule negotiations between
the organization of employees and the carriers named in this de-
cision. There are three questions involved:
(a) Shall the general office clerks and other general office em-
ployees on the Kansas City Southern and Texarkana & Fort Smith
Railways have a separate agreement?
(b) Shall the rules of Decision No. 630 be incorporated in the
agreement between the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees and the
Kansas City Southern and Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Com-
panies in lieu of rules shown in joint submission to the Labor Board
under date of June 28 as not having been agreed to?
(c) Request of the carrier and the committee representing the
general office clerks and other general office employees for withdrawal
from further consideration by the Labor Board of the submission of
June 27, and request of the carrier for the withdrawal from fur-
ther consideration by the board of the joint submission of the
.552
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees of June 28, 1921, in so far as that
submission relates to employees classed as clerks.
Statement.-On May 9, 1921, the management of the Kansas City
Southern Railway Co. met with the committee of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, for the purpose of negotiating an agreement in
accordance with the provisions of Decision No. 119. The employees
claim to have presented to the carrier certificates of authorization
from 746 employees of the classes covered by the clerks' national
agreement, or 87 per cent of the total number of such employees
of this carrier. It is admitted by the carrier that these authoriza-
tions were presented and were accepted without being checked, and
negotiations entered into.
It is stated by the carrier that while the negotiations were in
progress petitions were presented from the general-office employees
asking for a separate agreement, and that the carrier met with the
committee appointed by such employees for the purpose of nego-
tiating rules. Following the conclusion of the negotiations the
carrier made a joint submission with the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees' committee under date of June 28, 1921, showing the agreed
and disagreed rules, the "scope" rule being agreed to and including
clerks, excepting only certain specified positions, and made a sub-
mission under date of June 27 showing the result of the negotiations
with the general-office clerks and other general-office employees, all
rules having been agreed upon. The carrier in the latter submis-
sion asks this question: "Shall the general-office clerks and other
general-office employees on the Kansas City Southern and Texar-
kana & Fort Smith Railways have a separate agreement, which
would cover only this class of employees?"
In response to an inquiry of the Labor Board addressed to the
interested parties under date of July 8, 1921, the carrier advised
the board that Interpretation No. 5 to Decision No. 119 did not
settle the question at issue, and states that the general-office clerks
were not agreeable to accepting the rules as proposed by the Broth-
erhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Ex-
press and Station Employees' committee, but that they would not
object to a schedule of rules and working conditions negotiated by
that committee if it contained the provisions in total as were con-
tained in the schedule which had been agreed upon between the
general-office committee and the management.
At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board under date of April
13, 1922, the carrier raised the question of representation according
to the grouping in Decision No. 220, contending that the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees' committee did not represent the majority
of employees in group 1 of that decision, and requested that the
board instruct that a ballot be taken to determine this question. The
employees contended that a ballot should not be taken, in view of
the fact that they had submitted their authorization prior to nego-
tiations of May 9, 1921, and had negotiated an agreement and made
a joint submission to this board; that the "scope" rule was agreed
DECISIONS.
553
to; that the 30 days' notice, as provided in their termination rule,
had not been served; and that the rules of Decision No. 630 should
be applied in lieu of the disagreed rules as shown in their joint
submission dated June 28, 1921.
Under date of June 22, 1922, the carrier requested the withdrawal
from their consideration by the Labor Board of the submissions.
of June 27 and June 28, 1921, in so far as they related to employees
classed as clerks, and on the same date the committee representing
the general-office clerks and other general-office employees also re-
quested withdrawal of the joint submission which they made with
the carrier under date of June 27, covering rules for this class of
employees.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
(a) No. This question is decided by Interpretation No. 5 to
Decision No. 119.
(b) Yes.
8
(c) The request for the withdrawal of the joint submission by
the committee representing the general-office employees and the
carrier, under date of June 27, 1921, is granted. Request of the
carrier for withdrawal from further consideration of the board of
the joint submission of June 28, 1921, with the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees in so far as it relates to clerks is denied, as this
dispute was jointly submitted to the Labor Board, hearing has been
held, and the organization party to the dispute has not concurred
in the request for withdrawal, but, on the contrary, has requested
that a decision be issued.
DECISION NO. 1082.-DOCKET 1687.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Question.-Representation in agreement negotiations, maintenance
of way employees.
Statement.-Dispute has been filed with the Labor Board wherein
it is claimed by the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers that they represent a ma-
jority of the employees in the maintenance of way department on
the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. and should therefore, in
accordance with Decision No. 119, be permitted to negotiate an
agreement with the management affecting this class of employees.
The management takes the position that the organization has at no
time furnished it with bona fide authorization indicating that they
represented a majority of the maintenance of way employees and
have accordingly declined to negotiate an agreement with them.
The evidence shows that after conference with representatives of
the maintenance of way organization, at which conference, it is al-
leged by the management, said organizations failed to submit authori-
zation from a majority of the employees involved, the management
circulated a ballot among its maintenance of way employees, which
ballot did not specify the name of any labor organization whose
554
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that the organization was
established for the purpose of performing the functions of a labor
organization as contemplated in Title III of the transportation act,
1920, but made provision for the selection of representatives irrespec-
tive of organization affiliation. As a result of this ballot certain
representatives were selected who, in conference with the manage-
ment, negotiated rules and working conditions under which the
maintenance of way employees are now working.
The employees, parties to this dispute, have taken exception to
the method pursued by the management in taking the ballot re-
ferred to, and request that the Labor Board authorize the taking of
another ballot, and that the organization be permitted to partici-
pate in the formulation, distribution, and counting of said ballots,
and that the name of the organization be shown thereon.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that another ballot shall be
taken, the procedure to be in conformity with the manner prescribed
in Decision No. 218 and addendum thereto, and shall include the
following:
Those who desire to be represented by the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, mark an
X in this square_..
Those who desire to be represented by the American Federation of
Railroad Workers, mark an X in this square_
Those who desire to be represented by individuals or any other or-
ganization, write the name of such individual or such organization
here:
and mark an X in this square-.
미
​Separate ballots shall be prepared for the following groups, which
indicate the classes of employees eligible to vote:
(a) Employees in the maintenance of way department (not in-
cluding supervisory forces above the rank of foremen), shop and
roundhouse laborers (including their gang leaders), transfer and
turntable operators, engine watchmen, pumpers, highway-crossing
watchmen, and all other employees performing work properly recog-
nized as work belonging to and coming under the jurisdiction of the
maintenance of way department, except as provided in decisions of
the Labor Board on disputes submitted under Decision No. 119 for
other crafts or classes.
(b) Stationary and hoisting engineers, stationary firemen, boiler-
room water tenders, engine-room oilers or grease-cup fillers, flue
blowers and borers, fire knockers and cinder-pit men, fire builders,
and coal passers.
Arrangement should be made for the taking of this ballot at the
earliest possible moment.
DECISION NO. 1083.-DOCKET 742.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
Question. Dispute regarding seniority of C. C. Crow and Ethel
Wertz, Dallas, Tex.
DECISIONS.
555
Decision.—The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants request for withdrawal. The case is therefore removed from
the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1084.-DOCKET 1167.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall train dispatchers be listed on telegraphers' senior-
ity roster and permitted to displace employees included within the
scope of the agreement effective October 15, 1919, between the car-
rier and the employees in telegraph service?
Statement. Rule 24 of the agreement dated October 15, 1919,
reads as follows:
A roster showing the seniority standing of employees covered herein will be
furnished for each division and a copy of same furnished each office annually.
Rule 16 of the same agreement reads as follows:
Employees leaving the service of their department to accept positions not
covered by this schedule will forfeit their seniority after an absence of 90
days, except employees promoted to official positions of a temporary nature,
who will be given a leave of absence by the superintendent not to exceed one
year.
The employees state that on several divisions the telegraphers'
seniority roster contains, in addition to the employees holding po-
sitions covered by the agreement, the names of various division
officers, such as superintendents, train masters, dispatchers, etc.
The employees contend that the words "as covered herein " as used
in rule 24 above quoted specifically confine the scope of the roster
to the classes of employees included in the agreement, and that the
action of the carrier in showing any other employees on said rosters
is not only in violation of the rule but also contrary to a mutual
understanding between the parties to the agreement at the time it
was made.
The employees further state that in a recent reduction in force
a number of dispatchers who were demoted were permitted to dis-
place regularly assigned employees in telegraph service. The em-
ployees contend that while an employee may hold seniority it does
not carry with it the right to displace employees holding a regular po-
sition, but that they may exert same only by reverting to the bottom
of the list or by going on the extra list, and exercise their seniority.
only by bidding on vacancies on new positions. This, the employees
contend, should be the only manner in which train dispatchers should
be permitted to exercise their seniority if they are going to be per-
mitted to hold seniority at all under the telegraphers' agreement.
The carrier states that prior to Federal cotrol the working condi-
tions of telegraphers were governed by an agreement dated October
1, 1917, which contained the following rules:
All employees are in line for promotion, advancement depending upon the
faithful discharge of duties and capacity for increased responsibility. Where
ability and conduct permit, seniority rules will govern. Seniority will date
from the last date of entering the service of the company.
20936°23—36
556
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Employees leaving the service of their department to accept service in other
departments will forfeit their seniority after an absence of 90 days.
The carrier also states that prior to October 15, 1919, it was the
practice to permit telegraphers promoted to positions outside of the
agreement requiring a knowledge of telegraphy to retain their
seniority rights as telegraphers. In accordance with this practice
many telegraphers accepted promotion with the definite understand-
ing that their seniority rights would not be forfeited. The carrier
further states that, effective October 15, 1919, the carrier agreed to
change the past practice so far as retention of seniority by employees
promoted from telegraph service was concerned, and rule 16 of the
agreement pertaining to retention of seniority was changed to read
as follows:
Employees leaving the service of their department to accept positions not
covered by this schedule will forfeit their seniority after an absence of 90 days.
It is claimed that this change was predicated on a change in rule
7 of the agreement, in which the following language was incor-
porated:
Seniority will date from the day employees enter a class of service or a posi-
tion covered by this agreement.
The carrier states that the agreement contains a provision that
it will take effect October 15, 1919, and that it is not retroactive;
that the foregoing changes were agreed to with the understanding
that telegraphers who accepted promotion after October 15, 1919,
would be fully conversant with the change in the past practice, and
after that date they understood that if they accepted promotion to
a position not specifically mentioned in the telegraphers' agreement
they had the option of returning within 90 days to a position com-
ing within the seniority provisions of the telegraphers' agreement
or remaining in the position to which they were promoted and for-
feit their seniority rights.
Summarized, the carrier's position is:
First. That the agreement dated October 15, 1919, was not retro-
active; therefore, any changes in past practice which became effec-
tive on that date can not be applied to cancel any seniority rights
accumulated under conditions which had been in existence for many
years;
Second. Many telegraphers had been promoted under rules in
agreements prior to October 15, 1919, to positions which were in
a direct line of advancement for all employees in the telegraph serv-
ice with the understanding that their rights to position in tele-
graph service would remain intact, and during all the years the
practice existed no protest was ever made; and
Third. That the request of the employees is not consistent with
the principle of seniority and the practice of the carrier to pro-
tect employees of many years' service who had accumulated senior-
ity rights prior to the date changes in seniority rules were agreed
upon.
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
557
DECISION NO. 1085.-DOCKET 1191.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Order of Railway Telegraphers v. Georgia Railroad.
Question. Request for restoration of positions of clerk-telegra-
pher at Crawfordsville and Crawford, Ga., abolished March 1 and
April 3, respectively.
Statement. The positions of clerk-telegrapher at the points above
named were abolished March 1 and April 3, 1921, respectively.
The employees state that for some years there has been employed
at Crawfordsville, Ga., an agent-operator, an operator-clerk, and a
station porter. During the period of Federal control an additional
clerk was added. In October, 1920, the clerk was discontinued, and
later the operator-clerk was also discontinued. In June, 1921, a
position of clerk was established at rate of $75 per month. At Craw-
ford, Ga., there were employed for several years an agent-operator
and a clerk-telegrapher. In April, 1921, the position of clerk-
telegrapher was abolished, and in May, 1921, a position of clerk at
rate of $75 per month created. The employees contend that busi-
ness conditions did not at any time justify the discontinuance of
the positions of clerk-telegrapher and that the carrier was fully
aware of the fact that the agent could not handle the work un-
assisted.
The employees further contend that action of the carrier was
taken for the purpose of changing the classification and rate of pay
of the position in question to evade the application of the telegra-
phers' agreement. The employees also claim that the rate of $75
per month is in violation of the clerks' national agreement and the
agreement between the carrier and the clerks effective July 1, 1921.
The carrier states that the positions of clerk-telegrapher at the
stations named were abolished for the sole reason that the services
of employees filling those positions were unnecessary, and a clerk
was employed to perform the clerical duties only. The carrier con-
tends that the action was taken in the interest of economy and
efficiency of operation and that there is nothing in the agreement
with the employees in telegraph service that restricts the carrier's
rights to increase or decrease the force commensurate with the traffic
handled.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the action of the carrier
in abolishing the positions of clerk-telegrapher at the stations named
was not in conflict with the agreement between the carrier and
employees in telegraph service.
DECISION NO. 1086.-DOCKET 1225.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
International Longshoremen's Association v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Co.; Southern Railway System; Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Question. This decision is upon a controversy between the or-
ganization and carriers named above in regard to the application of
558
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the increase set forth in section 7, Article II of Decision No. 2, to
the rates of pay of certain employees engaged in loading and un-
loading freight at Norfolk, Va.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board shows that the
organization party hereto was not a party to the dispute upon which
Decision No. 2 was rendered, and that there did not exist, prior to
the rendition of said Decision No. 2, a dispute within the meaning
of section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, between the carriers
named and the said organization. The application is therefore dis-
missed and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1087.-DOCKET 1241.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding right of the carrier to require the
clerical force in the agent's office at East St. Louis, Ill., to perform
service on Saturday afternoon, February 19, 1921, and claim of cer-
tain clerical employees in said office for additional compensation
for service performed on Saturday afternoons.
Statement. On February 17, 1921, the clerical force in the
freight office at East St. Louis, Ill., was notified by the agent that
the practice of relieving clerks on Saturday afternoon would be dis-
continued, and owing to existing conditions it would be necessary
to require all clerks to work eight hours on Saturday.
The employees state that it has been the practice for a number
of years prior to Federal control to relieve the clerical forces at the
station in question on Saturday afternoon and that under the pro-
visions of rule 57 of the clerks' national agreement this practice
should not have been rescinded.
The carrier states that while the practice of permitting the clerical
employees in the office in question to absent themselves on Sat-
urday afternoon has been in effect for a number of years, it
was conditional upon the conditions existing and the ability of the
employees to keep the work in proper shape. The carrier contends
that in view of the necessity for economy which arose during the
period that this action was taken it was necessary to require the
performance of eight hours' service for eight hours' pay and that
this requirement was not in violation of rule 57 of the clerks'
national agreement.
Rule 57 of the clerks' national agreement reads, in part, as fol-
lows:
It is understood that where in a given office it has been the practice to let
employees off for a part of the eight-hour day on certain days of the week,
such practice shall not be rescinded and shall not be departed from except in
cases of emergency.
In the opinion of the Labor Board that part of rule 57 above quoted
does not contemplate that employees who are required to work on
Saturday afternoon shall be paid overtime therefor. The rules of
the clerks' national agreement were superseded by rules negotiated
between the employees and the carrier and the rules contained in
DECISIONS.
559
Decision No. 630 and should govern, in so far as the practice of
letting employees off on Saturday afternoons is concerned, during
the period following the termination of the clerks' national agree-
ment.
Decision. Request of the employees for compensation is denied.
The question of continuation of practice of granting Saturday af-
ternoons off with pay is remanded to the employees and carrier for
conference in accordance with Decision No. 630.
DECISION NO. 1088.-DOCKET 1242.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of May Kuhn, Eva Lehner,
Alice Wortham, and Dora Becker, station guards, Camden Station,
Baltimore, Md.
Statement. On January 4, 1921, the employees named above were
notified that on January 5, 1921, they would be furloughed.
The employees state that no charge of incompetency or unsatis-
factory service has been made against these employees; that on
January 5, 1921, three employees in the baggage room who held no
seniority rights on the roster on which the station guards are in-
cluded were assigned to the position. The employees contend that
the action of the carrier was in violation of the rules of the clerks'
national agreement, and request that the employees named be rein-
stated and reimbursed for the wage loss sustained since the date
they were relieved from the service.
The carrier states that the duties of the position designated as
station guards consists of announcing trains, examining tickets, and
preserving order around the premises; that in the month of Sep-
tember, 1918, there were nine women, including those referred to in
this duspute, employed as station guards at Camden Station, Balti-
more, Md., and that they were gradually displaced by male em-
ployees. The carrier further states that the war conditions resulted
in placing women in positions the duties of which they were not
fitted to perform, and that at the time these women were employed
as station guards a large number of young men were drafted for
military service and the carrier was required to adopt the expedient
of employing women for these positions.
The carrier contends that owing to the existing laws of the State
of Maryland governing the employment of women, nine female
employees were required to fill the places of seven regular male em-
ployees; that numerous complaints were received from the traveling
public in regard to the service of the women employed in these
positions, including those referred to in this dispute. The carrier
further contends that the claim of the employees in regard to these
women being furloughed is erroneous, as they were informed that
they would be replaced by men and that they would be permitted to
take any positions for which they were qualified and to which their
seniority entitled them. The carrier also states that it is not re-
560
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
quired to retain in the service women who were not qualified to fill
positions which they secured by the displacement of men required
for military service during the war, and that to do so would result
in inefficient service and impose undue expense upon the carrier on
account of the necessity for relief under the State laws governing
the employment of women.
Opinion. The statement of the carrier as above set forth is sub-
stantially as made to the Labor Board in the written presentation
filed in response to the board's letter to the carrier transmitting the
employee's position in this dispute. However, the oral and written
evidence subsequently presented by the carrier to the board is so
varied and conflicting that the board is unable to determine the real
basis upon which the carrier attempts to justify its action in this
case.
No charges of incompetency or infractions of rules on the part
of the employees involved in this dispute are urged and sustained,
nor has any evidence been presented to show that said employees
were accorded an investigation of any of the alleged charges made.
by patrons to the carrier as to their conduct.
It is admitted that the Maryland State law was not applicable at
the time the women were displaced, and that since the clerks'
national agreement became effective and a daily rate of pay and
one day's rest in seven established there has been no additional
expense involved on account of women employees. The carrier also
admits that the station guards and other employees in that class
of service are on a separate seniority roster from clerks and can not
exercise their seniority to clerical positions.
There is a further discrepancy in the carrier's position in regard
to the circumstances under which these employees left the service.
In March, 1921, the carrier took the position with the employees'
committee that these employees were not dismissed from the service
but were furloughed in connection with reduction in forces, and a
letter to that effect from the carrier has been made a part of the
record. However, in a subsequent statement to the board the carrier
reverses its position and states that the statement of the employees
that the positions were furloughed is erroneous.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the action of the carrier
in relieving the employees herein named from the service was in con-
flict with the provisions of the clerks' national agreement, and they
shall therefore be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired and
permitted to exercise such rights to any position to which they may
be entitled and reimbursed for the wage loss sustained, less any
amount earned in other employment since the date they were relieved
from the carrier's service.
DECISION NO. 1089.-DOCKET 1252.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the position of shop clerk, Keyser, W. Va., be
included within the scope of the clerks' national agreement, as de-
DECISIONS.
561
fined in rule 1, Article I thereof, and the position bulletined in ac-
cordance with the rules of said agreement.
Statement.—The position of shop clerk at Keyser, W. Va., became
vacant, and the position was not bulletined but filled by appointment.
The employees state that the employee who formerly held the posi-
tion which is the subject of this dispute was designated as shop clerk
to assistant master mechanic; that the official list of staff and division
officers designates the officer to whom the incumbent of position of
shop clerk reported as "assistant master mechanic;" that assistant
master mechanics are not included among the list of division officials,
the chief clerk and personal stenographer of whom are excluded from
the agreement. It is the contention of the carrier that the shop clerk
at Keyser is the chief clerk to the master mechanic at that point,
whereas the employees contend that the organization of officials pro-
vides for one master mechanic for each operating division, and the
official at Keyser is in reality an assistant master mechanic whose
duties and responsibilities are similar to officials similarly desig-
nated on other divisions and reporting to the master mechanics of
said divisions. The employees therefore contend that the position
in question is subject to the rules of the clerks' national agreement
and should be bulletined in accordance therewith.
The carrier states that the position referred to in this dispute is
that of shop clerk to master mechanic at Keyser; that when it be-
came vacant in December, 1920, it was filled by selection in the same
manner as it had previously been filled because the position is not
considered within the scope of the clerks' national agreement. The
carrier also states that the contention of the employees that the posi-
tion in question is that of shop clerk to assistant master mechanic is
incorrect and that, on the contrary, the officer to whom the shop
clerks report is the master mechanic in charge of all locomotive and
car repair work on the west end of the Cumberland division and re-
porting direct to the division superintendent and district master
mechanic, the same as other master mechanics located on the Mary-
land district.
The carrier further states that the Cumberland division is divided
into two operating units and that they are separate and apart, so far
as the handling of crews' records, accident reports, etc., are con-
cerned; that the master mechanic at Keyser holds a position of equal
rank to that of train master, division engineer, and other division
staff officers who are entitled to a personal office force. The carrier
contends that the position of shop clerk to the master mechanic at
Keyser is similar to the same position in other master mechanics'
offices on the railroad, and in view of the greater number of engines
handled and cars repaired, and larger number of men employed and
clerical force supervised, it is really more important than the same
position on the smaller divisions.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the position herein re-
ferred to is not included within the scope of the clerks' national
agreement as defined in rule 1, Article I thereof.
Claim of employees is denied.
562
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1090.-DOCKET 1262.
Chicago, Ill., July 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request of P. J. Nunn, Augusta, Ga., for reinstatement
with pay for time lost.
Decision. This dispute is remanded to the employees and carrier
for joint investigation in accordance with understanding reached at
hearing conducted by the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1091.-DOCKET 358.
Chicago, Ill., July 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), V.
New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Classification and assignment of J. W. Hickey, em-
ployed at Calumet River drawbridge. The following questions are
involved in this dispute:
(a) Is 50 per cent or more of Mr. Hickey's time consumed in the
performance of work such as is designated in rules 140 and 141 of
the shopmen's national agreement?
(b) Has the general chairman of the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers authority to handle a grievance for
Mr. Hickey?
(c) Is Mr. Hickey entitled to the first trick at Seventy-first
Street interlocking plant?
Statement. This dispute was filed in ex-parte form by repre-
sentatives of the Federated Shop Crafts on December 6, 1920, a
copy of which was forwarded to the management in the usual man-
ner. On March 23, 1921, the carrier replied stating, in effect, that
a jurisdictional question was involved affecting the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Brotherhood Railroad
Signalmen of America, and attached for the information of the
Labor Board a statement prepared by the general chairman of the
signalmen's organization wherein he takes the position that Mr.
Hickey is properly classified and paid as a signalman.
On April 28, 1921, an oral hearing was conducted in connection
with this dispute, at which time representatives of the electrical
workers and signalmen were in attendance. At the request of
representative of the electrical workers, the case was postponed.
On May 4, 1921, a joint communication was addressed to repre-
sentatives of the carrier, representative of the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, and representative of the Brother-
hood Railroad Signalmen of America, stating that in the opinion
of the Labor Board the question involved was one that should be
handled in conference between representatives of the respective par-
ties to whom this communication was addressed, in an effort to ar-
rive at the facts and accordingly agree upon national agreement
that properly covers the employee in question.
DECISIONS,
563
On February 10, 1922, a communication was addressed to the
Labor Board by representative of the Railway Employees' Depart-
ment, A. F. of L., in behalf of the electrical workers, wherein a
statement was made that, acting in conformity with the Labor
Board's suggestion, a conference was held for the purpose of en-
deavoring to adjust the dispute, but without satisfactory results.
In this communication the representative of the Railway Employees'
Department objected to the action of the Labor Board in making the
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America a party to this dis-
pute, for the reason, as claimed by him, that Mr. Hickey is a mem-
ber of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and
was devoting 50 per cent or more of his time to work specified
in rules 140 and 141 of the shopmen's national agreement and of
Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222.
An oral hearing was conducted in connection with the resubmis-
sion of this case, and the three parties were duly notified and repre-
sented. The positions of the respective parties have been sum-
marized as follows:
1. The representative of the International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers (Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
takes the position that Mr. Hickey is employed by the New York
Central Railroad Co. at Calumet River interlocking plant as signal
maintainer, being assigned to this job since October 22, 1918; that
Mr. Hickey is working the second trick at Calumet River, and since
being there has refused three first-trick jobs that were open and
given to younger men in seniority than he; that on March 22, 1920,
the first trick at Seventy-first Street was vacant and Mr. Hickey
made application for this job, but that he was ignored and the job
given to an employee with less than one year's seniority rights;
that the Seventy-first Street plant is the same kind of plant as
Calumet River plant; and that the work assigned to Mr. Hickey is
as follows:
Inspecting, repairing, and maintaining the electric wiring of General Rail-
way Signal electric interlocking machine (model No. 2) operated with 120
volts and 64 lever switches; that in connection with the machine are 64 cir-
cuit controllers, 35 indicator selectors, 64 polarized relays, and 1 master relay
governing all switch circuits and 64 National Electric Code inclosed fuse
cut-outs.
The operation of one power switchboard equipped with one main switch, four
circuit switches controlling 118-volt A. C. and D. C. signal lights, four battery-
charging switches, one circuit breaker, one volt meter, one ammeter, one rheo-
stat, and one end cell switch.
The inspecting and maintaining of 8 motor-operated derails (1 horsepower),
8 motor-operated bridge locks (1 horsepower), 12 signal motors (110-volt),
and 22 signal motors (10-volt).
The inspection and maintaining of all relays (4 to 6 points and 4 to 1,000
ohms), and bonding of rails to carry electric current around joints.
The testing, locating, and repairing of short and open circuits and grounds on
all inside and outside wiring.
The changing, inspecting, testing, connecting, disconnecting, repairing, and
sometimes charging of all batteries (storage) used in connection with the plant.
The employees claim that Mr. Hickey's meter readings for the
testing for leaks, opens, crosses, shorts, and grounds are the finest in
practical use.
It is also contended by the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers that Mr. Hickey is a member of their organization; that
564
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the first paragraph of the signalmen's agreement excluded employees
who were assigned 50 per cent or more of their time in the perform-
ance of work recognized and classified as that of electrical workers,
as per rule 140 of the shopmen's national agreement, and therefore
contend that inasmuch as practically all of Mr. Hickey's work is such
as is generally recognized as electricians' work and outlined in rules.
140 and 141 of the shopmen's national agreement as well as Adden-
dum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 issued by the Labor Board, that he
should be classified as an electrical worker.
It is further contended by the electrical workers' organization that
their general chairman has authority which the railroad company
should recognize in handling grievances for the employee in ques-
tion, and that inasmuch as the first-trick maintainer at Seventy-first
Street interlocking plant was vacant and filled by a younger employee
in service, Mr. Hickey is entitled to the position.
2. The representatives of the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen
of America contend that Mr. Hickey does not perform any work
specified in rules 140 and 141 of the shopmen's national agreement,
in that the work that he performs is properly recognized as signal
work; that an interlocking machine at an electrical plant is com-
posed almost entirely of mechanical devices, there being only a
small proportion of electrical devices connected therewith and those
being of such a nature that they require very little attention except
occasional inspection, and that on the other hand the mechanical
portion of the machine is of so intricate a nature that it requires
daily inspection and repair, while the electrical part will often go
for weeks at a time without any repairs being made or required.
The representative deals to considerable length with the question
as work considered "mechanical work" and work considered "elec-
trical," the purport of his argument being to show that signaling
apparatuses consist of intricate mechanical parts, the adjustment,
maintenance, and repairs of which requires the services of one
experienced in that particular line, and that the actual electrical
work in connection therewith represents a small proportion of the
total services required. The signal organization claims that it has
always been the practice for signalmen to perform this class of
service.
In connection with the filling of the position at Seventy-first
Street interlocking plant it is the contention of the signalmen's or-
ganization that the national agreement covering signalmen was
properly applicable and followed by the management in filling this
position.
NOTE.-Voluminous exhibits and testimony were offered by both organiza-
tions herein referred to, but the board in this decision will not attempt to
go into detail of the respective positions as to the technical arguments therein
advanced, but will attempt only to give an outline of the controversy.
3. The carrier's position briefly summarized is that the position
occupied by Mr. Hickey is that of signalman and that he is not
performing service that entitles him to the classification and rating
of a first-class electrical worker. In the carrier's presentation con-
siderable stress is laid upon the mechanical construction of signal-
ing apparatus as compared with the electrical features in connection
with such equipment, they taking the position that the electrical
workers are classifying as electrical work a large portion of the
DECISIONS,
565
work which is strictly of a mechanical nature, having to do with
the operation of the levers, etc., mechanically, and which parts do
not transmit electric energy or are directly connected with such
electric carrying parts.
Attention is called to the fact that mechanically operated signal
plants have been in use for years, being operated by man power,
and that in a large number of cases the mechanism of the signal
machine is identical to the mechanism when operated by man power,
the only change being that it is now being operated by electric
energy, but that the machine functions as heretofore.
It is contended that a large part of this particular man's time
is devoted to repairs and maintenance of the mechanism, and that
because some parts of the machine may be attached to electric
carrying parts it should not properly make the repairs and mainte-
nance of such parts electrical.
Opinion. The Labor Board carefully analyzed the exhibits and
testimony submitted by the respective parties to this dispute, and
upon first analyzation thought perhaps the question was one of
jurisdiction and one that should be settled in conference between
the interested organizations. However, upon further analysis, the
board is of the opinion that the dispute involves a question which
it is required to decide in view of the fact that a rule was in effect
with reference to signalmen performing 50 per cent or more of their
time on work classified as that of electrical workers. The question
involved is this: Is the work, claimed by the electrical workers,
electrical work as contemplated in the national agreement and in
rules 140 and 141 of the recent ruling of the Labor Board (Ad-
dendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222)?
The signal department on the railroads of the country is an
established branch of the railroad service; in most cases it is separate
and distinct from any other department because of the peculiarities
of the service. The positions of signalmen and signal maintainers
have been established and recognized for years, their service require-
ments being different from other classes of railroad employees. In
Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement No. 4, to General Order No. 27,
issued by the United States Railroad Administration, it was recog-
nized that the service of these classes was of a composite nature, re-
quiring the services of men having knowledge of the various mechani-
cal requirements in connection with the maintenance and operation of
such apparatus. These men in a large number of cases have grown up
in the railroad service in that particular department and are especially
fitted for service in that department. As stated by the carrier in its
presentation, the operation of signal apparatus by electric power
is a comparatively new innovation, the previous practice being to
use man power in the performance of this service.
The board recognizes that, where an employee must possess a
thorough knowledge of electrical work and is required to perform
actual electrical work for more than 50 per cent of his time, he
should, in accordance with the rules, be classified as an electrical
worker. The board, however, does not feel that, because the mecha-
nism of a signal interlocking plant is controlled by levers or switch-
boards which have the effect of transmitting electrical energy to this
mechanism, the repairs and maintenance of the mechanism or
parts should be considered the work of an electrical worker. This
566
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
is strictly signal department service and would have been necessary
had the practice of control by man power remained in effect.
The board will refrain from going into extensive detail as to the
technical features brought out by the respectibe parties, but believes
that it would be utterly unfair to the signalmen's organization, as
well as to the carrier, to sustain the position of the electrical workers
in this case. A decision as requested by the electrical workers would
without a doubt disrupt the signalmen's organization, as well as
destroy established and well-recognized practices that have grown up
in railroad service for years. However, the board desires it under-
stood that this decision is predicted upon the service performed by
the employee involved in this particular dispute and in accordance
with the rules in effect.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
No.
(b) The selection of representatives by the employee is a matter
of his own choosing, but all grievances, etc., affecting said position
must be handled in accordance with the rules and regulations appli-
cable to signalmen.
(c) No.
DISSENTING OPINION.
In dissenting from the decision approved by the majority the
undersigned simply desire to state that the dissent is based solely
upon the facts surrounding the method of procedure followed by
the majority and not in any sense upon the merits of the case, as
the majority denied our request for opportunity to study the volumi-
nous documentary and oral evidence submitted.
The case in dispute is one that justified the most careful con-
sideration; it was submitted to the board by the Federated Shop
Crafts and involves rules 140 and 141 of the board's Decision No.
222 and addenda thereto, also the "scope" of Decision No. 707.
As the Federated Shop Crafts are now involved in a general stop-
page of work, there can be no reason advanced justifying the neces-
sity for undue haste.
The decision approved by the majority was never discussed in any
meeting held by Bureau No. 2, the bureau to which this class of
employees and disputes were apportioned by the rules of the board.
Without any notice whatever the proposed decision was introduced
at the executive meeting of the board on the afternoon of July 5,
1922, and by motion was made a special order of business for 9.30
a. m., July 6. We submit below the minutes of July 6, which are
self-explanatory:
Docket 1702. Mr. McMenimen moved that decision in Docket 1702, proposed
by Mr. Higgins on July 5, be adopted.
Mr. Wharton stated that his attention was first called to the desire to
render a decision on this case yesterday afternoon; on inquiry found it was
impossible to get copies of the hearing and at the same time have copy in the
hands of the secretary of the bureau for analyzing the evidence, and owing
to the shortness of the time have not yet had opportunity to read evidence in
the case, which is quite voluminous; this case is one which fundamentally
affects the class of employees, namely, the electrical workers, represented by
Mr. Jewell, president Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.; the case
was never brought to the board by the signalmen, nor were they a party to
this dispute except as it developed later and were given an opportunity to
develop facts in the case, and I request that if it is the desire of the board
to render a decision in this case, Bureau No. 2, in accordance with the rules
DECISIONS.
567
of the board, first hold a meeting and endeavor to reach a decision and make
a report, and in case of a disagreement the members of the bureau to submit
such separate report as is deemed necessary. I am not now prepared, as chair-
man of the bureau, to pass on this question in an intelligent manner for the
reasons above stated.
Mr. McMenimen stated that his reason for moving the adoption of this de-
cision was a positive understanding that at least two members of the bureau
had gone over the decision in this case and also in Docket 358 and had agreed
upon them.
Mr. Wharton stated:
"Referring to the statement made by Mr. McMenimen, I, as chairman of the
bureau, have had no notice of any meeting of the bureau at which this matter
was discussed, referring to Dockets 358 and 1702, and I desire to introduce
into the record the following communications, one dated May 18, 1922, signed
by Mr. Bickers, addressed jointly to Messrs, Wharton, Barton, and Higgins: ·
"With reference to dispute covered by Docket 1702, also Docket
358, governing the question relative to the classification of certain signal
department employees as electrical workers, we held very complete hearings on
the question of signalmen performing electrical workers' work, and I would
respectfully suggest that at your first opportunity you review these hearings.
The question involved is of considerable importance, especially to the signal-
men's organization, they taking the view that the life of the organization is
dependent upon the decision that may be rendered by the Labor Board in con-
nection with this dispute.
"One of the questions in dispute has specific reference to the interlocking
plant at Calumet River drawbridge, which is just outside of Chicago. I am
taking the liberty of offering the suggestion that on some day in the near future
the members of Bureau No. 2 visit this interlocking plant in order that they
may get a clear picture of the signal and electrical apparatus. This plant, I
understand, is representative of similar plants all over the country that are
operated electrically and could consistently be used as a guide in arriving at
your conclusion in connection with the question that has been submitted to
the board.
"I mentioned to Messrs. Evans and Helt, who are representing, respectively,
the electrical workers and signalmen, that you would perhaps visit this plant,
and both seemed desirous that you do so and requested an opportunity to ac-
company the bureau members if such a visit is deemed advisable.
I am merely offering this suggestion for what it is worth.'
Reply dated June 21, 1922, by Mr. Higgins:
"Your memorandum of May 18. I am agreeable to a personal inspection of
the plant mentioned when such a trip can be conveniently made.'
66
Reply dated June 21, 1922, signed by Mr. Wharton (both addressed to Mr.
Bickers):
Your memorandum of May 18. I am agreeable to a personal inspection of
the plant mentioned. It is my understanding that we can make this trip in one
day. The interested parties have volunteered to drive the bureau members to
the plant.'
C&
The copies will speak for themselves. It is quite evident from this that the
bureau intended to conduct personal investigation and inspection at the plants
in question prior to rendering decision, and no such inspection has been had and
no such action taken up to date."
Mr. Wharton moved that the dockets be handled in accordance with the rules
of the board; that is, that a meeting of the bureau be held, an effort made to
reach a unanimous decision, and in the event of failure to do so that the re-
spective members of the bureau submit to the board such recommendation as
they desire.
The question was upon the adoption of Mr. Wharton's motion. Vote taken
resulted as follows:
Ayes: Messrs. Phillips, Wharton, Elliott.
Noes: Messrs. Barton, Baker, McMenimen, Higgins, Hooper.
Mr. Wharton's motion was therefore lost.
Mr. Wharton further stated that he wishes to introduce for the record copy
of letter that was written to Wilmer W. Salmon, president General Railway
Signal Co., Rochester, N. Y., dated at Washington, D. C., May 19, 1922, as
follows:
3
"The advent of the electrical interlocking machine into the railroad industry
has brought about a radical change in the installing and maintenance of signal
568
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
apparatus, which change has resulted in increased numbers of our members
devoting all of their time solely to this particular class of work.
"In recognition of the importance of this work, some of our staff have been
devoting considerable time to studying the various installations in use, and
we found during the course of our investigation that of the electrical inter-
locking apparatus installed, the machines made by your company are vastly
in the majority.
"We have also found in our study of various authorities on this subject that
the opinions as expressed by yourself in 1902 and again in 1919 are now an
acknowledged fact.
"This, coupled with the prominent position you occupy as the head of such a
gigantic industry, has led me to take the liberty of trespassing upon your valua-
ble time with the hope of securing your cooperation in the matters outlined below.
"The results of the studies of our staff will be published in our journal,
which, for your information, has a circulation of over 150,000. This data will
be published for the purpose of assisting the membership of our organization,
and we would very much desire your permission to quote from the various
articles written by you upon the subject matter herein contained, allotting, of
course, the proper credit.
.
"The laws of our organization require that an apprentice shall serve four years
as such before becoming a journeyman. It is of course necessary in order that
he become a competent mechanic that he be required to learn a certain amount
of mechanical work in addition to the electrical; so having in mind the proper
educating of our apprentices in this important phase of electrical work we would
appreciate having yourself or some member of your staff answer the following
questions:
"1. We believe that an apprentice should devote four hours per week to a
course in elementary electricity. Do you consider that sufficient for the purpose?
"2. What books or magazines would you recommend an apprentice to pur-
chase and study in order to aid him to qualify as a journeyman in signal work?
"3. In instructing an apprentice who devotes all of his time to signal work,
how would you distribute his four-year course-electrical, mechanical, draw-
ing?
"4. On an electrical interlocking district what proportion of a maintainer's
time do you believe is spent on electrical work? On mechanical work?
"5. Assuming an apprentice is going to devote all of his time to signal work,
do you believe that a four-year term is too long to serve?
"Secure in the belief that our desire to raise the standard of the man em-
ployed in this field meets with your approval and is sufficient justification for
our request, I remain
"Yours respectfully,
"J. P. NOONAN,
"International President,
"International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.”
Reply to that letter dated May 23, 1922, signed W. W. Salmon, president,
General Railway Signal Company, addressed to J. P. Noonan, international
president, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:
"Your esteemed letter of May 19, addressed to me at my Rochester office,
has been forwarded to me here.
I have read your letter with the greatest interest and shall take pleasure
in replying to the several questions you have asked at the earliest possible
moment. I wish, however, to consult with our chief engineer and the managers
of our manufacturing and installation departments, with a view to getting
their best judgment on the several questions which you have raised.
It is my hope to be able to meet and consult with these officers in time to
permit of replying fully to your inquiries within the next ten days, or, at most,
two weeks."
Memorandum, dated May 31, 1922, signed S. N. Wight, commercial engineer,
which refers to the questions in letter of May 19:
"Memorandum.
"Mr. J. P. Noonan's letter of May 19, 1922.
"Referring to the five points mentioned by Mr. Noonan, I would suggest as
follows:
""1. We believe that an apprentice should devote four hours per week to
a course in elementary electricity. Do you consider that sufficient for the
purpose?'
DECISIONS.
569
"It would be my thought that four hours per week consistently and con-
scientiously applied should give any man of average intelligence a fair knowl-
edge of the elementary principles of electricity. I should be inclined to regard
this as a minimum, however, but would not recommend that the minimum be
placed any higher, as the apprentice should spend some time with other studies
and reading.
A
2. What books or magazines would you recommend an apprentice to
purchase and study in order to aid him to qualify as a journeyman in signal
work?'
"I suggest as follows:
66
(a) Some good textbook on elementary electricity.
(b) The Railway Signal Engineer.
(c) Proceedings of the American Railway Association, signal division.
(d) Publications of the signal manufacturing companies.
(e) Some good textbook on mechanical drawing.
"3. In instructing an apprentice who devotes all of his time to signal
work, how would you distribute his four-year course? Electrical, me-
chanical, drawing?'
"This is a rather difficult question to answer. His major studies should
quite likely be along electrical lines. He will pick up a great deal of knowl-
edge of the mechanical end. However, a study of some good textbook on
elementary mechanics would be very helpful. He should at least study me-
chanical drawing to the extent of being able to fairly well interpret a drawing.
“‘4. On an electrical interlocking district, what proportion of a main-
tainer's time do you believe is spent on electrical work? On mechanical
work?'
"This again is a difficult question to answer, as we would first have to
interpret what we mean by electrical work and mechanical work. If in con-
nection with an electric interlocking plant we merely refer to the switch
connections as mechanical, then there is only a small amount of mechanical
work to do; that is to say, a switch box might be considered either a me-
chanical device or an electrical device. It is really a mechanical device to
perform an electrical function. I venture the statement that a maintainer
of an electric interlocking plant devotes two-thirds of his effort and ability
to electrical work.
“‘5. Assuming an apprentice is going to devote all of his time to signal
work, do you believe that a four-year term is too long to serve?'
"I feel sure that with the proper opportunity to learn, a man of ordinary
intelligence should become a competent maintainer in four years. If he can
not, it would seem advisable for him to look to some other pursuit as means
of livelihood. The ordinary man who is at all mechanically inclined should
become a competent maintainer in three years' time if he seriously applies
himself to his work and makes a reasonable effort to acquire the necessary
information."
Letter dated May 26, 1922, signed by W. K. Howe, chief engineer, addressed
to Mr. Moffett, assistant general manager:
Returning herewith copy of Mr. J. P. Noonan's letter of May 19 to Mr.
Salmon with respect to the second question, namely, 'What books or magazines
would you recommend an apprentice to purchase and study in order to aid
him to qualify as a journeyman in signal work?' I have the following to
suggest:
"1. Book on railway signaling, by E. E. King, published by the McGraw
Hill Book Co., 370 Seventh Avenue, New York City. See advertisement in
December Railway Signal Engineer, page 459.
See
“2. Book on electric interlocking, by James Anderson, published by Sim-
mons-Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building, New York City.
description, page 24, Railway Signal Engineer for March, 1922.
"3. Periodical, Railway Signal Engineer.
“4. Handbook on electric interlocking, General Railway Signal Co.
"5. Might take a course in International Correspondence School if it has a
department devoted to railway signaling.
"6. In addition there used to be a school on railway signaling at Utica, I
believe, but do not know whether it is still in operation.
"7. Man might become a member of the R. S. A. and secure all publica-
tions, becoming familiar with plans, specifications, etc., in this way.
"8. Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia, while a very large book, has a good deal
of information concerning railway signaling appliances.
570
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
"By writing the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building,
New York, and the McGraw Hill Book Co., 370 Seventh Avenue, the individual
in question could check up the list which I have given and probably obtain
additional data as to books available."
Letter signed by F. W. Moffett, assistant general manager, General Railway
Signal Co., dated May 31, 1922, addressed to Mr. Salmon, president:
"Under date of May 23 you forwarded copy of a letter you had received
from Mr. J. P. Noonan, international president of the Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, and requested my views as to the answer to the several questions
Mr. Noonan asked you.
"I referred the inquiry to Messrs. Howe and Wight with request to Mr.
Wight that he secure the combined opinion of the circuit and interlocking
engineers in his department concerning these questions. I asked Mr. Howe
to specifically reply to question 2; that is, to the books to be studied. I inclose
copy of Mr. Howe's recommendation, dated May 26, and Mr. Wight's memo-
randum of May 31.
My suggestions would be as follows, which are substantially in accordance
with Messrs. Howe and Wight's recommendations:
Question 1: 'We believe that an apprentice should devote four hours per
week to a course in elementary electricity. Do you consider that sufficient
for the purpose?'
Answer 1: It would be my thought that four hours per week consistently
and conscientiously applied should give any man of average intelligence a
fair knowledge of the elementary principles of electricity. I should be in-
clined to regard this as a minimum, however, but would not recommend that
the minimum be placed any higher, as the apprentice should spend some time
with other studies and reading.
Question 2: What books or magazines would you recommend an apprentice
to purchase and study in order to aid him to qualify as a journeyman in
signal work?"
'Answer 2: I would recommend that apprentices study the following:
"(a) Book on electrical interlocking, published by the General Railway
Signal Co., Rochester, N. Y.
"(b) Book on railway signaling, by E. E. King, published by McGraw Hill
Book Co., 370 Seventh Avenue, New York City.
"(c) Book on electrical interlocking, by James Anderson, published by the
Simmons-Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building, New York City.
"(d) Read the Railway Signal Engineer, published monthly by the Simmons-
Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building, New York City.
"(e) Become a member of the signal division of the American Railway
Association and study such plans, specifications, and publications as the asso-
ciation issues from time to time.
66
Question 3: In instructing an apprentice who devotes all of his time to
signal work, how would you distribute his four-year course?
Answer 3: Our suggestion would be that approximately 50 per cent of
the study should be along electrical lines and the remainder fairly equally
divided between elementary mechanics and mechanical drawing. The short
electrical course of the International Correspondence School might well serve
this purpose for such apprentices as do not have the opportunity to attend
any one of the night schools where such subjects are taught.
Question 4: On an electrical interlocking district, what proportion of a
maintainer's time do you believe is spent on electrical work? On mechanical
work?"
Answer 4: This again is a difficult question to answer, as we would first
have to interpret what we mean by electrical work and mechanical work.
If in connection with an electric interlocking plant we merely refer to the
switch connections as mechanical, then there is only a small amount of
mechanical work to do; that is to say, a switch box might be considered
either a mechanical device or an electrical device. It is really a mechanical
device to perform an electrical function. I venture the statement that a
intainer of an electric interlocking plant devotes two-thirds of his effort
and ability to electrical work.
Question 5: Assuming an apprentice is going to devote all of his time
to signal work, do you believe that a four-year term is too long to serve?
46
Answer 5: I feel sure that with the proper opportunity to learn a man
of ordinary intelligence should become a competent maintainer in four years.
If he can not, it would seem advisable for him to look to some other pursuit
as means of livelihood. The ordinary man who is at all mechanically in-
DECISIONS.
571
clined should become a competent maintainer in two to three years' time if he
seriously applies himself to his work and makes a reasonable effort to ac-
quire the necessary information."
Mr. Wharton continued:
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is very evident to me that it does not make any
difference what the evidence is, that the majority of the board, without any
knowledge of the questions involved, by tacit consent or agreement, has agreed
to pass a decision and, if the board sees fit to take such action, I shall take
such steps as are available to me to place the facts before the public and the
railroad employees. This is not said as a threat but merely an effort to place
the facts before the public. I believe this board was instituted to carry out
certain well-defined principles and duties defined by law, and that there should
be no reprisal visited upon any class of employees, and this decision should
not be acted upon hastily and in advance of a proper opportunity to make
investigation, certainly not to the extent of denying to a member of the
board an opportunity to make further study of the evidence in order that he
may arrive at intelligent conclusions."
Mr. Wharton requested that he be permitted to ask questions and receive
rep'ies in regard to this docket, which should be made a part of the record.
The chairman stated:
"The Chair rules that the request is not in order because it is contrary
to the practice and procedure of this board to enter matters of discussion—
arguments made by members, questions asked by one member of the board and
answered by another-upon the minutes of the board. The minutes of the
board are intended to cover the proceedings and action of the board and not
all that may be said by way of argument in the consideration of questions
coming before the board. The gentleman making the request may appeal from
the decision of the Chair if he so desires."
Mr. Wharton stated that the ruling was made in the absence of an oppor-
tunity to state what the questions were, that there was no ulterior motive in-
volved in asking the quesions, but such questions proposed to be asked were
in the nature of seeking information by which the decision upon which the
board is to pass has been arrived at.
Mr. Wharton stated he had no desire to appeal from the ruling of the Chair
because he felt it would be useless to do so.
The question was upon the adoption of decision in Docket 1702, proposed
by Mr. Higgins July 5. Vote taken resulted as follows:
Ayes: Messrs. Higgins, McMenimen, Baker, Barton, Hooper.
Noes: Mr. Wharton.
Messrs. Elliott and Phillips present; not voting.
Decision in Docket 1702, proposed by Mr. Higgins, was therefore adopted.
Docket 358. Mr. McMenimen moved that the decision in Docket 358, proposed
by Mr. Higgins on July 5, be adopted.
The question was upon the adoption of Mr. McMenimen's motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Barton, Baker, McMenimen, Higgins, Hooper.
Noes: Messrs. Phillips, Wharton.
Mr. Elliott present; not voting.
Decision in Docket 358, proposed by Mr. Higgins, was therefore adopted at
10.19 a. m.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
A. O. WHARTON.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
The statements made in the dissenting opinion are inaccurate and
misleading. Docket 358 was received by the Labor Board Decem-
ber 6, 1920. The papers were referred in the usual manner to
Bureau No. 2 on April 14. 1921, and on April 25 the case was for-
mally docketed as Docket 358. Since that date the case has received
our careful consideration.
As to Docket 1702, the necessary papers were filed with the board
in the form of a joint submission on January 6, 1922. On March 27,
1922, the case was formally docketed as Docket 1702. Since that time
this case has had our careful consideration.
20936°—23—37
+
572
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
In each case the decision introduced in the executive meeting of
the board July 5, 1922, was prepared by a member of Bureau No. 2
and the decisions so prepared were approved by another member of
the bureau before they were presented to the board. We know of
no rule of the board which necessitates the consideration of any case
in a bureau meeting. In fact, many decisions have been proposed
by Bureau No. 2 without being considered in a bureau meeting. Fur-
thermore, any member of the board has the right to prepare and
offer a decision on any dispute properly presented to the board.
When the decisions were presented to the board on July 5 the
usual practice of allowing a day for the consideration of the same
was granted, and surely the signers of the dissenting opinion had
ample time to familiarize themselves with the merits of the disputes
between the dates they were docketed and July 5, 1922.
In connection with the correspondence quoted in the dissenting
opinion as to members of the bureau inspecting the interlocking
plant at Calumet River bridge, there was no understanding, implied
or otherwise, that a decision covering this case, Docket 358, would
be deferred until an inspection had been made.
Each member of the board has the privilege of deciding for him-
self as to the merits of any dispute properly presented, and it is also
his privilege to refrain from voting for or against any decision that
may be presented until in his judgment he has had sufficient time
to make a study of the evidence in order that he may arrive at an
intelligent conclusion. It is fair to assume that the members voting
in favor of these two decisions were governed accordingly.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
R. M. BARTON.
DECISION NO. 1092.-DOCKET 1702.
Chicago, Ill., July 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question. Classification and rate of pay of O. B. Rusco and
Charles Erthal, signal maintainers.
Statement.-A joint submission was duly filed with the Labor
Board embodying the following question:
Are Signal Maintainers O. B. Rusco and Charles Erthal entitled to classifica-
tion, rates of pay, and working conditions of the national shop agreement en
tered into between the United States Railroad Administration and employees
represented by the Railway Employees' Department of the American Federa-
tion of Labor, dated September 20, 1919, in effect, subject to the provisions of
Addendum No. 1 to Decision No. 119 issued by the United States Railroad Labor
Board?
The employees take the position that the men in question should
properly come under the shopmen's national agreement and should
be classified as electrical workers as per rules 140 and 141 of said
agreement. Voluminous written and oral evidence was submitted
by the employees purporting to indicate that the employees were
performing work of electrical workers for more than 50 per cent of
DECISIONS.
573
their time, which entitled them to the classification and rating as
claimed.
The carrier contends that the employees in question are not de-
voting 50 per cent or more of their time to electrical work as per
rules 140 and 141 referred to, but that a majority of the employees'
time is consumed on work which is that of signal maintainers and has
been so recognized and considered for years.
Opinion. In connection with this dispute the Labor Board re-
respectfully calls attention to Decision No. 1091, deciding a dispute
between the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L., and the
New York Central Railroad Co. The general question involved in
this case is identical to that involved in Decision No. 1091, referred
to, and the positions of the respective parties are in general the same.
The board therefore will not go into detail in connection with this
case, but will refer the parties to the decision herein referred to,
which decision reflects the views of the board in this matter.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DISSENTING OPINION.
In dissenting from the decision approved by the majority the
undersigned simply desire to state that the dissent is based solely
upon the facts surrounding the method of procedure followed by the
majority and not in any sense upon the merits of the case, as the
majority denied our request for opportunity to study the volumi-
nous documentary and oral evidence submitted.
The case in dispute is one that justifies the most careful consid-
eration; it was submitted to the board by the Federated Shop Crafts
and involves rules 140 and 141 of the board's Decision No. 222 and
addenda thereto, also the "scope" of Decision No. 707.
As the Federated Shop Crafts are now involved in a general
stoppage of work, there can be no reason advanced justifying the
necessity for undue haste.
The decision approved by the majority was never discussed in any
meeting held by Bureau No. 2, the bureau to which this class of en-
ployees and disputes were apportioned by the rules of the board.
Without any notice whatever, the proposed decision was introduced
at the executive meeting of the board on the afternoon of July 5,
1922, and by motion was made a special order of business for 9.30
a. m., July 6. We submit below the minutes of July 6, which are
self-explanatory:
Docket 1702. Mr. McMenimen moved that decision in Docket 1702, proposed
by Mr. Higgins on July 5, be adopted.
Mr. Wharton stated that his "attention was first called to the desire to render
a decision on this case yesterday afternoon; on inquiry found it was impossible
to get copies of the hearing and at the same time have copy in the hands of the
secretary of the bureau for analyzing the evidence, and owing to the shortness
of the time have not yet had opportunity to read evidence in the case which is
quite voluminous; this case is one which fundamentally affects the class of em-
ployees, namely, the electrical workers, represented by Mr. Jewell, president
Railway Employee's Department, A. F. of L.; the case was never brought to the
board by the signalmen, nor were they a party to this dispute except as it de-
veloped later and were given an opportunity to develop facts in the case, and I
request that if it is the desire of the board to render a decision in this case,
Bureau No. 2, in accordance with the rules of the board, first hold a meeting
and endeavor to reach a decision and make a report, and in case of a disagree-
574
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ment the members of the bureau to submit such separate report as is deemed
necessary. I am not now prepared, as chairman of the bureau, to pass on this
question in an intelligent manner, for the reasons above stated.”
Mr. McMenimen stated that his reason for moving the adoption of this de-
cision was a positive understanding that at least two members of the bureau
had gone over the decision in this case and also in Docket 358 and had agreed
upon them.
Mr. Wharton stated:
Referring to the statement made by Mr. McMenimen, I, as chairman of the
bureau, have had no notice of any meeting of the bureau at which this matter
was discussed, referring to Dockets 358 and 1702, and I desire to intro-
duce into the record the following communications, one dated May 18, 1922
signed by Mr. Bickers, addressed jointly to Messrs. Wharton, Barton, and
Higgins:
"With reference to dispute covered by Docket 1702, also Docket 358,
governing the question relative to the classification of certain signal-depart-
ment employees as electrical workers, we held very complete hearings on the
question of signalmen performing electrical workers' work, and I would re-
spectfully suggest that at your first opportunity you review these hearings. The
question involved is of considerable importance, especially to the signalmen's
organization, they taking the view that the life of the organization is depend-
ent upon the decision that may be rendered by the Labor Board in connection
with this dispute.
One of the questions in dispute has specific reference to the interlocking
plant at Calumet River drawbridge, which is just outside of Chicago. I am
taking the liberty of offering the suggestion that on some day in the near
future the members of Bureau No. 2 visit this interlocking plant in order that
they may get a clear picture of the signal and electrical apparatus. This plant,
I understand, is representative of similar plants all over the country that
are operated electrically and could consistently be used as a guide in arriving
at your conclusion in connection with the question that has been submitted
to the board.
'I mentioned to Messrs. Evans and Helt, who are representing, respec-
tively, the electrical workers and signalmen, that you would perhaps visit this.
plant, and both seemed desirous that you do so and requested an opportunity
to accompany the bureau members, if such a visit is deemed advisable.
"I am merely offering this suggestion for what it is worth.'
Reply dated June 21, 1922, by Mr. Higgins:
"Your memorandum of May 18. I am agreeable to a personal inspection
of the plant mentioned when such a trip can be conveniently made.'
Reply dated June 21, 1922, signed by Mr. Wharton (both addressed to Mr..
Bickers):
Your memorandum of May 18. I am agreeable to a personal inspection
of the plant mentioned. It is my understanding that we can make this trip
in one day. The interested parties have volunteered to drive the bureau
members to the plant.'
66
The copies will speak for themselves. It is quite evident from this that
the bureau intended to conduct personal investigation and inspection at the
plants in question prior to rendering decision, and no such inspection has been
had and no such action taken up to date.”
Mr. Wharton moved that the dockets be handled in accordance with the
rules of the board; that is, that a meeting of the bureau be held, an effort
made to reach a unanimous decision, and in the event of failure to do so that
the respective members of the bureau submit to the board such recommenda-
tion as they desire.
The question was upon the adoption of Mr. Wharton's motion. Vote taken
resulted as follows:
Ayes: Messrs. Phillips, Wharton, Elliott.
Noes: Messrs. Barton, Baker, McMenimen, Higgins, Hooper.
Mr. Wharton's motion was therefore lost.
Mr. Wharton further stated that he wishes to introduce for the record copy
of letter that was written to Wilmer W. Salmon, president General Railway
Signal Co., Rochester, N. Y., dated at Washington, D. C., May 19, 1922, as
follows:
"The advent of the electrical interlocking machine into the railroad industry
has brought about a radical change in the installing and maintenance of signal
apparatus, which change has resulted in increased numbers of our members
devoting all of their time solely to this particular class of work.
DECISIONS.
575
"In recognition of the importance of this work, some of our staff have been
devoting considerable time to studying the various installations in use and we
found, during the course of our investigation, that of the electrical interlocking
apparatus installed the machines made by your company are vastly in the
majority.
"We have also found in our study of various authorities on this subject
that the opinions as expressed by yourself in 1902 and again in 1919 are now
an acknowledged fact.
“This, coupled with the prominent position you occupy as the head of such
a gigantic industry, has led me to take the liberty of trespassing upon your
valuable time with the hope of securing your cooperation in the matters out-
lined below.
"The results of the studies of our staff will be published in our journal,
which, for your information, has a circulation of over 150,000. This data will
be published for the purpose of assisting the membership of our organization,
and we would very much desire your permission to quote from the various
articles written by you upon the subject matter herein contained, allotting, of
course, the proper credit.
The laws of our organization require that an apprentice shall serve four
years as such before becoming a journeyman, It is of course necessary, in
order that he become a competent mechanic, that he be required to learn a
certain amount of mechanical work in addition to the electrical; so having
in mind the proper educating of our apprentices in this important phase of
electrical work we would appreciate having yourself or some member of your
staff answer the following questions:
"1. We believe that an apprentice should devote four hours per week to à
course in elementary electricity. Do you consider that sufficient for the
purpose?
"2. What books or magazines would you recommend an apprentice to pur-
chase and study in order to aid him to qualify as a journeyman in signal
work?
"3. In instructing an apprentice who devotes all of his time to signal work,
how would you distribute his four-year course-electrical, mechanical, draw-
ing?
"4. On an electrical interlocking district what proportion of a maintainer's
time do you believe is spent on electrical work? On mechanical work?
5. Assuming an apprentice is going to devote all of his time to signal
work, do you believe that a four-year term is too long to serve?
Secure in the belief that our desire to raise the standard of the men em-
ployed in this field meets with your approval and is sufficient justification for
our request, I remain
"Yours respectfully,
"J. P. NOONAN,
"International President,
"International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.”
Reply to that letter dated May 23, 1922, signed W. W. Salmon, president Gen-
eral Railway Signal Co., addressed to J. P. Noonan, international president, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:
"Your esteemed letter of May 19, addressed to me at my Rochester office, has
been forwarded to me here.
I have read your letter with the greatest interest and shall take pleasure
in replying to the several questions you have asked at the earliest possible
moment. I wish, however, to consult with our chief engineer and the managers
of our manufacturing and installation departments, with a view to getting their
best judgment on the several questions which you have raised.
"It is my hope to be able to meet and consult with these officers in time
to permit of replying fully to your inquiries within the next 10 days, or, at most,
2 weeks."
Memorandum, dated May 31, 1922, signed S. N. Wight, commercial engineer,
which refers to the questions in letter of May 19:
"Memorandum.
"Mr. J. P. Noonan's letter of May 19, 1922.
* 1
'Referring to the five points mentioned by Mr. Noonan, I would suggest as
follows:
แ
1. We believe that an apprentice should devote four hours per week to
a course in elementary electricity. Do you consider that sufficient for the
purpose?'
576
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
"It would be my thought that four hours per week consistently and con-
scientiously applied should give any men of average intelligence a fair knowl-
edge of the elementary principles of electricity. I should be inclined to regard
this as a minimum, however, but would not recommend that the minimum be
placed any higher, as the apprentice should spend some time with other studies
and reading.
"2. What books or magazine would you recommend an apprentice to
purchase and study in order to aid him to qualify as a journeyman in sig-
nal work?'
I suggest as follows:
(a) Some good textbook on elementary electricity.
(b) The Railway Signal Engineer.
"(c) Proceedings of the American Railway Association, signal division.
"(d) Publications of the signal-manufacturing companies.
"(e) Some good textbook on mechanical drawing.
66
"3. In instructing an apprentice who devotes all of his time to signal
work, how would you distribute his four-year course electrical, mechani-
cal, drawing?'
'This is a rather difficult question to answer. His major studies should
quite likely be along electrical lines. He will pick up a great deal of knowledge
of the mechanical end. However, a study of some good textbook on elementary
mechanics would be very helpful. He should, at least, study mechanical draw-
ing to the extent of being able to fairly well interpret a drawing.
"'4. On an electrical interlocking district what proportion of a main-
tainer's time do you believe is spent on electrical work? On mechanical
work?'
This again is a difficult question to answer, as we would first have to in-
terpret what we mean by electrical work and mechanical work. If in con-
nection with an electric interlocking plant we merely refer to the switch con-
nections as mechanical, then there is only a small amount of mechanical work
to do; that is to say, a switch box might be considered either a mechanical
device or an electrical device. It is really a mechanical device to perform an
electrical function. I venture the statement that a maintainer of an electric-
interlocking plant devotes two-thirds of his effort and ability to electrical work.
"5. Assuming an apprentice is going to devote all of his time to signal
work, do you believe that a four-year term is too long to serve?'
I feel sure that with the proper opportunity to learn, a man of ordinary in-
telligence should become a competent maintainer in four years. If he can not,
it would seem advisable for him to look to some other pursuit as means of
livelihood. The ordinary man who is at all mechanically inclined should become
a competent maintainer in three years' time if he seriously applies himself to
his work and makes a reasonable effort to acquire the necessary information."
Letter dated May 26, 1922, signed by W. K. Howe. chief engineer, addressed
to Mr. Moffett, assistant general manager:
Returning herewith copy of Mr. J. P. Noonan's letter of May 19 to Mr.
Salmon with respect to the second question, namely, 'What books or magazines
would you recommend an apprentice to purchase and study in order to aid him
to qualify as a journeyman in signal work?' I have the following to suggest:
"1. Book on railway signaling, by E. E. King, published by the McGraw Hill
Book Co., 370 Seventh Avenue, New York City. See advertisement in De-
cember Railway Signal Engineer, page 459.
See
"2. Book on electric interlocking, by James Anderson, published by Sim-
mons-Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building, New York City.
description, page 24, Railway Signal Engineer for March, 1922.
"3. Periodical, Railway Signal Engineer.
"4. Handbook on electric interlocking, General Railway Signal Co.
"5. Might take a course in International Correspondence School if it has
a department devoted to railway signaling.
"6. In addition there used to be a school on railway signaling at Utica, I
believe, but do not know whether it is still in operation.
"7. Man might become a member of the R. S. A. and secure all publications,
becoming familiar with plans, specifications, etc., in this way.
"8. Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia, while a very large book, has a good
deal of information concerning railway signaling appliances.
By writing the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building,
New York, and the McGraw Hill Book Co., 370 Seventh Avenue, the individual
DECISIONS.
577
in question could check up the list which I have given and probably obtain
additional data as to books available.”
Letter signed by F. W. Moffett, assistant general manager, General Railway
Signal Co., dated May 31, 1922, addressed to Mr. Salmon, president:
"Under date of May 23 you forwarded copy of a letter you had received
from Mr. J. P. Noonan, international president of the Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, and requested my views as to the answer to the several ques-
tions Mr. Noonan asked you.
"I referred the inquiry to Messrs. Howe and Wight with request to Mr.
Wight that he secure the combined opinion of the circuit and interlocking
engineers in his department concerning these questions. I asked Mr. Howe to
specifically reply to question 2, that is, to the books to be studied. I inclose
copy of Mr. Howe's recommendation, dated May 26, and Mr. Wight's memo-
randum of May 31.
'My suggestions would be as follows, which are substantially in accordance
with Messrs. Howe and Wight's recommendations:
Question 1: 'We believe that an apprentice should devote four hours
per week to a course in elementary electricity. Do you consider that sufficient
for the purpose?'
Answer 1: It would be my thought that four hours per week consistently
and conscientiously applied should give any man of average intelligence a fair
knowledge of the elementary principles of electricity. I should be inclined to
regard this as a minimum, however, but would not recommend that the mini-
mum be placed any higher, as the apprentice should spend some time with
other studies and reading.
Question 2: 'What books or magazines would you recommend an appren-
tice to purchase and study in order to aid him to qualify as a journeyman
in signal work?'
"Answer 2: I would recommend that apprentices study the following:
“(a) Book on electrical interlocking, published by the General Railway
Signal Co., Rochester, N. Y.
“(b) Book on railway signaling by E. E. King, published by McGraw Hill
Book Co., 370 Seventh Avenue, New York City.
"(c) Book on electrical interlocking by James Anderson, published by the
Simmons-Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building, New York City.
"(d) Read the Railway Signal Engineer, published monthly by the Simmons-
Boardman Publishing Co., Woolworth Building, New York City.
"(e) Become a member of the signal division of the American Railway
Association and study such plans, specifications, and publications as the as-
sociation issues from time to time.
Question 3: 'In instructing an apprentice who devotes all of his time to
signal work, how would you distribute his four-year course?'
"Answer 3: Our suggestion would be that approximately 50 per cent of
the study should be along electrical lines and the remainder fairly equally
divided between elementary mechanics and mechanical drawing. The short
electrical course of the International Correspondence School might well serve
this purpose for such apprentices as do not have the opportunity to attend
any one of the night schools where such subjects are taught.
Question 4: 'On an electrical interlocking district, what proportion of a
maintainer's time do you believe is spent on electrical work? On mechanical
work?'
"Answer 4: This again is a difficult question to answer, as we would first
have to interpret what we mean by electrical work and mechanical work.
If in connection with an electric interlocking plant we merely refer to the
switch connections as mechanical, then there is only a small amount of
mechanical work to do; that is to say, a switch box might be considered either
a mechanical device or an electrical device. It is really a mechanical device
to perform an electrical function. I venture the statement that a maintainer
of an electric interlocking plant devotes two-thirds of his effort and ability
to electrical work.
Question 5: 'Assuming an apprentice is going to devote all of his time to
signal work, do you believe that a four-year term is too long to serve?'
"Answer 5: I feel sure that, with the proper opportunity to learn, a man
of ordinary intelligence should become a competent maintainer in four years.
If he can not, it would seem advisable for him to look to some other pursuit
578
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
as means of livelihood. The ordinary man who is at all mechanically inclined
should become a competent maintainer in two to three years' time if he se-
riously applies himself to his work and makes a reasonable effort to acquire
the necessary information."
Mr. Wharton continued:
"Now, Mr. Chairman, it is very evident to me that it does not make any
difference what the evidence is, that the majority of the board, without any
knowledge of the questions involved, by tacit consent or agreement, has agreed
to pass a decision and, if the board sees fit to take such action, I shall take
such steps as are available to me to place the facts before the public and the
railroad employees. This is not said as a threat but merely an effort to place
the facts before the public. I believe this board was instituted to carry out
certain well-defined principles and duties defined by law, and that there should
be no reprisal visited upon any class of employees, and this decision should not
be acted upon hastily and in advance of a proper opportunity to make investiga-
tion, certainly not to the extent of denying to a member of the board an oppor-
tunity to make further study of the evidence in order that he may arrive at
intelligent conclusions."
Mr. Wharton requested that he be permitted to ask questions and receive
replies in regard to this docket, which should be made a part of the record.
The chairman stated:
"The Chair rules that the request is not in order, because it is contrary to
the practice and procedure of this board to enter matters of discussion—argu-
ments made by members, questions asked by one member of the board and
answered by another-upon the minutes of the board. The minutes of the board
are intended to cover the proceedings and action of the board and not all that
may be said by way of argument in the consideration of questions coming before
the board. The gentleman making the request may appeal from the decision of
the Chair if he so desires."
Mr. Wharton stated that the ruling was made in the absence of an oppor-
tunity to state what the questions were, that there was no ulterior motive in-
volved in asking the questions, but such questions proposed to be asked were
in the nature of seeking information by which the decision upon which the board
is to pass has been arrived at.
Mr. Wharton stated he had no desire to appeal from the ruling of the Chair
because he felt it would be useless to do so.
The question was upon the adoption of decision in Docket 1702, proposed
by Mr. Higgins July 5. Vote taken resulted as follows:
Ayes: Messrs. Higgins, McMenimen, Baker, Barton. Hooper.
Noes: Mr. Wharton.
Messrs. Elliott and Phillips present; not voting.
Decision in Docket 1702, proposed by Mr. Higgins, was therefore adopted.
Docket 358. Mr. McMenimen moved that the decision in Docket 358, proposed
by Mr. Higgins on July 5, be adopted.
The question was upon the adoption of McMenimen's motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Barton, Baker, McMenimen, Higgins, Hooper.
Noes: Messrs. Phillips, Wharton.
Mr. Elliott present; not voting.
Decision in Docket 358, proposed by Mr. Higgins, was therefore adopted at
10.19 a. m.
A. O. WHARTON.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The statements made in the dissenting opinion are inaccurate and
misleading. Docket 358 was received by the Labor Board De-
cember 6, 1920. The papers were referred in the usual manner to
Bureau No. 2 on April 14, 1921, and on April 25 the case was
formally docketed as Docket 358. Since that date the case has
received our careful consideration.
As to Docket 1702, the necessary papers were filed with the
Board in the form of a joint submission on January 6, 1922. On
DECISIONS.
579
March 27, 1922, the case was formally docketed as Docket 1702.
Since that time this case has had our careful consideration.
In each case the decision introduced in the executive meeting of
the board July 5, 1922, was prepared by a member of Bureau No. 2,
and the decisions so prepared were approved by another member
of the bureau before they were presented to the board. We know
of no rule of the board which necessitates the consideration of any
case in a bureau meeting. In fact, many decisions have been pro-
posed by Bureau No. 2 without being considered in a bureau meet-
ing. Furthermore, any member of the board has the right to pre-
pare and offer a decision on any dispute properly presented to the
board.
When the decisions were presented to the board on July 5, the
usual practice of allowing a day for the consideration of the same
was granted, and surely the signers of the dissenting opinion had
ample time to familiarize themselves with the merits of the disputes
between the dates they were docketed and July 5, 1922.
In connection with the correspondence quoted in the dissenting
opinion as to members of the bureau inspecting the interlocking
plant at Calumet River bridge, there was no understanding, im-
plied or otherwise, that a decision covering this case, Docket 358,
would be deferred until an inspection had been made.
Each member of the board has the privilege of deciding for him-
self as to the merits of any dispute properly presented, and it is
also his privilege to refrain from voting for or against any decision
that may be presented until in his judgment he has had sufficient
time to make a study of the evidence in order that he
may arrive at an intelligent conclusion. It is fair to assume that
the members voting in favor of these two decisions were governed
accordingly.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
R. M. BARTON.
DECISION NO. 1093.-DOCKET 1460.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees v. Maine Central Railroad;
Portland Terminal Co.
Question.—Dispute concerning reductions which have been made
from the wages of certain employees because of alleged overpayments.
Statement.-On December 19, 1921, the carrier notified the repre-
sentatives of the employees that commencing with the week ending
January 11, 1922, deductions in the amount of $5 per week would be
made from the wages of certain employees due to alleged overpay-
ments on account of wrong application of rates for holidays, over-
time work, etc., and such deductions have since been made. The rep-
resentatives of the employees, in a conference on December 22, 1921,
were advised by the carrier that the detail of the proposed deductions
could be obtained from the superintendents and that any question
that might arise concerning the correctness of same could be taken
up. This was not done, but an ex parte submission was filed with the
580
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Labor Board by the representatives of the employees requesting that
the carrier be instructed to refrain from making the deductions until
the propriety of same had been passed upon by the Labor Board.
The alleged overpayments with but few exceptions were made during
the year of 1920, and the majority prior to September 1 of that year.
A statement submitted by the carrier shows that 12 deductions were
because of wrong application of Supplement No. 7, 90 because of
time and one-half being paid for overtime after 40 hours per week,
instead of 48, under rule 57 of the national agreement, 3 because of
error in figuring overtime. The question as to whether or not the
90 deductions under the alleged misapplication of rule 57 were proper
was discussed in the conference of December 22, and evidence on this
part of this dispute was presented to the board in the hearing con-
ducted by it on February 6, 1922. No such discussion has been had
with reference to the other deductions, and therefore the board is not
in position to decide upon the merits of same.
It appears that there was a controversy between the employees and
the carrier as to application of rules 66 and 67 of the national agree-
ment, and on April 12, 1921, a memorandum of understanding was
drawn up and signed by the authorized representatives of each, read-
ing as follows:
PORTLAND, ME., April 12, 1921.
Memorandum of understanding reached in conference on April 12, 1921, be-
tween Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees, Mr. W. D. Frost, representing
the Maine Central Railroad employees, and Mr. T. C. Foss, representing the
Portland Terminal employees, and Vice President and General Manager D. C.
Douglass, of the Maine Central Railroad and Portland Terminal companies.
regarding application of Dockets c-1051 and c-1052 of Adjustment Board No. 3.
United States Railroad Administration, being rulings respecting rates effective
January 1, 1920, and schedule rules in effect prior to January 1, 1920, as changed
or modified by the provisions of the so-called clerks' national agreement.
It is agreed that in the Divisor case holidays are not included in "regular
assignment; that no change will be made in the rates for positions carrying
assignment of 6 days per week, 305 days per year; that the daily rate for posi-
tions carrying more than 305 days regular assignment will be restated on the
basis of actual number of days in regular assignment. For example:
Seven-Day Assignment-
365 days less 7 holidays
=
358 days.
358 X rate effective January 1, 1920-306-new rate effective January
1, 1920.
Seven-day assignment on alternate weeks—
365 days less 7 holidays and 26 Sundays=332 days.
332 X rate effective January 1, 1920÷306=new rate effective January 1,
1920.
Where in the past punitive rate has been paid for the time worked on Sundays
and holidays, employees will continue to receive the same punitive rate for
those days, but overtime at the rate of time and one-half will not be paid until
after the expiration of 48 hours' service at pro rata rate.
The carrier contends that the entire subject matter of this mem-
orandum would be effective January 1, 1920, while the employees con-
tend that in so far as the provision relating to overtime was concerned,
it was to be effective as of April 12, 1921, and that they would not
have signed it with any other understanding.
The employees contend with regard to the other deductions that
they should not have been made without mutual agreement or deci-
sion of this board and ask that the money be restored and the merits
of the deductions decided upon before they are made.
DECISIONS.
581
The carrier contends that these deductions are proper, that the
employees had ample opportunity to inquire as to the detail and make
protest before they were made, and that they should stand.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the memorandum
of April 12, 1921, the deductions due to the alleged misapplication of
rule 57 are improper and the amounts deducted shall be restored to
the employees. The merit of the other deductions which have been.
made shall be taken up in conference between the representatives of
the employees and the carrier and if an agreement is not reached may
be resubmitted to this board for decision as to whether or not they
shall be restored. This decision does not have effect on any deduc-
tions for overpayments for time prior to March 1, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1094.-DOCKET 318.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Controversy between the carrier and the employees in
train and engine service with regard to abolishing Mokane, Mo., as a
freight terminal.
Statement. The carrier desires to change the present freight term-.
inal from Mokane to New Franklin, Mo., for through freight crews
to operate between New Franklin and Baden Mo., and on the line
between Sedalia and New Franklin crews will be operated as turn-
around with home terminal at Sedalia.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the carrier will be acting
within its rights in changing the present freight terminal from Mo-
kane to New Franklin.
The contention of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1095.-DOCKET 324.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Claim of J. T. Allin, fireman, for pay on a continuous-
time basis for accompanying dead engine.
Statement.-On April 7, 1920, J. T. Allin, fireman, was called
to messenger engine 746 from Oklahoma City, Okla., to Parsons,
Kans., a distance of 206 miles. He left Oklahoma City on a way
freight run and upon arrival at Cushing, Okla., which is a terminal
for way freight trains operating between Oklahoma City and Cush-
ing and between Cushing and Osage, Okla., he was instructed to tie
up until the following morning. On the morning of April 8 he left
Cushing on a way freight run, and upon arrival at Osage he was
582
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
again instructed to tie up until the following morning. He left
Osage on a way freight run on the morning of April 9, and upon
arrival at Bartlesville, Okla., which is a terminal for way freight
trains operating between Osage and Bartlesville and between Bartles-
ville and Parsons, he was again directed to tie up until the following
morning, at which time he left Bartlesville on a way freight run
and arrived at Parsons, Kans., the same night, thus completing the
service for which he was called.
The employees contend that inasmuch as neither Bartlesville nor
Cushing are division terminals, Fireman Allin is entitled to pay
on a continuous-time basis from Oklahoma City to Osage, which is
a division terminal, and also to pay on a continuous-time basis from
Osage to Parsons, in accordance with article No. 35 of the firemen's
schedule, reading as follows:
(a) Firemen in charge of dead engines in trains will be paid on same basis
as for firing, except that road overtime only will be allowed, and upon arrival
at division terminals they will report to the master mechanic, or foreman
in charge, when, if their services are not required, they will be relieved from
duty until called to resume trip. The senior available freight firemen will
be called for this service. This will not be considered as assigned service.
(b) Firemen will not be required to take charge of more than two engines
in train, and when two engines are taken charge of by one fireman the engines
will not be placed more than five car lengths apart in the train.
The carrier states that article No. 35 does not contain any pro-
hibition as to the handling of dead engines in messenger service
on way freight trains, and therefore when engines are handled on
such trains the terminals applying thereto shall govern. The carrier
contends that if it were intended that dead engines be handled only
on through freight trains the rule should have been written ac-
cordingly, but the fact that the rule provides "firemen in charge of
dead engines in trains will be paid on same basis as for firing" in-
dicates clearly the authority of the carrier under this rule to handle.
such engines on different classes of trains carrying different rates
and bases of pay. This engine having been moved in way freight
train the fireman in charge was paid on way freight basis, which
the carrier claims was proper and in accordance with the rule.
Decision-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1096.-DOCKET 421.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rail-
road Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost by
26 train and engine service employees who were dismissed for various
causes between the dates of August 25, 1920, and February 16, 1921.
Statement.—The board feels that the charges made by the carrier
of "unsatisfactory service," "violation of operating rules," etc..
were made with the inference, if not by direct charge, that there
was collusion among the men as to manner of performing the duties
to which they were assigned. On the other hand, the employees in
question have inferred that there was collusion among the officers
DECISIONS,
583
of the carrier to go to extremes in an effort to have them relieved
from service.
From the evidence, statements, affidavits, and records submitted in
this case it is difficult to establish any direct collusion on either side,
but it is plainly indicated in some of the cases that there is not, on
the part of the management or employees, the spirit of cooperation.
existing that is necessary for efficient operation.
Decision. Recognizing some degree of blame attaches to the men
in each case, the request for reinstatement and pay for time lost by
the 26 men in question is therefore denied. The board feels, how-
ever, that it may well be that some of the individuals involved were
less at fault than others, or that the discipline applied may have
been unduly severe, and recommends that the management give such
cases consideration as the facts may merit.
DECISION NO. 1097.-DOCKET 1505.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Washington Terminal Co.
Question.-Overtime rates for employees in the signal department
of the Washington Terminal Co.
Statement. The evidence in this case indicates that the carrier
was a party to Decision No. 2, effective May 1, 1920, which like-
wise embraced a provision for the final disposition of the working
rules. As a step to this final disposition, the board issued Decision
No. 119, and subsequently Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, ap-
plicable to all classes of employees not excluded by decision of the
board from said Decision No. 119. The question to be decided in this
case refers to the payment for overtime service July 1, 1921, and
thereafter.
Decision. The board has given careful consideration to the pecu-
liar circumstances surrounding this particular case and decides that
effective February 16, 1922, the overtime provisions established by
Decision No. 707 will be applied, and for the period July 1, 1921,
to February 6, 1922, the overtime worked shall not be paid for at
a less favorable rate or condition than the overtime provisions of
Decision No. 707.
DECISION NO. 1098.-DOCKET 1669.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Seniority rules remanded by Decision No. 501.
Statement. Decision No. 501 remanded all rules relating to
seniority and promotion for further negotiation by the organiza-
tion and carriers listed therein. In conformity therewith confer-
ence was held between representatives of the employees and repre-
sentatives of the management, at which time the rules covered by
584
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
section (e) Article II, and section (h), Article III (national-agree-
ment numbers), was discussed. Being unable to reach an agreement
upon these rules, they have been resubmitted to the Labor Board for
decision.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the board decides
that the following rules shall be incorporated in agreement between
the Chicago & North Western Railway Co. and the United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Labor-
ers, which rules shall be considered applicable only to this carrier.
ARTICLE II, SECTION (e).
Seniority rights of supervisory forces in the bridge and building
department will extend over the territory under the jurisdiction of
one division superintendent.
Seniority rights of supervisory forces in the track and roadway
departments will extend over the territory under the jurisdiction of
one roadmaster.
Seniority rights of supervisory forces over laborers in the mainte-
nance of equipment department will extend over the territory under
the jurisdiction of one master mechanic.
ARTICLE III, SECTION (h).
The general rule of promotion and seniority will not apply to
positions of track, bridge, and highway crossing watchmen and flag-
men at railway (noninterlocked) crossings, but when practicable
such positions will be filled by incapacitated employees from any
department, and preference in filling and retaining these positions
will be determined by the degree to which incapacitated for other
work, seniority in the service of the railway, and ability to perform
the work.
DECISION NO. 1099.-DOCKET 1703.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts) v.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall wrecking-derrick engineers when performing
work classified as carmen's work come under the jurisdiction of the
carmen's committee-application of rule 157 of Addendum No. 6
to Decision No. 222?
Statement.-Evidence submitted shows that wrecking-derrick
engineers employed by the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, when
not engaged in wrecking service or looking after their machines and
equipment are assigned to car-repair work or other work that they
are competent to perform at their home-shop points. The carrier
has taken the position that the Railroad Labor Board, in rule 157,
Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, has specifically excluded wreck-
ing-derrick engineers from the jurisdiction of carmen.
The evidence further shows that these men are receiving the same
rate of pay as carmen, but that it is the contention of the carrier
DECISIONS.
585
that they do not come under the jurisdiction of the carmen's com-
mittee. The employees contend that an agreement was reached be-
tween the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America and the man-
agement of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co. that building, repair-
ing, inspecting, and dismantling freight and passenger cars will be
performed by carmen; that wrecking-derrick engineers are required
to perform this class of service when not engaged in wrecking serv-
ice; and that therefore this work should be performed by carmen and
come under the jurisdiction of the carmen's organization.
Decision. It is not within the province of the Labor Board to
determine what organization shall represent employees, this being
a matter of their own selection. The board, however, decides that
when the wrecking-derrick engineers in question are assigned to per-
form work classified as that of carmen that they shall be governed
by the rates of pay and the rules and working conditions of that craft
while so engaged.
DECISION NO. 1100.-DOCKET 1921.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.-Proper application of Decision No. 147 to position of
M. L. Hayes, road department storekeeper.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case indicates that Mr. Hayes was at the time Decision
No. 2 was issued classified as section foreman, the principal part of
his work being in connection with the handling of road department
tools and materials. In applying the increases specified in Decision
No. 2 this employee was awarded 15 cents per hour, which was the
same increase as awarded section foremen.
It is shown that the carrier upon receipt of Ex parte No. 72 from
the Interstate Commerce Commission, which read in part:
Storekeepers: This class shall include storekeepers or foremen of stores who
are not vested with authority to make purchases. It does not include general
storekeepers and assistant general storekeepers,
instructed the division superintendent to change the pay-roll desig-
nation of this employee to road department storekeeper, which desig-
nation was in effect at the time Decision No. 147 of the Labor Board
was issued. In applying the decreases specified in Decision No. 147
10 cents per hour was deducted from the rate of this employee.
This reduction being made, in accordance with the statement of the
management, on account of the increases specified in Decision No.
2 for section foremen having been applied to the position, and
therefore to be consistent it was necessary in the reduction to make
the same decrease as applied to section foremen.
At oral hearing the representative of the employees took the posi-
tion that if the employee is properly classified as road department
storekeeper, the increase under Decision No. 2 should have been
13 cents per hour and the decrease under Decision No. 147 should
have been 5 cents per hour, leaving a net increase under the two
586
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
decisions of 7 cents per hour instead of 5 cents per hour, which the
employee has received.
The maintenance of way representative, however, takes the posi-
tion that the man in reality is a maintenance of way employee and
should be so considered, and that a proper designation should be
applied to him to indicate this alleged fact.
Under the latter procedure, as expressed by the employees, there
would be no adjustment in rate of pay, as it would be considered that
the decisions had been properly applied.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employee in
ques-
tion is not a storekeeper within the meaning and intent of Decisions
Nos. 2 and 147, and that an appropriate designation shall be assigned
to him which will indicate that he is a maintenance of way em-
ployee. The increase and decrease applied by the management was
in conformity with the meaning and intent of the two decisions
referred to.
DECISION NO. 1101.-DOCKET 1922.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Chicago, Burlington &
Quincy Railroad Co.
Question.-(a) What is the proper compensation for time worked
beyond 10 hours from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(b) What is the proper compensation for time worked on Sun-
days and designated holidays by regular six-day assigned employ-
ees from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(c) What is the proper compensation for employees released from
duty, notified or called to perform work outside of and not continu-
ous with regular working hours, from July 1, 1921, to February 16,
1922, inclusive?
Decision.-The Labor Board refers the parties to this dispute to
Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 707, which covers the question
at issue.
DECISION NO. 1102.-DOCKET 1945.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Elwin B. Tobey, formerly
employed as assistant bridge and building foreman, dismissed from
the service April 29, 1921.
Statement. Written and oral evidence submitted in this case
shows that Mr. Tobey was formerly employed as assistant bridge
and building foreman, Antigo, Wis., and that on April 29, 1921,
he was discharged account of his alleged refusal to perform certain
road work for the pay provided in the schedule.
It is alleged by the management that Mr. Tobey refused to go to
Pelican as directed by the foreman to perform certain emergency
DECISIONS.
587
work unless he was guaranteed additional compensation in excess of
that authorized in the schedule. It is the claim of the management
that in view of the work being of an emergency nature Mr. Tobey
was told he would be allowed extra compensation and that upon that
promise he accepted the assignment.
The evidence further shows that Mr. Tobey performed the emer-
gency service in question and that upon his return to his home point
he advised the foreman that he would not claim the additional com-
pensation above that provided in the schedule, and he was therefore
paid under the provisions of the schedule.
Several days subsequent to his return from Pelican Mr. Tobey
was called to the office and discharged for alleged insubordination
and generally unsatisfactory service. While the question of un-
satisfactory service constitutes a part of the written submission, the
direct cause of this man's dismissal was for alleged insubordination
in refusing to carry out the orders of the foreman.
It is the contention of the carrier that had any other employee
been available, Mr. Tobey would not have been permitted to go to
Pelican, but as the work was of an emergency character it was neces-
sary that it be performed, for which they agreed to allow extra
compensation.
Opinion. While, as stated above, the question of generally un-
satisfactory service has been introduced, the evidence clearly shows
that the primary and direct charge against this employee and on
which he was dismissed was on account of his alleged refusal to per-
form the road service at the compensation provided in the schedule.
This is borne out by oral evidence presented. The decision of the
Labor Board will therefore be predicated largely upon this feature.
While it may be true that Mr. Tobey did not act exactly proper
when requested to go to Pelican, the fact nevertheless remains that
he did perform the service and waived claim for any additional
compensation over and above the schedule provisions. It is further
evidenced that it was not indicated to Mr. Tobey before being per-
mitted to go to Pelican that his alleged insubordinate action would
result in his dismissal, although it is admitted in oral hearing by
representatives of the carrier that the foreman contemplated taking
this action upon his return, and which was done several days sub-
sequent thereto.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the Labor Board
decides that Elwin B. Tobey shall be reinstated to his former posi-
tion with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost, less
any amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1103.-DOCKET 1947.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Shall the name of the organization appear in the cap-
tion or title-page of agreement affecting maintenance of way em-
ployees and railway shop laborers?
20936°—23—38
588
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. Written and oral evidence submitted in connection
with this case shows that in June, 1921, a committee of the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers representing the maintenance of way employees and rail-
way shop laborers employed by the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System) met representatives of the management in an effort to agree
upon rules and working conditions in conformity with Decision No.
119. Certain rules were agreed upon; there were certain others upon
which no agreement was reached, which were submitted to the Labor
Board for decision. Among the disagreed rules was the proposed
caption or title-page, the employees having proposed the following:
Agreement between the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) and the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers,
while the management proposed the following:
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System), Maintenance of Way Department-
Rules Governing Working Conditions and Hours of Service for Employees
Enumerated Herein.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the caption or title-page
shall read:
Agreement between the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) and the Em-
ployees Represented by United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and Railway Shop Laborers.
DECISION NO. 1104.-DOCKET 1955.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federtaed Shop Crafts), v.
Virginian Railway Co.
Question.-Does the decision of the Labor Board contained in
Interpretation No. 3 to Decision No. 119 permit the employees of
any railroad to select an employee of another railroad to act as their
representative in handling grievances under rules 35, 36, and 37
of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 ?
Decision.-Yes; Title III of the transportation act, 1920, and
various decisions by the Railroad Labor Board, including Decision
No. 119, clearly establishes and recognizes the right of employees
to designate representatives of their own choice and to duly authorize
such agents to represent them and to perform all things for them
and in their name as they or each of them could do if personally
present.
DECISION NO. 1105.-DOCKET 2019.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
2
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. New York Central Railroad
Co. (Buffalo and East).
Question. (a) What is the proper compensation for time worked
beyond 10 hours from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(b) What is the proper compensation for time worked on Sundays
and designated holidays by regular six-day assigned employees from
July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
DECISIONS.
589
(c) What is the proper compensation for employees released from
duty, notified, or called to perform work outside of and not con-
tinuous with regular working hours, from July 1, 1921, to February
16, 1922, inclusive?
Decision. The Labor Board refers the parties to this dispute
to Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 707, which covers the ques-
tion at issue.
DECISION NO. 1106.-DOCKET 2119.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Question.-Shall A. N. Stengele and A. C. Nelson, carmen, who
were discharged on November 26, 1920, be returned to service with
full seniority rights and paid for all time lost?
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from representa-
tives of the respective parties that a satisfactory adjustment of the
dispute has been effected. This docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1107.-DOCKET 2141.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Is the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
properly applying rule 6 of Decision No. 222 ?
Statement. The following statement is quoted from the joint
submission:
Two days previous to each Sunday or specified holiday, the foremen in
charge of engine houses and car repair and inspection yards post bulletins
notifying such employees as they deem necessary to care for needed running
repairs and inspection that they will be required to report for duty on Sunday
or holiday specified in bulletin and for the basic eight hours on such Sunday
or holiday; the employees so called, or employees called to replace any of the
regularly bulletined employees who for any reason fail to report for duty, are
compensated at pro rata rate.
Decision.-The Labor Board refers the parties to this dispute to
Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 222 and its addenda and decides
that said interpretation shall be made applicable to the question at
issue.
DECISION NO. 1108.-DOCKET 2143.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question.-Claim of employees that carrier violated rule 27, shop-
men's agreement, in closing shops from December 23 to 28, 1921,
590
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and from December 30, 1921, to January 4, 1922; also claim of
employees for time lost.
Decision. At oral hearing conducted in connection with this
case it was mutually agreed that the case be withdrawn.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1109.-DOCKET 2146.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Question. Is the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
properly compensating carmen assigned to work on Sundays and
holidays at East Buffalo?
Statement. The following statement is quoted from the joint
submission:
Buffalo is the western terminal of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroad Co., and it is at that point that eastbound manifest and perishable
shipments destined to tidewater and intermediate points are received from
western connections; and at East Buffalo the railroad maintains large inspec-
tion and repair yards, as well as a car shop that will accommodate 24 cars.
All carmen employed at East Buffalo are on one seniority roster and are
distributed approximately as follows:
On repair tracks___
In car shop on repair work.
,
In car shop on machine work.
Total
150
40
12
202
During the life of the national agreement the railroad called all carmen at
East Buffalo, in their proper turn, for work that it was necessary to perform
on Sundays and holidays, except certain employees regularly assigned to work
within shop building, who expressed a desire to be relieved from such Sunday
and holiday work, and no change whatsoever has been made in practice of
calling men for Sunday and holiday work, by bulletin, since effective date of
rule 6 of Decision No. 222, excepting that employees performing Sunday and
holiday work at this point are compensated at pro rata rate for the basic
eight hours.
Decision. The Labor Board refers the parties to this dispute to
Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 222 and its addenda and de-
cides that said interpretation shall be made applicable to the ques-
tion at issue.
DECISION NO. 1110.-DOCKET 2198.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question. The following question was submitted to the Labor
Board in ex parte form by the above-named organization, and re-
lates to the application of rule 32, shopmen's national agreement:
Shall erecting and roundhouse foremen be allowed to perform the duties of
engine inspector while regular engine inspector is furloughed?
DECISIONS.
591
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of request from the or-
ganization that this case be withdrawn. This docket is therefore
closed.
DECISION NO. 1111.-DOCKET 2199.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question. The following questions, involving alleged violation
of rule 32, shopmen's national agreement, were submitted to the
Labor Board in ex parte form by the above-named organization:
(1) Shall machinist helper be permitted to perform duties of brass molder?
(2) Shall machinist helper receive brass molder's rate while assigned to
duties of brass molder?
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of request from the
organization that this case be withdrawn. This docket is there-
fore closed.
¡
DECISION NO. 1112.-DOCKET 2200.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question. The following question was submitted to the Labor
Board in ex parte form by the above-named organization:
Shall employees who were laid off in reduction in forces without regard to
seniority rights and those refused employment when forces were restored, be
reinstated and paid for time lost?
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of request from the or-
ganization that this case be withdrawn. The docket is therefore
closed.
DECISION NO. 1113.-DOCKET 2201.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question. The following question was submitted to the Labor
Board in ex parte form by the above-named organization:
Shall officials and subordinate officials of the carrier recognize and deal with
local committees or their representatives as provided for in rules 35 and 36,
shopmen's national agreement?
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of request from the or-
ganization that this case be withdrawn. This docket is therefore
closed.
592
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1114.-DOCKET 2202.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question. The following question was submitted to the Labor
Board in ex parte form by the above-named organization, and in-
volves alleged violation of rule No. 60, shopmen's national agree-
ment:
Shall employees checking in and out on their own time be compensated as
per above rule?
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of request from the
organization that this case be withdrawn. This docket is therefore
closed.
DECISION NO. 1115.-DOCKET 2203.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Alleged violation of rules 16 and 54, shopmen's
national agreement. The following questions are quoted from the
submission:
(1) Shall laborers when assigned to help mechanics receive helpers' rate
while so assigned?
(2) Shall laborers be assigned to help mechanics while regular helpers are
furloughed?
Statement. Both questions were submitted to the board in ex
parte form by representatives of the employees, subsequent to which
time we have received advice from the parties to this dispute that
the questions have been amicably settled and that no further action
is desired on the part of the Labor Board.
Decision. This docket is considered closed.
DECISION NO. 1116.-DOCKET 2204.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Violation of rule 42, shopmen's national agreement.
Shall the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co. be allowed 4 ap-
prentices at a point where only 11 machinists are employed?
Statement. The above question was submitted to the board in ex
parte form by representatives of the employees, subsequent to which
time we have received advice from the parties to this dispute that
the question has been amicably settled and that no further action is
desired on the part of the Labor Board.
Decision. This docket is considered closed.
DECISIONS.
593
DECISION NO. 1117.-DOCKET 368.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Petition of Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co. for Rehearing on Docket 368,
Decision No. 214.
Question.-Application of the Detroit & Mackinac Railway for
reconsideration of dispute disposed of by Decision No. 214, dated
June 28, 1921.
Statement.—On June 28, 1921, the Labor Board rendered Decision
No. 214, covering a dispute duly filed with it by the carrier and the
several organizations enumerated in said decision involving a peti-
tion of the carrier for a reduction in the wages of its employees.
Subsequent to the issuance of Decision No. 214 the carrier peti-
tioned the Labor Board for rehearing in connection with dispute
covered by that decision. The request for rehearing was granted,
and on October 21, 1921, further oral and written evidence was
offered by the interested parties, such evidence being confined to
conditions existing at or prior to the date of issuance of said de-
cision.
Decision. The Labor Board has carefully analyzed the evidence
submitted at the rehearing of this case and decides that the supple-
mentary evidence offered does not warrant any change in the origi-
nal decision.
DECISION NO. 1118.-DOCKET 1602.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dismissal of bridge and building employees for refusal
to work overtime.
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that on Friday, July 29, 1921, about 7.15 p. m.,
645 feet of double-track trestle, 76-C, near Banta, Calif., Stockton
division, was discovered on fire, and before fire was extinguished
eight full bents, representing 135 feet of double track, had been
destroyed. It was necessary to call men from adjoining divisions
for the purpose of restoring the trestle and track in order that the
train operations would be interfered with as little as possible.
It is shown that foremen and men were sent from the Sacramento
division, arriving at 9 a. m., July 30, 1921; these men continued to
work until 4 p. m. and then returned to their outfit cars, refusing
to perform further service at the pro rata rate, notwithstanding
that an emergency existed, for which they were discharged from
the service.
The submission to the Labor Board embodies the name of John
Liberty and Willard Teller, about whom there seemed to be doubt
as to their actual participation in the refusal to perform service.
Upon investigation the board finds that John Liberty has been re-
594
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
stored to the service under arrangements satisfactory to him; Wil-
lard Teller has not been restored to the service, although the man-
agement states that if he makes application for reemployment he
will be granted the same consideration as granted Liberty.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the management was justified in the action taken in this case,
and therefore denies the request of the employees for reinstate-
ment of the men who refused to perform service at the pro rata rate.
In regard to Willard Teller, the evidence does not indicate that
this employee was among those who refused to perform overtime.
service at pro rata, and he should therefore be restored to his former
position with seniority unimpaired and paid for all time lost, less
any amount he may have earned in other employment.
DECISION NO. 1119.-DOCKET 1982.
Chicago, Ill., July 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis
Railway Co.
Question. The question in dispute is with respect to contracting
the operation of the freight house, Indianapolis, Ind.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection.
with this dispute indicates that on February 24, 1922, a bulletin was
posted by the terminal superintendent, Indianapolis, Ind., reading
as follows:
THE CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RY. Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind., February 24, 1922.
BULLETIN NO. 48.
All employees, Indianapolis Freight House:
Effective at 11.59 p. m., February 26, 1922, the Cleveland, Cincin-
nati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. will cease to operate the
freight house at Indianapolis, and on that date employees addressed
will cease to be employees of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago &
St. Louis Railway Co. Effective 12.01 a. m. February 27, 1922, the
A. S. Hecker Co. at Cleveland, Ohio, will take over and operate said
freight house.
F. M. REYNOLDS, Superintendent.
A bulletin somewhat similar to the above was also issued by the
A. S. Hecker Co.
The freight house at Indianapolis was accordingly taken over by
the A. S. Hecker Co. as per the provisions of contract entered into
with the railway company, who immediately reduced the rates of
pay formerly applicable to employees engaged in freight-handling
work, such rates being less than those established by the United
States Railroad Labor Board.
DECISIONS.
595
१
The employees contend that the purpose of the carrier in contract-
ing the handling of freight at Indianapolis freight station and other
points along the line where similar arrangements had been entered
into was to evade the application of rules as to wages and hours of
service as authorized by General Order No. 27 and Supplement No.
7, issued by the United States Railroad Administration, and Deci-
sions Nos. 2 and 147, issued by the Railroad Labor Board; also the
provisions of the agreement reached between the Cleveland, Cincin-
nati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., its owned and controlled
lines and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, effective July 1, 1921,
in so far as said rules apply to the wages and hours of service of
this class of employees, as well as the application of Decision No.
630, effective February 1, 1922, issued by the Labor Board. The
employees therefore request that the Labor Board issue instructions
to discontinue the practice of contracting the work of freight
handlers referred to and to restore conditions which were in effect
at this point and all other points where the contracting work was
placed in effect.
The position taken by the carrier in their written brief to the
Labor Board, as well as at oral hearing conducted in connection with
this case, is predicated entirely upon the legality of its action in
entering into a contract. The argument thus advanced is in line with
arguments advanced by other carriers in connection with this ques-
tion (see Decision No. 982 and others), and for that reason will not
elaborate upon such argument. The carrier, as in the other cases
referred to, denies that the Labor Board has any jurisdiction in the
premises, and asks that the case be dismissed account of lack of
jurisdiction.
The question involved in this dispute is quite similar to other
cases involving the question of contract that have been submitted
to the board, some of which have been decided by decisions recently
issued. That the case in question is not sufficiently different from
other cases involving this question, as to demand special treatment
is indicated in the following, which is quoted from the carrier's reply
to a communication addressed to it:
The question of the carrier contracting certain work is now before the
board in connection with several other railroads, and we can not see the ne-
cessity at this time of filing any brief in answer to this submission made by
the employees. When this question is decided by the board in the other
cases before it, we assume that it will be of sufficient scope to apply to carriers
in general.
It might be added, however, that subsequent to this communica-
tion the carrier submitted both written and oral evidence in con-
nection with this dispute. The oral hearing in connection with this
particular case was held on June 29, 1922, at which time the rep-
resentatives of the respective parties presented argument in behalf
of their respective positions.
On June 30, 1922, a hearing was held by the Labor Board in con-
nection with the threatened strike of various classes of employees,
during the course of which hearing certain carriers, at the sug-
gestion of the chairman of the board, signified their intention of
canceling certain contracts entered into and restoring conditions in
effect prior thereto.
596
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Among the representatives making statements on behalf of the
carriers was Mr. Jacob Aronson, speaking for the New York Cen-
tral Lines, which included the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago &
St. Louis Railway Co. Mr. Aronson, after dealing to considerable
length as to the legal right of the carrier to enter into certain con-
tracts, concluded by saying that—
Notwithstanding these circumstances, in the interest of harmony and with
a definite view of removing every last vestige even of colorable cause of
complaint, these carriers are prepared now to say to the board, without
prejudice to their legal rights, that if, and only if, such action will avoid a
strike, they will undertake, as soon as they legally may do so under the
provisions of the several agreements, to terminate the agreements of these
carriers which have been involved in the hearings this week that cover repair
of equipment.
During the course of this hearing Mr. FitzGerald, representing
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han-
dlers, Express and Station Employees, injected certain questions
with reference to contracts affecting the classes represented by
him. Mr. Aronson made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the board, some of the cases to which Mr.
FitzGerald refers-some of them, I assume, to which he refers we feel have
elements altogether different from those involved in the general contract cases,
so called. I am authorized to say that in those instances where the contracts
referred to freight handling, except of the nature where the work has for many
years been done by contractors, such as the stevedore contract on the New
York City water front, and cases of that kind, which we are hopeful, and I
might say almost confident, that this board will recognize as vitally different ·
from those that have already been referred to, except in those instances, I say,
the statement that we made may also be held applicable to the freight handling
cases.
Opinion. The Labor Board feels that its position with respect
to the general question of contracting work, such as herein referred
to, is clearly set forth in Decision No. 982 and other decisions re-
cently issued on this subject, and for that reason will refrain from
entering into extensive detail in this opinion.
The board has taken special cognizance of the statement made by
Mr. Aronson at hearing held June 30, 1922, and from the expres-
sions contained therein it is indicated that it is the intention of the
carrier to discontinue the practice under the provisions as specfied.
The Labor Board, however, feels that its position with respect to
this general question should be reenunciated in connection with this
particular case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) The contract entered into between the Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. and the A. S. Hecker Co. for the
operation of its freight house, Indianapolis, Ind., is in violation of
the transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed
by the carrier to remove said employees from the application of said
act, and that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages and
working rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos.
2, 119, and 147 of the Railroad Labor Board.
(b) The freight-house employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Railroad Labor Board and subject to the applica-
tion of the transportation act, 1920, and decisions of this board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISIONS.
597
DECISION NO. 1120.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago Ill., July 19, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. New York, New Haven &
Hartford Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to inclusion of the carrier
named above in Decision No. 707, Docket 475.
Statement. Prior to Federal control working conditions of em-
ployees in the signal-maintenance department were governed by
agreement between the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America
and the carrier named. The national agreement between the
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America and the Director Gen-
eral of Railroads, effective February 1, 1920, superseded and was sub-
stituted for the rules governing signal department employees where
such rules were in conflict therewith.
After the termination of Federal control the committee represent-
ing the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America negotiated an
agreement with the carrier covering working conditions for signal-
department employees which susperseded the national agreement and
was effective March 1, 1920.
Decision No. 119 contained the following provisions:
Agreements entered into since March 1, 1920, by any carrier and representa-
tives of its employees shall not be affected by this decision.
Under this provision of Decision No. 119 the agreement between
the employees and the carrier, effective March 1, 1920, remained in
effect until it was abrogated in accordance with the enacting clause
thereof, reading as follows:
This agreement will become effective March 1, 1920, and will be carried out
and continued in full force and good faith by all concerned with the understand-
ing that 30 days' notice in writing shall be given by either party to the other
desiring a change.
Pursuant to this requirement the carrier, under date of April 21,
1921, served upon the employees 30 days' notice of desire to reopen
the agreement, for the purpose of making certain changes therein.
Conferences were held June 1, 1921, and there was submitted to the
Labor Board a submission showing the rules agreed upon and the
rules not agreed upon with the respective proposals of the parties
as to the latter.
The employees contend that the language of Decision No. 119,
herein quoted, plainly provides that said decision did not apply to
agreements entered into since March 1, 1920, and therefore they are
not properly included in Decision No. 707, which prescribes rules
for the government of signal-department employees.
The carrier contends that it has complied with the provisions of
the agreement in effect March 1, 1920, and has in all respects com-
plied with the decisions of the Labor Board and the provisions of
the transportation act, and therefore the New York, New Haven
& Hartford Railroad Co. was properly before the board and prop-
erly included in Decision No. 707, Docket 475.
erly
Opinion. Decision No. 119 provides that the direction of the
Labor Board in Decision No. 2 extending the rules, working con-
ditions, and agreements in force under the authority of the United
598
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
States Railroad Administration would cease and terminate July
1, 1921. Section 5, Decision No. 119, which provides that agree-
ments entered into since March 1, 1920, by any carrier and repre-
sentatives of its employees shall not be affected by said decision,
is intended to exclude from the direction contained in section 1
those agreements which were made after Federal control. In other
words, this section is for the purpose of excluding from the opera-
tion of section 1 of said decision agreements entered into since
March 1, 1920. However, where agreements made since March 1,
1920, are terminated in accordance with the enacting clause thereof
and conferences held between the representatives of the employees
and the carrier, and submissions made to the Labor Board covering
the result of such conferences in accordance with the transporta-
tion act and orders of the Labor Board, the principle outlined in
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, should be the basis for
such negotiations. As this submission has been made in accordance
with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, the case is prop-
erly before the Labor Board for decision.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the provisions of the
agreement entered into subsequent to March 1, 1920, be considered
in full force and effect up to and including February 15, 1922, ex-
cept in case where rules may have been agreed upon in conference.
Effective February 16, 1922, the rules incorporated in Decision No.
707, where corresponding to disagreed rules referred to the Labor
Board for decision, shall be made applicable to the employees in
question. Disagreed rules involved in submission not decided by
Decision No. 707 are remanded for further negotiation.

DECISION NO. 1121.-DOCKET 1270.
Chicago, Ill., July 19, 1922.
Order of Knights of Labor v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question.-Proper representation in agreement negotiations affect-
ing certain laboring forces on the terminal division of the Boston &
Maine Railroad.
Statement. The evidence submitted in this case shows that for
several years rules governing the rate of compensation and service.
of engine-house employees and fuel handlers on the terminal di-
vision of the Boston & Maine Railroad have been made between the
management and a committee affiliated with the Order of Knights
of Labor, and that from September 1, 1917, the rules covering store
department employees in oil rooms and engine-house stores on the
Boston Terminal were negotiated between the management and a
similar committee.
It is further shown that under Decision No. 119 of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, and especially principle 15 in Exhibit
B of that decision, the management considered as one class all labor-
ers in and around shops, engine houses, and storehouses, and found
by vote of the employees that a majority of this class, taking the
railroad as a whole, desired to have the United Brotherhood of Main-
DECISIONS.
599
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers represent
them, and accordingly proceeded to negotiate an agreement with a
committee from that organization.
The employees on the terminal division covered by the agreement
of the Order of Knights of Labor feel that as a separate agreement
had existed for years covering men on the terminal division, such an
agreement should continue.
The management contends that in accordance with their under-
standing of principle 15, Exhibit B of Decision 119, that the ma-
jority of the shop, roundhouse, and storehouse laborers on the system
should be the governing factor in determining what organization
should represent said employees in agreement negotiations, and that
inasmuch as the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers received a majority of the votes
cast they were fully justified in negotiating working rules with the
committee from that organization.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the management acted
properly in negotiating an agreement with the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
This, however, does not prevent employees from designating repre-
sentatives of their choice to handle with the management matters
affecting their wages and working conditions, provided such pro-
cedure is in conformity with the rules incorporated in the agree-
ment entered into with the maintenance of way organization and
the provisions of the transportation act.
DECISION NO. 1122.-DOCKET 395.
Chicago, Ill., July 20, 1922.
Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to application of Supplement
No. 27 to General Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad Admin-
istration, and as to what shall constitute just and reasonable rules
for dining-car stewards.
Statement. Supplement No. 27 to General Order No. 27 of the
United States Railroad Administration was issued January 28, 1920,
and established effective February 1, 1920, wages and working condi-
tions of employees in dining-car and restaurant service of the car-
riers under Federal operation. This supplement was not placed in
effect by the carrier named in this dispute. The employees there-
upon appealed to the Director General of Railroads to issue the
necessary instructions to place the supplement in effect, and under
date of July 10, 1920, presented a specific claim for overtime in
accordance with the provisions of Supplement No. 27 to General
Order No. 27 for three employees in the carrier's service. This claim
was denied by the Railroad Administration.
Under date of November 24, 1920, the employees filed with the
Labor Board an ex parte application for decision as to whether or
not the failure of the carrier to adopt and make effective the supple-
600
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ment in question constituted a violation of that part of section 312
of the transportation act, 1920, reading as follows:
Prior to September 1, 1920, each carrier shall pay to each employee or subor-
dinate official thereof wages or salary at a rate not less than that fixed by
the decisions of any agency, or railway board of adjustment in connection
therewith, established for executing the powers granted the President under
the Federal control act, in effect in respect to such employee or subordinate
official immediately preceding 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
*
They also requested that the Labor Board order such relief as it
may deem just and reasonable.
The carrier states that it was not possible to apply Supplement
No. 27 to General Order No. 27 in a manner equitable and satis-
factory to the employees and at the same time protect the service
and give satisfaction to the patrons of its line. The carrier con-
tends that the organization party to this dispute does not represent
a majority of the dining-car stewards in its service; that the ad-
justment made after the issuance of Decision No. 2 was in accordance
with the express desire of 22 out of a total of 30 stewards in its
service; and that inasmuch as the rates of pay in effect after March
1, 1920, were never less than those in effect prior to the date section
312 of the transportation act, 1920, the law has been fully complied
with.
The organization party to this dispute and the classes of em-
ployees represented thereby are not specifically named in Decision
No. 2 of the Labor Board, but after the issuance of that decision the
carrier increased the rates of dining-car employees retroactive to
May 1, 1920, the effective date of the decision. The rates paid by
the carrier during the period of March 1, 1920, to May 1, 1920, were
those fixed by Supplement No. 18 to General Order No. 27, which
were identical with the rates established by Supplement No. 27 to
General Order No. 27, in so far as the classes involved in this dis-
pute are concerned. The rates in effect between May 1, 1920, and
September 1, 1920, included a voluntary increase granted by the
carrier. It therefore appears that the alleged failure of the carrier
to apply Supplement No. 27 to General Order No. 27 to the em-
ployees named therein does not involve rates of pay but only in-
volves working conditions which are prescribed in that supplement
as the basis for applying such rates.
The Labor Board has heretofore held that in its opinion the
transportation act, 1920, was not intended to have a retroactive or
retrospective effect, and therefore in the opinion of the Labor
Board it has no jurisdiction over the failure of the carrier to apply
Supplement No. 27 to General Order No. 27 during the period prior
to March 1, 1920.
In the submission made to the Labor Board in this dispute there
is no evidence of the interested parties having conferred and en-
deavored to negotiate rules governing working conditions which
may be mutually satisfactory.
Decision. The Labor Board remands this dispute to the em-
ployees and the carrier for conference and effort to agree upon rules
governing the conditions of employment of the employees involved.
The principles promulgated by the Labor Board in Decision No.
119 should be the basis for negotiations held in accordance with this
decision.
DECISIONS.
601
DECISION NO. 1123.-DOCKET 1303.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America; Brother-
hood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees; Brotherhood of Rail-
way Carmen of America; International Alliance of Amalgamated Sheet
Metal Workers; International Association of Machinists; International
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers; International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers; Order of Railroad Telegraphers; Order of
Railway Conductors; Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.; United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Green Bay & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of Decision No. 2 to employees of the
Green Bay & Western Railroad Co.
Statement.-There has been duly filed with the Labor Board by
representatives of the above-named organizations a request that
the increase in rates of pay specified in Decision No. 2 be applied to
the employees of the Green Bay & Western Railroad Co.
This carrier was considered a party to dispute regarding request
for increase in wages for employees on the so-called short-line rail-
roads, which dispute was disposed of by the Labor Board in its
Decision No. 108, which in effect dismissed the dispute for the
reasons stated therein, but stated that said decision was without
prejudice to the right of representatives of employees of the carriers
listed therein to meet representatives of the carriers or any of them
in conference as to wages and working conditions, and without
prejudice to the right of the parties to such conference to refer any
dispute undecided therein to the Labor Board for decision. The
decision further provided that it should not be considered as affect-
ing any wage increase then in effect nor any agreement regarding
wages between any of the carriers and their employees.
Subsequent to the issuance of Decision No. 108, negotiations were
conducted between the committees representing the employees and
the officers of the Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., involving
the application of Decision No. 2, but on account of a disagreement
the matter was certified to the Labor Board by W. S. Stone, repre-
senting employees in Group 1, B. M. Jewell, representing employees
in Group 2, and E. J. Manion, representing employees in Group 3.
Upon receipt of the employees' ex parte submission the representa-
tive of the carrier was duly notified, and the carrier's position sub-
sequently filed with the Labor Board. An oral hearing was con-
ducted, at which time the contentions of the respective parties were
submitted for consideration of the board.
It is the contention of the employees that the Green Bay & Western
Railroad is not a short-line railroad, but a Class I carrier, as defined
by the Interstate Commerce Commission, as its operating revenue
exceeds $1,000,000 per year. The employees further call attention
to various portions of Decision No. 108 wherein the Labor Board
specifies the characteristics of carriers which it felt were properly
covered by the term "short-line railroads" and contend that the
Green Bay & Western Railroad does not come within the description
602
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
of "short-line railroads" as therein outlined. The descriptions given
in Decision No. 108 are, briefly, as follows:
(a) It is remote from great cities and provides service for small communities.
(b) Traffic consists mostly of products of mines, forests, and agriculture, and
of supplies and equipment for these industries.
(c) Number of employees varies from 25 to 400.
(d) Employees of such lines have duties not so greatly specialized as on
the larger lines, and their work is more diverse.
It is shown that the average number of employees during the first
11 months of 1921 was F17; that the average mileage operated during
that period was 252.4; while the operating revenue for the 11 months
was $1,285,700.54.
The employees' position lays special emphasis upon the conditions
existing on the Green Bay & Western Railroad as compared with
the items of description above, and contend that the Green Bay &
Western Railroad does not come within the scope of those defini-
tions. Among the contentions of the employees appear the fol-
lowing:
(1) That 53 Class I roads have less mileage than the Green Bay &
Western.
(2) That 26 Class I roads have less capital stock.
(3) That 32 Class I roads have a less number of freight cars.
(4) That 33 Class I roads have a less number of locomotives.
(5) That 29 Class I roads have less ton-miles.
In addition to the above the employees submit evidence in regard
to other items referred to in Decision No. 108, the purport of such
evidence being to show that the Green Bay & Western Railroad was
not in reality a short-line railroad as contemplated in that decision,
and that Decision No. 2 should be applied to the employees engaged
thereon.
The railway management takes the position that there is no dis-
pute properly before the Labor Board and that the case should be
dismissed for the following reasons:
(1) That the Green Bay & Western Railroad Co. was a party to
the short-line hearings resulting in the issuance of Decision No. 108.
(2) That the certification offered the Labor Board sets out that
the employees request the application of Decision No. 2; that the
Labor Board in its Decision No. 108 has considered complete evi-
dence from both the employees and the carrier and dismissed the
dispute.
(3) That the present requests are substantially the same as those
made at the short-line hearings, which were dismissed by Decision
No. 108.
(4) That the employees have not conformed to section 301 of the
transportation act, 1920, in that their request was for a blanket ap-
plication of Decision No. 2, and that there was no request for con-
cession to be made by the carrier.
The carrier further contends that on May 14, 1921, it caused to be
mailed to the several representatives of the employees a letter ex-
tending to the employees an invitation to present new schedules of
wages and working conditions; that the representatives of the em-
ployees replied to the management of the carrier, stating that they
could do nothing in the way of making a schedule of wages and
working conditions, as their case was before the Labor Board.
DECISIONS.
603
The management submitted considerable evidence purporting to
show that the Green Bay & Western Railroad was a short-line rail-
road and not comparable with the roads to which Decision No. 2
was made applicable.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the Green Bay & West-
ern Railroad Co. is a Class I carrier, as defined by the Interstate
Commerce Commission, and that the characteristics of that property
are of a nature which make it such as to exclude it from the class
of short-line railroads as defined in the Labor Board's Decision
No. 108, and that the character of service performed by the em-
ployees on this property and the other elements enumerated in the
transportation act are such as to warrant the application of the
same rates of pay to the Green Bay & Western Railroad Co.'s em-
ployees as applied to employees of other Class I carriers.
The board further decides that the rates of pay of the employees
of Groups 1, 2, and 3 involved in this dispute shall be adjusted on
the basis of the increase awarded in Decision No. 2 and the decrease
specified in Decision No. 147.
This decision shall be made effective as of May 1, 1922.
DECISION NO. 1124.-DOCKET 1679.
Petition of New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co. for Rehearing on
Docket 1679, Decision No. 1018.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Question.-Petition of the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad
Co. to reopen Docket 1679 and vacate Decision No. 1018, direct-
ing reinstatement of George Ringe, blacksmith.
Statement.-The Labor Board is in receipt of petition from the
above-named carrier to reopen case covered by Docket 1679,
involving dispute between that carrier and the Federated Shop
Crafts relative to George Ringe, formerly employed as blacksmith,
but who was discharged from the service.
Upon examining the petition for rehearing, the Labor Board
finds no evidence that was not before it and given due considera-
tion at the time Decision No. 1018 was issued.
Decision. Request for reopening this case is denied.
DECISION NO. 1125.-DOCKET 1680.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Petition of New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co. for Rehearing on
Docket 1680, Decision No. 1019.
Question.--Petition of the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad
Co. to reopen Docket 1680 and vacate Decision No. 1019, direct-
ing reinstatement of certain carmen.
Statement.-The Labor Board is in receipt of petition from the
above-named carrier to reopen case covered by Docket 1680,
20936°-23——39
604
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
involving dispute between the carrier and the Federated Shop
Crafts relative to H. C. Coon, H. O. Boyd, and H. T. Williams,
formerly employed as carmen, but who were discharged from the
service.
Upon examining the petition for rehearing, the Labor Board
finds no evidence that was not before it and given due consideration
at the time Decision No. 1019 was issued.
Decision.-Request for reopening this case is denied.
DECISION NO. 1126.-DOCKET 1682.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Petition of New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co. for Rehearing on
Docket 1682, Decision No. 1020.
Question.-Petition of the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad
Company to reopen Docket 1682 and vacate Decision No. 1020,
directing reinstatement of M. A. Jenkins, machinist.
Statement. The Labor Board is in receipt of petition from the
above-named carrier to reopen case covered by Docket 1682, involv-
ing dispute between the carrier and the Federate Shop Crafts
relative to M. A. Jenkins, formerly employed as machinist, but who
was discharged from the service.
Upon examining the petition for rehearing, the Labor Board
finds no evidence that was not before it and given due consideration.
at the time Decision No. 1020 was issued.
Decision. Request for reopening this case is denied.
DECISION NO. 1127.-DOCKET 1683.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Petition of New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co. for Rehearing on
Docket 1683, Decision No. 1021.
Question.-Petition of the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad
Company to reopen Docket 1683 and vacate Decision No. 1021,
directing reinstatement of certain carmen.
Statement.-The Labor Board is in receipt of petition from the
above-named carrier to reopen case covered by Docket 1683, in-
volving dispute between that carrier and the Federated Shop Crafts
relative to R. C. Jenkins, R. E. May, J. L. Stillwell, F. E. Tate,
A. A. Bass, J. M. Welch, W. E. Jordan, and C. H. Mathews, formerly
employed as carmen, but who were discharged from the service.
Upon examining the petition for rehearing, the Labor Board finds
no evidence that was not before it and given due consideration at the
time Decision No. 1021 was issued.
Decision. Request for reopening this case is denied.
DECISIONS.
605
DECISION NO. 1128.-DOCKET 1684.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Petition of New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co. for Rehearing on
Docket 1684, Decision No. 1022.
Question.-Petition of the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad
Company to reopen Docket 1684 and vacate Decision No. 1022,
directing reinstatement of N. J. Hoey, electrician.
Statement.-The Labor Board is in receipt of petition from the
above-named carrier to reopen case covered by Docket 1684, in-
volving dispute between that carrier and the Federated Shop Crafts
relative to N. J. Hoey, formerly employed as electrician, but who
was discharged from the service.
Upon examining the petition for rehearing, the Labor Board finds
no evidence that was not before it and given due consideration at the
time Decision No. 1022 was issued.
Decision. Request for reopening this case is denied.
DECISION NO. 1129.-DOCKET 1881.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Ŵestern Railroad.
Question.-Classification and rate of pay of J. J. Wagner, pumper,
Kingsley, Pa.
Statement.-A dispute has been duly filed and oral evidence sub-
sequently submitted with respect to the proper classification and
rating of J. J. Wagner, employed as a pumper at Kingsley, Pa. It
is shown that Mr. Wagner has been employed in this capacity for
about 10 years and that immediately prior to Federal control he
received a rate of $75 per month, which covered all service rendered.
On September 1, 1918, he was increased to $100 per month, in ac-
cordance with Supplement No. 8 to General Order No. 27 of the
United States Railroad Administration and allowed two hours at
pro rata rate for the ninth and tenth hours of service and time and
one-half thereafter, in accordance with paragraph (h), Article I of
Supplement No. 8.
It is further shown that on December 16, 1919, the effective date
of the maintenance of way national agreement, he was rated at
$125 per month to cover all service rendered, this rate being es-
tablished in accordance with section (a-12), Árticle V of the na-
tional agreement reading:
Watchmen, etc. (a-12).—Except as otherwise provided in this section, posi-
tions not requiring continuous manual labor, such as track, bridge, and high-
way crossing watchmen, signalmen at railway noninterlocked crossings, lamp
men, engine watchmen at isolated points, and pumpers, will be paid a monthly
rate to cover all services rendered. This monthly rate shall be based on the
present hours and compensation. If present assigned hours are increased or
decreased, the monthly rate shall be adjusted pro rata as the hours of service
in the new assignment bear to the hours of service in the present assignment,
except that hours above 10 either in new or present assignment shall be counted
606
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
as one and one-half in making adjustments. Nothing herein shall be construed
to permit the reduction of hours for the employees covered by this section
(a-12) below eight hours per day for six days per week.
On May 1, 1920, this position was increased under section 7, Article
III, of Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, to $142.34. On July 1,
1921, the position was decreased under section 7, Article III, of Deci-
sion No. 147 of the Labor Board, establishing a monthly rate of $125.
Employees' position.—The following is quoted from the employees'
contentions:
Mr. J. J. Wagner is employed as pumper at Kingsley, Pa. Previous to 1917
two pumpers were employed at Kingsley. During August, 1917, this pumping
job was made a one-man job. Mr. Wagner's salary was increased to $75 per
month. This was an increase of $20 per month on account of the extra work
performed.
On October 1, 1918, the division engineer and the general foreman, his superior
officers, stopped at this pumping station and advised Mr. Wagner that an
arrangement had been made so that the company would pay him for 13 hours
per day on account of his extra work, as follows: $100 for 8 hours, 2 hours at
pro-rata rates, and 2 hours at time and one-half rate. This figured $161.62 for
30 days.
Mr. Wagner received this rate for September and the first 15 days of October.
When he received his pay for the last half of October he was short paid. He
took this matter up with his general foreman and was advised that those were
the instructions issued by the division engineer, and that he was only to be
paid for 10 hours per day.
The general foreman instructed him to have water in his tank at all times
day and night.
When he is not running his pumps he takes care of said pumps, making minor
repairs, keeping equipment cleaned and oiled, and doing other work necessary
to keep his plant in operation.
The conditions under which Mr. J. J. Wagner worked and is working were
and are exactly the same as that worked by Mr. A. M. Wagner, pumper at
Alford, Pa., who raised the question of improper payment under Supplement
No. 8 to General Order No. 27 and the national agreement, and on which Dela-
ware, Lackawanna & Western Decision No. 10, signed by John Barton Payne,
Director General of Railroads, October 14, 1920, was handed down and ordered
put in effect.
We maintain that the carrier recognized section (a) of Article VIII, Supple-
ment No. 8 to General Order No. 27, and Article I, Interpretation No. 1 to Sup-
plement No. 8 to General Order No. 27, and applied it for a short period of time
to Mr. J. J. Wagner, and that they were not justified in withdrawing this
application for the overtime which he put in.
Mr. J. J. Wagner was never paid under Supplement No. 8, nor was he granted
his proper rating under the national agreement with the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
In order to follow out the instructions of his general foreman it was and is
necessary for him to work overtime from 12 to 14 hours per day. He lives
practically on his job and it is the usual occurrence for him to have to pump
water every night as well as every day.
Carrier's position. The following is quoted from the carrier's
contentions:
Mr. J. J. Wagner has been employed as pumper at Kingsley, Pa., for the past
10 years, and station has been handled by one shift since 1914. He has never
been assigned to a definite starting and leaving time. He was hired with the
distinct understanding that his position with the railroad company was to pump
whatever water was necessary for the station requirements at this point. He
has always enjoyed the privilege of devoting his time, outside of what is neces-
sary to keep sufficient water in the tanks, as he so desired.
The 10-hour day was established under Supplement No. 8 to General Order
No. 27, as previous to that time 10 hours proved to be sufficient time for pump-
ing to meet all requirements of the service. Previous to Federal control of
railroads, pumpers were paid a monthly rate to cover all services ren-
dered.
DECISIONS.
607
The duties of Mr. Wagner have not been changed and he has no manual
labor to' perform, as the pumping equipment is operated by oil engines. He is
required to oil and keep equipment clean and to clean out pumping station. He
only occasionally packs the pump. He is not qualified, and is not required to,
and does not make repairs to pumping machinery, as division mechanics make
all necessary repairs.
The actual hours Mr. Wagner has been on duty are not known, nor the actual
hours that he pumps, except that his report shows on duty 12 hours and pump-
ing an average of probably 6 or 7 hours.
It is the carrier's contention that the conditions complained of and of which
the employees request an adjustment are conditions that have existed since Janu-
ary 1, 1918, and were in existence on February 29, 1920, under the authority of
the United States Railroad Administration. There has been no change in duties
or classification of Mr. Wagner subsequently to February 29, 1920, and he
was accordingly properly classified and paid on this date. He has been prop-
erly increased under Decision No. 2 and properly decreased under Decision
No. 147.
Decision. After analyzing the evidence submitted, the Labor Board decides
that the employee in question is properly compensated in accordance with the
rules and orders affecting that position.
The claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1130.-DOCKET 1853.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Claim for seven hours straight pay for L. E. Harris,
car inspector, Fort Worth, Tex., October 17, 1921, account being laid
off his regular shift prior to being assigned to new shift.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Joint statement of facts.—Mr. L. E. Harris was assigned on the first shift on
repair track at Fort Worth, Tex. There was a vacancy bulletined for car in-
spector on shift from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m.; this bulletin expired 4 p. m., October
17, 1921. On October 16, the foreman at Fort Worth instructed Mr. Harris not
to report for duty on morning of October 17, figuring that no one would bid in
the vacancy on bulletin and that Mr. Harris, being the youngest man, would
have to be assigned. However, on the 17th one of the other carmen bid in the
vacancy. This created a vacancy on the shift 3 p. m. to 11 p. m., and Mr.
Harris was therefore assigned to that shift. The 3 p. m. to 11 p. m. shift was
subsequently bulletined and some one other than Mr. Harris bid in same and
was assigned to it.
Employees' position. Mr. Harris was assigned to first shift on repair track
at Fort Worth. There was a vacancy bulletined for car inspector on third
shift. This bulletin expired the afternoon of October 17. On October 16, fore-
man at Fort Worth instructed Mr. Harris not to report for duty on the morning
of the 17th, figuring no one would bid in the vacancy and that Mr. Harris, being
the youngest man, would have to be assigned. However, during the 17th,
before the expiration of the bulletin, some one other than Mr. Harris bid in
the vacancy. This created a vacancy on the second shift and Mr. Harris was
therefore assigned to the shift. We contend that Mr. Harris is entitled to pay
for the day he was required to lose off the repair track, as that was his regular
working hours. The bulletin did not expire until his quitting time. Therefore
he should not have been held out of service. See rule 13 of the current agree-
ment, which reads as follows:
"When it becomes necessary for employees to work overtime they shall
not be laid off during regular working hours to equalize the time.
Overtime shall be equally divided among the men of the different depart-
ments as far as possible, provided such men as desire overtime are competent,
in the judgment of the local officials and the committee, to perform the
particular service required."
608
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Mr. Harris was not laid off to equalize overtime he had made, but was laid
off before overtime was made. The fact that he worked the second shift
is evidence overtime would have been made, and to hold him out of service
prior to making the overtime had the same effect as holding him out of the
service after overtime had been worked. Therefore, we contend that Mr.
Harris should be paid for the seven hours' regular time he was required to lose.
Railroad's position.-The railway contends that the employee in question
was handled strictly in accordance with the agreement between the railway.
and Federated Shop Crafts, effective July 1, 1921. Rule 16 of said agreement
reads as follows:
"When employees are required by the railway to change shifts temporarily,
they will receive overtime rates for the first shift and thereafter straight
time. When going back to their regular shift on their own accord straight
time will apply, but if required to report for duty on their own shift they
will be paid time and one-half. Employees changing shifts in the exercise of
their seniority will make change without involving any overtime payment."
The rule in question provides that it is permissible for the railway to
require employees to change shifts temporarily when conditions permit and
it establishes penalty for so doing. In this case Mr. Harris was required to
change shifts temporarily and was paid overtime rates for the first shift.
There was no violation of rule 13 of the agreement for the reason that
employee was not required to suspend work during regular hours for the
purpose of absorbing overtime.
Opinion. Written and oral evidence clearly shows that the fore-
man advised L. E. Harris, car inspector, on October 16 not to report
for duty on his regular shift on October 17, such notice being given
prior to the expiration of the bulletin-namely, 4 p. m., October
17—and the foreman's action being based on the assumption that no
one would bid for vacancy on that shift and that Mr. Harris, being
the junior employee, would be assigned to that shift. The vacancy
on the third shift, however, was bid in and awarded to an older
employee, creating a vacancy on the second shift, to which Mr.
Harris was assigned.
It is the opinion of the Labor Board that the foreman erred in
anticipating a situation prior to the expiration of the bulletin, which
is clearly evidenced by the facts. In other words, if the vacancy
on the third shift had been bid in by an older employee on the first
shift, instead of by an older employee on the second shift, it would
have no doubt been necessary for Mr. Harris to remain on the first
shift and thereby lose a day.
Other illustrations could also be cited that would show the in-
justice to employees by being laid off their regular shift in the
changing or the anticipation of changing shifts.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that L. E. Harris, car in-
spector, shall be compensated for the time lost account of being laid
off his regular shift October 17, 1921.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissent from the decision reached by the majority
of the board in Docket 1853 for the following reasons:
L. E. Harris was the youngest man in service, but for some reason
was assigned to the first trick from 7 a. m. to 3 p. m. to and including
October 16, 1921. On the following day, October 17, 1921, he was
assigned to and worked the second shift from 3 p. m. to 11 p. m.,
for which, under the provisions of the so-called national agreement,
he was paid time and one-half by reason of his being changed, which
was brought about by seniority rules.
DECISIONS.
609
There is or was no rule which would entitle Mr. Harris to pay for
time during the first shift on October 17 which he did not work,
and allowing him additional compensation for the first shift is
neither equitable, just, nor reasonable.
It is not deemed necessary here to comment further upon the
attempt of the employees to secure for, or the decision of the majority
of the Labor Board granting this man pay equal to 19 hours at
straight time rate for 8 hours' service on October 17, 1921, in the
absence of any rule requiring it.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
R. M. BARTON.
HORACE BAKER.
DECISION NO. 1131.-DOCKET 1165.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding classification of certain employees
at freight stations, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.
Decision. The Labor Board having been advised by the repre-
sentatives of the employees and the carrier that a satisfactory adjust-
ment of the question in controversy has been reached and the case
withdrawn from further consideration by the board, the dispute is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1132.—DOCKET 1196.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of George Harlan, night
watchman, Louisville, Miss.
Decision. Considerable documentary evidence, including a num-
ber of affidavits, has been presented to the Labor Board in connec-
tion with this case. In some instances the affidavits presented by the
respective parties to this dispute and secured from the same person
are at variance in the essential facts necessary for the board to render
a decision.
In view of the conflicting character of the evidence presented with
respect to these essential facts, this case is remanded to the employees.
and the carrier for a joint investigation to develop the true facts in
the case.
A stenographic record of this investigation shall be made and if,
after its completion, the matter in controversy can not be adjusted
by the parties to the dispute, the case may be resubmitted to the
Labor Board.
610
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1133.-DOCKET 1294
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of W. A. Hines, formerly employed as chief
clerk, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for back pay under Decision No. 2.
Statement.—On July 15, 1920, the position of chief clerk to store-
keeper at Tuscaloosa, Ala., held by Mr. Hines, was abolished in con-
nection with reduction in force. Mr. Hines was in the service of the
carrier May 1, 1920, and remained therein until his position was
abolished on July 15, 1920.
The employees contend that Mr. Hines is entitled to back pay
under Decision No. 2 from May 1 to July 15, 1920, in accordance
with section (2) of Interpretation No. 19 to Decision No. 2, reading
as follows:
(2) Employees in the service of the carrier 12.01 a. m., May 1, 1920, the
effective date of the decision, or who entered the service subsequent to such
date, but who were laid off account of reduction in force, and for this reason
were not in the service 12.01 a. m.. July 20, 1920, shall be allowed back pay
for services performed during the retroactive period.
The carrier contends that when the position held by Mr. Hines
was abolished he had the right to exercise his seniority to any of
12 positions in its service occupied by employees with less seniority.
Therefore, while the particular position held by Mr. Hines was abol-
ished, he was not laid off on account of reduction in force but, on the
contrary, left the service voluntarily, and his claim for back pay is
covered by section (3) of Interpretation No. 19 to Decision No. 2,
reading as follows:
(3) Employees in the service of the carrier 12.01 a. m., May 1, 1920, or who
entered the service subsequent to such date, but who resigned or left the
service voluntarily prior to 12.01 a. m., July 20, 1920, are not entitled to back
pay.
The evidence shows that Mr. Hines's position was abolished, but
he was not laid off on account of reduction in force, as he had the
opportunity to bid in other positions in the carrier's service held
by employees with less seniority. The evidence further shows that
on September 15, 1920, Mr. Hines, in writing an officer of the carrier
in connection with his claim, admitted that he anticipated being laid
off at Tuscaloosa and secured a position with another carrier in
which he commenced work on July 15, 1920, the date on which his
position in the service of the carrier, party to this dispute, was
abolished.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1134.-DOCKET 1332.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. On what basis shall clerks, crew dispatchers, and crew
callers in roundhouses at Fresno and Oakland, Calif., who were,
prior to January 1, 1918, paid at the rate of time and one-half for
DECISIONS.
611
Sunday and holiday service be paid for such service performed on
such days between April 1, 1921, and February 1, 1922?
Statement.-Rule 64 of the clerks' national agreement reads as
follows:
Except as otherwise provided in these rules, time worked on Sundays and
the following holidays-New Year's, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day.
Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas-shall be paid for
at the pro rata hourly rate when the entire number of hours constituting the
regular week-day assignment are worked.
On roads where an agreement or practice more favorable to the employees is
in effect, such agreement or practice, in so far as it relates to this rule (64),
may be retained.
Effective November 1, 1917, instructions were issued by the gen-
eral superintendent of motive power under which the classes of
employees referred to above were paid at the rate of time and one-
half for Sunday and holiday service. Effective April 1, 1921, these
employees were paid at pro rata rate for Sunday and holiday service.
The employees state that prior to January 1, 1918, the established
method of computing pay for Sunday and holiday service was at the
rate of time and one-half, that this basis of pay for Sunday and
holiday service was continued in effect by the orders of the Railroad
Administration, the rules of the clerks' national agreement, and
Decisions Nos. 2 and 119 of the Labor Board. The employees there-
fore contend that employees who performed service on Sundays and
holidays are entitled to compensation at rate of time and one-half,
and request that those employees who were paid at pro rata rates
since April 1, 1921, be reimbursed accordingly.
The carrier states that prior to November 1, 1917, there was no
uniform practice of compensating the employees referred to for
.Sunday and holiday service; that effective November 1, 1917, due to
the labor situation incident to the war, instructions were issued by
the general superintendent of motive power under which this class
of employees were paid at the rate of time and one-half for Sunday
and holiday service. The carrier further states that on April 1, 1921,
it was determined that under a fair interpretation of rule 64 of the
clerks' national agreement the carrier had the right to allow pro rata
rates for this service.
The carrier contends that the rule in question provides for the
payment of Sunday and holiday service at pro rata rates and that
the words "may be retained," in the second paragraph of the rule
pertaining to continuance of more favorable practices, are permissive
rather than mandatory. The carrier further contends that for the
continuous operation of the railroad it is essential that certain crew
dispatchers, callers, and roundhouse clerks perform service on Sun-
days and holidays, and therefore it was obviously unfair to require
the carrier to pay penalty overtime for service over which it had no
control and that this principle was recognized by the Labor Board
in Decision No. 222.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under rule 64 of the
clerks' national agreement the employees in question at the points
named herein who were, prior to January 1, 1918, paid at the rate of
time and one-half for service performed on Sundays and holidays,
shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half for service performed
on such days during the period between April 1, 1921, and February
1, 1922.
612
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1135.-DOCKET 1417.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Central Union Depot & Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper application of Article II,
Decision No. 147, to mail handlers, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the board
grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1136.-DOCKET 1420.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Wabash Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the revision of certain rules of
agreement between the carrier and the employees in clerical and
station service.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having requested the with-
drawal of same from further consideration by the Labor Board, the
board grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1137.-DOCKET 1640.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding vacations with pay for certain cleri-
cal employees in the service of the carrier named.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having requested the with-
drawal of same from further consideration by the Labor Board, the
board grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore re-
moved from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1138.-DOCKET 2074.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding the posting on bulletin boards of
notices of interest to the employees.
DECISIONS.
613
Decision.-The Labor Board having been advised by the parties.
to this dispute that the subject in controversy has been satisfactorily
adjusted, the case is removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1139.-DOCKET 2212.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. Dispute regarding the proper rate of pay of Melvin
Kraft, clerk, freight claim agent's department.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the Labor Board
grants the request for withdrawal. The case is therefore removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1140.-DOCKET 407.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding abrogation of certain rules govern-
ing hours of service and working conditions of employees in dining-
car service.
Statement. Supplement No. 27 to General Order No. 27 was is-
sued by the United States Railroad Administration on February 1,
1920, and the rules contained therein continued in effect on the car-
rier, party to this dispute, until January 1, 1921.
The employees state that during the month of December, 1920,
each steward in dining service was verbally advised that commenc-
ing January 1, 1921, the working conditions established by Supple-
ment No. 27 to General Order No. 27 would be abolished and that on
and after that date no overtime would be paid regardless of the
number of hours worked. The employees contend that this action
was taken by the carrier without any conference with the employees,
as contemplated by the transportation act, 1920, and request that
the provisions of Supplement No. 27 to General Order No. 27 be
restored pending hearing and decision by the Labor Board. The
employees further contend that Decision No. 2 was applied to em-
ployees in dining service, and the carrier in applying this decision
assumed the obligation to continue in effect the rules and working
conditions established by the United States Railroad Administra-
tion as provided for therein, pending conference and decision by
the Labor Board.
The carrier states that during the month of December, 1920,
the superintendent of dining cars advised the employees in dining
service that effective January 1, 1921, rates of pay would be in-
creased in varying amounts, the hours of service and punitive
overtime rules then in effect eliminated, and certain changes made
614
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
in rules governing working conditions. The carrier contends that
these changes were posted in a bulletin book and the employees
signed the book, thus indicating their willingness to accept the
change, and that no protest was made to the carrier by any of the
employees affected on January 1, 1921, and it therefore assumed
that the employees were agreeable to the change.
It appears from the evidence before the board that the carrier
applied the provisions of Decision No. 2 to the employees in dining-
car service and that the rules established by or under the authority
of the United States Railroad Administration for the employees in
dining-car service were assumed as a basis for applying the increase
in said decision; that the carrier changed the rules without con-
ference with the employees as contemplated by said decision and by
the transportation act, 1920. It further appears that the bulletin or
order book in which the proposed rules were posted is a book
maintained by the carrier in which orders and instructions for the
employees in dining service are posted and acknowledged by the
affixing of their signatures thereto, and that the signing by the em-
ployees of the rules governing working conditions posted in this
manner may not necessarily be construed as acceptance of such
rules.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the rules governing
working conditions for employees in dining-car service in effect as
of December 31, 1920, shall be restored and continued in effect until
changed by mutual agreement between the employees and the carrier
or in the manner provided in the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1141.-DOCKET 571.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.—What is the proper compensation for service performed
by A. J. Harms, dining-car steward, at Jersey City terminal, April
16 to July 31, 1920?
Statement. Mr. Harms was regularly employed as dining-car
steward and during the period above stated was assigned to the
supervision of a commissary established at Jersey City, N. J., for the
purpose of serving meals to certain employees of the carrier. For
this service Mr. Harms was paid on the actual minute basis at the
pro rata hourly rate.
The employees state that Mr. Harms was a dining-car steward
and was required to perform the duties of steward in charge of the
employees and the equipment necessary for serving meals to em-
ployees of the carrier at Jersey City, and that when this service
was no longer required of him he returned to the position of dining-
car steward. Employees contend that Supplement No. 27 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27 governed the hours of service and compensation of
dining-car stewards at the time this dispute arose, and that under
Article VI of said supplement dining-car stewards should be paid
at the rate of time and one-half for service in excess of 240 hours
per month, and that it further provides, in Article VII thereof,
DECISIONS.
615
that employees in restaurant service shall be paid at the rate of
time and one-half for service performed in excess of eight hours.
It is therefore requested that Mr. Harms be paid additional com-
pensation representing the difference between the compensation he
has received at the pro rata rate for the service in excess of 240
hours per month during the period named and the compensation
he would have received at the rate of time and'one-half for said
service.
The carrier states that Mr. Harms was a dining-car steward, and
from April 16 to July 31, 1920, was assigned to supervise a small
commissary at Jersey City for the purpose of serving meals to em-
ployees of the carrier, and that his principal duties were to supervise
the employees and keep a record of the meals served. The carrier
contends that the duties thus performed were not the same as those
required of a dining-car steward, that Mr. Harms did not have the
same responsibilities, and furthermore that he was performing ser-
vice which is properly paid under Article III of Supplement No. 27
to General Order No. 27.
The articles of Supplement No. 27 to General Order No. 27 in-
volved in this dispute read, in part, as follows:
ARTICLE III. Station duty and extra service.—(a) When required to perform
station duty or supply cars on other than their own assignment, employees in-
cluded in sections (a) and (b) of Article II, and extra employees required to
perform such service, shall be allowed four hours' pay for four hours' service
or less, eight hours' pay for over four hours' and up to eight hours' service, at
the respective hourly rate, and thereafter on the actual minute basis.
ARTICLE VI. Hours of service and overtime rules-Train service.-Employees
included in sections (a) and (b) of Article II shall be paid overtime on the
actual minute basis for all time on duty each month in excess of 240 hours at
the rate of time and one-half.
*
ARTICLE VII. Hours of Service and overtime rules-Restaurant and em-
ployees boarding car and camp service.-(a) Employees in restaurant, boarding
car, and camp service shall be paid overtime for all time actually on duty in
excess of 8 hours within 12 consecutive hours; and also for all time in excess
of 12 consecutive hours computed continuously from the time first required to
report for duty to the end of the day's work. Time shall be counted as con-
tinuous service in all cases where the interval of release from service does not
exceed one hour.
(b) For employees in restaurant, boarding car, and camp service, the first
2 hours of overtime accruing after 8 hours within the spread of 12 hours shall
be computed pro rata, and thereafter (including overtime after 12 hours) at
the rate of time and one-half time, on the actual minute basis. Even hours
shall be paid for at the end of each pay period; fractions thereof shall be car-
ried forward.
Mr. Harms was regularly assigned to dining-car service as de-
scribed in section (a) of Article II of Supplement No. 27. Article
VI, above quoted, prescribes the hours of service and overtime rules
for such employees, while in road service; Article III, section (a),
prescribes the basis of pay for station duty performed by employees
included in section (a) of Article II; and Article VII prescribes the
basis of pay and overtime rules for employees assigned to restaurant
service.
Decision. The evidence shows that Mr. Harms was not a res-
taurant steward but was a dining-car steward assigned to station
duty, and therefore the service performed by him during the period
herein named was subject to Article III of Supplement No. 27 to
General Order No. 27.
Claim of the employees is denied.
616
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1142.-DOCKET 1957.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
International Union of Steam and Operating Engineers v. New York Central
Railroad Co.
Question. Proper rate of pay for stationary engineers, Ashta-
bula, Ohio, for service performed on Sundays and holidays.
Statement. The dispute originally filed with the Labor Board by
the respective parties embodied question as to the classification of the
employees, as well as the question with respect to the payment for
Sunday and holiday service. It was the original contention of the
employees that the men in question were composite mechanics and
should therefore receive the rate of pay and working conditions of
shop mechanics.
Due to the lack of evidence as to the actual work being performed
by the men in question, it was agreed between the parties that
further investigation should be made as to the actual work being
performed by the men in question and a further effort made to ad-
just the dispute. Such an investigation was conducted and a con-
ference held, at which conference it is indicated that the employees'
representatives agreed to withdraw their claim for reclassification,
but contended that the men should receive the rate of time and
one-half for Sunday and holiday service, which latter question is
before the board for decision.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that effective April 21, 1922,
the employees in question shall be compensated in accordance with
rules 5 and 6 of Decision No. 830.
DECISION NO. 1143.-DOCKET 2056.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Shall J. E. Maddern, extra gang foreman, be paid for
time at the one and one-half rate for services rendered in excess
of his regular eight-hour assignment?
Decision. It has been mutually agreed between the interested
parties that this dispute be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board. This docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1144.-DOCKET 2145.
Chicago, Ill., July 25, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Boston & Maine Railroad.
:
Question.-Disagreement as to the establishment of piecework.
Decision. The board is in receipt of request from representatives
of the interested parties that this dispute be withdrawn from the
Labor Board. This docket is therefore closed.
DECISIONS.
617
DECISION NO. 1145.-DOCKET 475-18-94C.
Chicago, Ill., July 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Station Agents v. The Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the carrier named negotiate an agreement cover-
ing working conditions of agents, assistant agents, chief clerks, ac-
countants, and cashiers with the organization party to this dispute.
Statement.-Pursuant to the provisions of Decision No. 119, the
representatives of the employees sought a conference with the carrier
for the purpose of negotiating rules for the government of working
conditions of all classes of agents, chief clerks, cashiers, accountants,
and freight-house foremen. An examination of the record in this
dispute does not indicate that such conference was held, and the em-
ployees thereupon made an ex parte submission to the Labor Board
in which was set forth certain rules that the employees desire placed
in effect for the government of the classes herein referred to and
whom they claim to represent.
Decision. The submission in this case indicates that it has not been
handled in accordance with the provisions of the transportation act,
1920, and the principles laid down in Decisions Nos. 119 and 825 of the
Labor Board. The dispute is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1146.-DOCKET 475-18-94D.
Chicago, Ill., July 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Station Agents v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St.
Louis Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules govern-
ing working conditions of agents, assistant agents, chief clerks,
accountants, and cashiers in the service of the carrier named.
Decision. The submission in this case indicates that it has not
been handled in accordance with the provisions of the transportation
act, 1920, and the principles laid down in Decisions Nos. 119 and
825 of the Labor Board. The dispute is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1147.-DOCKET 475-18-101.
Chicago, Ill., July 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Station Agents v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding negotiation of rules for the govern-
ment of working conditions of agents and assistant agents.
Statement.-The submission before the Labor Board in this dis-
pute consists of a set of rules proposed by the employees for the
government of working conditions of the classes of employees named
above. There is no evidence of conference having been held as con-
templated by the transportation act, 1920, and orders of the Labor
Board.
618
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The submission in this case indicates that it has not
been handled in accordance with the provisions of the transportation
act, 1920, and the principles laid down in Decisions Nos. 119 and
825 of the Labor Board. The dispute is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1148.—DOCKET 1663.
Chicago, Ill., July 28, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Philadelphia & Reading Rail-
way Co.
Question.—The question in dispute is with respect to the demotion
of Elmer Ritter to boilermaker helper, Reading locomotive shops,
in reduction of forces.
Statement. This case was duly filed with the Labor Board and
oral hearing conducted in connection therewith. On May 16, 1922,
Decision No. 1001 was issued wherein this docket was closed without
prejudice to the right of either party to again submit the matter
to the Labor Board in case of a failure to reach an agreement after
investigation therein referred to. The parties failed to agree and
the case was again referred to the Labor Board for decision, again
placing this docket on the calendar.
Decision.-The Labor Board is now in receipt of request from the
interested parties that the case be withdrawn. This docket is there-
fore closed.
DECISION NO. 1149.-DOCKET 2161.
Chicago, Ill., July 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question. Proper rate of pay for J. N. Brown, fuel foreman,
Waynoka, Okla.
Statement. During the course of oral hearing conducted in con-
nection with this case the representative of the employees requested
that the case be withdrawn in order that further negotiations might
be conducted between the interested parties. This request was con-
curred in by representative of the carrier.
Decision. This case is closed without prejudice to the right of
the case being again brought before the Labor Board if satisfactory
agreement is not reached in the further negotiations.
DECISION NO. 1150.-DOCKET 2162.
Chicago, Ill., July 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Classification and rate of pay of A. J. Strahl, scale in-
spector, Green Bay, Wis., involving application of section (i) of
DECISIONS.
619
Article V, national agreement of the United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
Decision.-As per understanding reached at oral hearing con-
ducted in connection with this case June 14, 1922, the file will be
closed without prejudice to the right of either party to again bring
the matter to the Labor Board in event of inability to agree in fur-
ther conference.
DECISION NO. 1151.-DOCKET 1245.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question-Are the following positions in the office of the terminal
superintendent at Pittsburg new positions within the intent of rule
17 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employ-
ees, and shall they be bulletined in accordance with rule 6 of said
agreement: Assistant chief clerk and chief car distributor, and night
chief clerk and car distributor?
Statement. On or about March 1, 1920, the Pittsburg terminal di-
vision was created with a superintendent in charge, and the follow-
ing positions were designated as personal office force of the superin-
tendent: Chief clerk, private secretary, assistant chief clerk and chief
car distributor, and night chief clerk and car distributor.
The employees state that when this change was made the car-
distribution bureau was placed under the jurisdiction of the superin-
tendent of the Pittsburg terminal division, but no change was made
in the duties of the employees who continued to handle the car distri-
bution for both divisions as was done when they were under one
superintendent, except that the car distributor acts in the capacity of
chief clerk to the superintendent of the Pittsburg terminal division.
The pay roll prior to and after June 1, 1920, was as follows:
Prior to June 1, 1920.
Car distributor.
Assistant car distributor.
Night car distribut
Car-distribution clerk...
Statistical clerk...
Material clerk.
Stenographer...
After June 1, 1920.
$165.00
Chief clerk and car distributor.
$200.00
4.71
Assistant chief clerk and car distributor……….
5.10
4.53
Night car distributor.
4.90
4.43
*Car-distribution clerk.
4.71
4.00
*Statistical clerk.
4.47
3.75
Material clerk.
4.31
3.48
*Stenographer.
3.78
The positions marked with an asterisk in the above statement were
bulletined in accordance with rule 17 of the clerks' national agree-
ment, but the first three positions shown in the right hand column
were not bulletined. The employees have conceded the exception of
the first position designated as chief clerk and car distributor from
the agreement, but claim that the other two positions should have
been bulletined as provided for in rule 17, which reads as follows:
Rule 17. Change in rates.—Except when changes in rates result from negoti-
ations for adjustments of a general character, the changing of a rate of a
specified position for a particular reason, shall constitute a new position.
20936°23————40
620
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees contend that neither of these positions are properly
classified as personal office force, as the duties of the incumbents
are not of a direct and confidential nature, that both employees
report to the chief clerk and car distributor, and that the change
made by the carrier was for the purpose of evading the application
of the rules of the agreement.
The carrier contends that the incumbents of the positions in
dispute handle matters of a direct and confidential nature, and
that the carrier is within its rights in filling them by selection with-
out the necessity of bulletining them as required by rule 17 of the
agreement. The carrier states that it is a fact that car distributors
on practically all divisions, especially the larger divisions in the coal
territory, have been conceded by the representatives of the employees
as not subject to the rules of the agreement, and that there is no
reason why the exception should be made in the case of the two
employees in question at Pittsburg.
Opinion. It appears that prior to November 1, 1920, the positions
in question were paid on a daily basis. It further appears that
prior to November 1, 1920, there was no agreement between the
carrier and the employees which excepted said positions from the
agreement, and the agreement made on that date only excepted
chief clerks, personal stenographers, and car distributors. Car dis-
tributors referred to in this agreement were defined as persons in
charge of the distribution of cars under an operating division. The
incumbents of the two positions in dispute report to the car dis-
tributor.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the two positions in
controversy were new positions within the meaning of rule 17 of
the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, and
shall be bulletined in accordance with rule 6 of said agreement.
DECISION NO. 1152.-DOCKET 1253.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question. Request for reinstatement of H. A. Tompkins, clerk,
accounting department, Houston, Tex.
Statement. Mr. Tompkins was dismissed from the service on June
30, 1921, account of alleged incompetency.
The employees contend that rule 32 of the national agreement of
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han-
dlers, Express and Station Employees, provides that employees
who have been in the service more than 60 days or whose applica-
tion has been formally approved shall not be disciplined or dismissed
without an investigation, and that Mr. Tompkins was not accorded
an investigation as provided for in said rule prior to his dismissal.
Rule 32 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Rule 32. Investigation.—An employee who has been in service more than 60
days or whose application has been formally approved shall not be disciplined
or dismissed without investigation, at which investigation he may be repre-
sented by an employee of his choice. He may, however, be held out of service
DECISIONS.
621
pending such investigation. The investigation shall be held within seven
days of the date when charged with the offense or held from service. A
decision will be rendered within seven days after the completion of investiga-
tion.
The carrier states that Mr. Tompkins was notified by the head or
the bureau at least 11 days prior to June 30, 1921, that he would
be relieved from the service as of June 30, on account of his not
being competent to render satisfactory service, and that on being
so advised, Mr. Tompkins stated to the head of the bureau that he
was looking for it, and had expected to be discharged long before
he was.
The carrier contends that this advance notice gave him
ample opportunity to have further investigation made if he desired
before he was taken out of service, but he did not ask for such in-
vestigation or make any complaint to the head of the bureau, who
was his immediate superior, or to the auditor of disbursements,
either verbally or in writing, in connection with his dismissal, and
he made no claim that he was being unjustly treated.
The carrier further contends that the local committee did not take
up the case, and it was regarded as closed until July 15, when the
auditor of disbursements received a letter from Mr. King, general
chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, asking for an
investigation, to which a reply was made that the case was fully
investigated before action was taken. The carrier states that on
July 26, 1921, Mr. King wrote to Mr. Cottingham, auditor, asking
for investigation, to which letter reply was made that the employees
of the general office were represented by a committee of their own
choosing, and that if Mr. Tompkins had any cause for complaint he
should take it up with the auditor, either in person or through the
duly authorized committee.
Opinion.-Rule 32 of the clerks' national agreement, above quoted,
provides that investigation shall be held within seven days of the
date when charged with the offense for which discipline is applied.
If, at the expiration of seven days from the date on which employee
is disciplined, investigation has not been held, the employees have
seven days within which to file complaint. Mr. Tompkins was dis-
missed on June 30. The evidence shows that on July 14 the general
chairman of the clerks' organization requested a hearing. This
request was declined because the carrier had entered into an agree-
ment with other representatives of the general office clerks and did
not recognize the right of the general chairman of the clerks' organi-
zation to handle the case, and insisted that the case is handled
through the committe of general office employees.
However, the Labor Board, in Decision No. 476, decided that the
general office clerks of this carrier should be embraced in the same
agreement on rules with the other clerks of the carrier, and Adden-
dum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 continued in effect the rules of the
clerks' national agreement in lieu of any other rules not agreed to
in the conferences held under Decision No. 119. Therefore rule 32
of the clerks' national agreement was in effect on July 14, 1921, when
the general chairman of the clerks' organization made application
for a hearing on the offense with which Mr. Tompkins was charged,
and under the provisions of said rule the request should have been
granted.
622
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that H. A. Tompkins shall
be reinstated to the carriers' service with seniority rights unimpaired
and paid for wage loss sustained, less any amount earned in other
employment since the date of his dismissal and less the seven days.
referred to in the above rule, and that he shall be granted an investi-
gation in accordance with rule 32 of the clerks' national agreement.
DECISION NO. 1153.-DOCKET 1328.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago & North Western Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Claim of P. W. Raettig, train dispatcher, Antigo, Wis.,
for compensation to cover alleged shortage in pay for vacation
period July 25 to August 8, 1921.
Statement. Mr. Raettig, regular relief dispatcher at Antigo, is
assigned to relief work as follows:
Sunday, rest day.
Monday, relieving trick train dispatcher.
Tuesday, relieving trick train dispatcher.
Wednesday, relieving trick train dispatcher.
Thursday, relieving chief train dispatcher.
Friday, relieving trick train dispatcher.
Saturday, relieving night chief train dispatcher.
The employee in question commenced his vacation on Monday,
July 25, and returned to the service Monday, August 8, 1921. He
was allowed compensation during said vacation period at the rate
of $235.20 per month, which is the rate paid trick train dispatchers
in the Antigo office.
The rule in effect governing vacation of train dispatchers is as
follows:
Will chief, assistant chief, regular trick, and regular relief dispatchers be
granted two weeks' vacation per annum with pay?
They will be granted two weeks (12 working days) vacation per annum
with pay, provided they have been in service in such capacities continuously
one year. (Decisions, Director of Operations, U. S. Railroad Administration,
effective October 1. 1919, maintained by Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119.)
The rule in effect governing the pay of regular relief dispatchers
reads as follows:
Where relief requirements regularly necessitate four or more days' relief
service per week, relief dispatchers shall be employed and regularly assigned
and paid the daily rates of each train dispatcher relieved. When not engaged
in dispatching service they will be assigned to such service as may be directed
by superintendent, and will be paid therefor a daily rate equal to the minimum
rates of trick train dispatchers relieved. It is understood that relief dis-
patchers may relieve in more than one office and that their relief work shall
not be confined to one division. Relief requirements of less than four days
per week will be performed by extra dispatchers who will be paid the daily
rate of each train dispatcher relieved.
It is the contention of the employees that had Mr. Raettig worked
during the period July 25 to August 6, inclusive, he would have
relieved the chief train dispatcher two days, the night chief train
dispatcher two days, and the trick dispatchers eight days, and would
DECISIONS.
623
have been compensated therefor at the rate of the position of the
employee relieved, and that, therefore, he was entitled to receive
while on his vacation the same total compensation that he would
have received had he performed actual service during the period
of time consumed in taking the vacation.
The carrier states that the rate of pay for trick train dispatchers
is determined by the rule quoted above, which provides that the
rate for the relief dispatcher will be the rate for the position on
which he is performing relief service, and further provides that
when he is not performing relief service he will receive a rate equal
to the minimum rate for trick dispatchers in the office to which he
is assigned. Therefore, inasmuch as Mr. Raettig was not perform-
ing relief service while he was on his vacation, he should be com-
pensated at the assigned rate for other than relief service, i. e., the
minimum rate applicable to trick dispatchers in the office to which
he is assigned. The carrier states that while Mr. Raettig was on his
vacation it was necessary to grant the regular dispatchers relief, and
that the dispatcher who acted as relief dispatcher during the period
of Mr. Raettig's absence was compensated in accordance with_the
rule, having been paid the rate of the position of the employee whom
he relieved.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1154.-DOCKET 1330.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Pennsylvania System.
Question. Claim of J. W. Green, operator, for pay for the period
he was compelled to suspend work during his regular week-day as-
signment February, 1921.
Statement.-Mr. Green was employed as third trick operator at
Hemlock, Pa. He was notified that his services would not be re-
quired on February 14, 21, and 28, and did not work on those dates.
The employees state that this action on the part of the carrier caused
Mr. Green to lose three days' pay from his regular assignment and
nullified the amount of increase granted by Decision No. 2 of the
Labor Board.
The employees contend that the purpose of Supplement No. 13 to
General Order No. 27 and Decision No. 2 is to grant the employees an
increase in wages; that they were not issued for the purpose
of pro-
viding means for the carrier to bring about a reduction in pay of
employees affected, and that decision to Question 28, Interpretation
No. 4 to Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, states that
employees covered by Article II of Supplement No. 13 are guar-
anteed eight hours' pay exclusive of Sundays and seven holidays.
The employees contend that inasmuch as the three days on which
Mr. Green was forced to suspend work were not included in the
seven holidays which are provided in Interpretation No. 3 to Sup-
plement No. 13 and were not Sundays, he should be paid for the time
which he was compelled to lose.
624
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier states that the office in question was closed on the
third trick on the dates named owing to the small amount of traffic,
and that Mr. Green was given proper notice that his services would
not be required. The carrier contends that the provisions of Sup-
plement No. 13 to General Order No. 27 are not understood by them
to guarantee in any manner 306 days per year to all employees
covered by its provisions, but, on the contrary, that it is the under-
standing that the decision to question 28 of Interpretation No. 4 to
Supplement No. 13 contemplates the payment for eight hours on
days on which the employees start work, except Sundays and holi-
days, for which days they should be paid as provided for in the
supplement. The carrier further contends that they do not under-
stand that any wage order of the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration pertaining to the classes of employees referred to in this
dispute contemplates the restriction of the carriers' right to reduce
their working force when traffic conditions warrant, as to do so
would result in uneconomical and inefficient operation. Question 28
of Interpretation No. 4 to Supplement No. 13 and decision thereto.
reads as follows:
Question 28. Are employees covered by Supplement No. 13, Article II, guar-
anteed eight consecutive hours' pay, exclusive of the meal hour, at stations
where one shift is worked and eight consecutive hours' pay with no allowance
for meals at stations where two or more shifts are worked?
Decision.—Yes; exclusive of Sundays and seven holidays. (See Interpreta-
tion No. 3 of Supplement No. 13.)
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1155.-DOCKET 1331.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Request for increase in rate of pay of A. V. MacDon-
ald, freight claim agent's office.
Statement.—Mr. MacDonald is assigned to the position of over
charge-paid claims investigator, and at the time this dispute was
submitted to the board he was paid at the rate of $6.05 per day.
The employees state that the duties of this position are to adjust
with other carriers interline claims on interstate and intrastate traf-
fic, east and west bound, paid to shippers or consignees; to adjust
junction settlements, revenues, rates and divisions; settle through
tariff department disputes on rates and divisions; secure local or
proportional rates from officials of other carriers; re-collect from.
claimants amounts overpaid or refunded in error; brief claims to law
department for rulings; and to make bills collectible and depart-
ment invoices. It is claimed that all data must be worked out by
the incumbent of this position.
The employees contend that an unjustifiable inequality exists
between the rate of this position and the rate of the position desig-
nated as relief overcharge-claims investigator, the rate of which is
$6.78 per day. The duties of this latter position, according to the
DECISIONS.
625
employees, are to adjust with other carriers interline claims on inter-
state or intrastate traffic allowed to agents for relief in advances and
misrouting (the overcharge in advances being on westbound inter-
state transcontinental traffic only) and to adjust junction settlements
and divisions of rates and revenues. In some instances the incumbent
is required to handle cases of disputed divisions of rates with traffic
department making department invoices. Claims handled by the
incumbent on this position on which agents allowed relief in error
are readjusted with agents by auditor of freight accounts office.
The employees further contend that practically all of the detail
work is performed in the office of the auditor of freight accounts
before and after the claims are passed to the freight claim agent's
office.
The employees claim that the positions in question have been paid
at the rates shown in the following statement:

Period.
Position.
Over- Relie. over-
charge-paid charge
claims in- claims in-
vestigator. vestigator.
December, 1917.
Jan. 1, 1918 (General Order No. 27).
Sept. 1, 1918 (Supplement No. 7)...
Jan. 1, 1920 (clerks' national agreement)
May 1, 1920 (Decision No. 2).
Oct. 1, 1920 (special authority).
July 1, 1921 (Decision 147).
❤
.per month..
$115.00
$95.00
.do....
140.00
150.00
do....
140.00
150.00
-per day..
5. 49
5.88
do...
6. 53
6.92
.do....
7.26
.do....
6.05
6.78
The employees also contend that the increase granted the position
of relief claims investigator by special authority of the carrier
created an inequality; that the said increase was based more upon
establishing a rate of pay for the employee occupying the position
rather than the duties performed; that this action is in violation of
rule 71 of the clerks' national agreement; and that the training
and skill required, the degree of responsibility, and the duties of
the position paid at the lesser rate warrant the establishment of a
rate of pay equal to or greater than the rate of pay established for
the higher rated position as indicated above.
The carrier states that the employees' statement is in error as to
the wages paid the respective positions in December, 1917, in that
the position now held by Mr. MacDonald was paid at the rate of
$115 per month in 1917, and the one with which comparison is made
was paid at the rate of $125 per month. These rates were used
as a base in applying the increase of $25 per month in accordance
with Supplement No. 7 to General Order No. 27, and the increase
of $24.52 per month under Decision No. 2. The carrier states that
both positions are in a subdivision of the paid claim bureau known
as the overcharge paid claim bureau. This bureau consists of six
clerks, four of whom, including Mr. MacDonald, are paid at the
rate of $154.28 per month; one of whom (the employee holding the
position to which equalization is requested) is paid at the rate of
626
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
$172.76 per month; and the other is paid at the rate of $182.76 per
month.
The carrier further states that the duties of these employees are
to adjust with other carriers claims paid by the Southern Pacific
Co.; and that the positions involve a certain amount of detail work,
but that there are, however, a great many technical questions and
doubtful adjustments to be considered which require the technical
knowledge secured only by adaptability and long experience in this
class of work. This latter work was handled by the employees re-
ceiving the higher rates of pay. The carrier contends that it is
difficult to secure men with the required experience and technical
knowledge, while it is not so difficult to obtain men with the ability
and knowledge necessary to handle the detail work performed by
the clerks who receive $154.28 per month.
The carrier contends that for the reasons above stated there has
been no discrimination against Mr. MacDonald, and that the dis-
parity between the rates of the position he holds and the position
to which he claims the rate of his position should be increased is
fully justified by the difference in ability, qualifications, and re-
sponsibility thereof.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1156.-DOCKET 2210.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail-
way Co.
Question. This dispute covers a controversy between the em-
ployees and the carrier with reference to the adoption of certain
rules not decided by Decision No. 630, issued by the Labor Board.
Decision.-The carrier and employees have advised the board that
they have agreed on all of the disputes included in this docket and
have requested the withdrawal of same from further consideration by
the board.
The case is, therefore, removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1157.-DOCKET 2220.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of R. F. Withers, Fort
Worth, Tex.
Decision. The employees and the carrier having agreed to with-
draw this case from further consideration by the Labor Board, it is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
627
DECISION NO. 1158.-DOCKET 2346.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of employees for overtime at the rate of time
and one-half for time worked in excess of nine hours per day between
July 1, 1921, and February 1, 1922.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that it has been satisfactorily adjusted, and they have requested
that it be withdrawn from further consideration by the board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1159.-DOCKET 2347.
Chicago, Ill., July 31, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. P. Lodge, Philadel-
phia, Pa., who was dismissed from the service December 1, 1921.
Decision. This case is closed in accordance with the understand-
ing reached at a hearing conducted by the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1160.-DOCKET 1233.
Chicago, Ill., August 2, 1922.
Order of Railroad Station Agents v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Shall the carrier named negotiate with the organiza-
tion, party hereto, an agreement covering the working conditions of
agents, assistant agents, chief clerks, accountants, and cashiers?
Statement.-After the issuance of Decision No. 119, representa-
tives of the Order of Railroad Station Agents sought a conference
with the carrier for the purpose of negotiating rules for the govern-
ment of working conditions of supervisory agents, agents, assistant
agents, relief agents, chief clerks, cashiers, and warehouse foremen.
The carrier declined to enter into an agreement with the organiza-
tion in question covering these classes of employees on the ground
that some of these employees were not subject to the provisions of
the transportation act, while others were covered by agreements be-
tween the carrier and other organizations of employees. The Order
of Railroad Station Agents contends that it has been authorized by a
majority of the agents in the service of the carrier party hereto to
represent them in agreement negotiations, and requests that the car-
rier be required to conduct such negotiations in accordance with De-
cision No. 119.
628
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The submission in this case indicates that it has not been
handled in accordance with the provisions of the transportation act,
1920, and the principles laid down in Decisions Nos. 119, 220, and
825 of the Labor Board.
The dispute is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1161.-DOCKET 2014.
Chicago, Ill., August 3, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), Y.
Virginian Railway Co.
Question.-Claim for pay for time lost by A. A. Lewis, G. E.
Akers, and D. M. Mattox, machinists, Roanoke, Va., due to alleged
misapplication of agreement.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence was submitted by the
respective parties. This case was regularly filed in ex parte form
by representatives of the employees, wherein claim is made that on
December 21, 1921, Messrs. Lewis, Akers, and Mattox, machinists,
who were assigned to the first shift at the Roanoke roundhouse, were
called to the office by the master mechanic and told that they should
not report for their regular shift, which was the first shift, on De-
cember 22, but that Mr. Lewis should come to work on the second
shift and Messrs. Akers and Mattox on the third shift.
It is the claim of the employees that these three men protested on
the grounds that they should not have been laid off to equalize over-
time as per rule 11, but should have been permitted to work their
regular shifts the next day and double over if necessary to make
such a transfer. It is shown that these employees reported for work
on their regular shift, but that the foreman did not permit them to
go to work.
This case was appealed to F. D. Laudemann, who claimed to be
general chairman of the machinists on both the Norfolk & Western
Railway and the Virginian Railway, through whom the case was
submitted to the Labor Board in ex parte form.
It is the contention of the carrier that Mr. Laudemann is not an
employee of the Virginian Railway Co.; that it does not recognize
him as the highest designated representative of the machinists on the
Virginian Railway; that no conference has been held with reference
to this case between the highest authorized representatives of the
respective parties; and that, therefore, the case has not been handled
in conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
The carrier's position in part is:
The federated committee on the Virginian Railway is represented by Mutual
System Federation No. 40, Virginian Railway Shop Employees, C. E. Liggett,
president, and is the authorized general committee as referred to in paragraph
3 of rule 35 for the handling of grievances which can not be adjusted by the
local committee. Should the dispute, subsequent to its being handled as pro-
vided in the rules of the national agreement, remain unsettled, I shall be glad
to join the federated committee in a submission to the board for a decision,
as I have never refused to join a duly accredited committee in submitting a
dispute on any matter which its agreement covers and which has been handled
as provided in the rules of the agreement.
DECISIONS.
629
Decision-Attention is directed to Decision No. 1104, which covers.
a dispute between the parties herein named regarding the right of
employees to designate representatives of their own choice.
The Labor Board decides that in conjunction with the application
of that decision a conference shall be held between the highest duly
authorized representatives of the respective parties in a further
effort to reach an agreement. If an agreement can not be reached,
the parties at interest are privileged to bring the matter to the atten-
tion of the Labor Board as per the provisions of section 301 of the
transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1162.-DOCKET 2015.
Chicago, Ill., August 3, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Virginian Railway Co.
Question.-Does Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 provide for
a continuation of the payment of the minimum of five hours for any
overtime after the ninth hour of continuous service in addition to
the time and one-half for the ninth hour as per rule 7 of the national
agreement of the Federated Shop Crafts?
Decision.-The evidence submitted in this case indicates that the
particular question in dispute has been amicably adjusted, and that
no further action on the part of the Labor Board is necessary. The
docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1163.-DOCKET 2016.
Chicago, Ill., August 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Question.-Shall Dan Gregg, formerly employed as section laborer
in the yard gang at De Queen, Ark., and who was discharged from
the service on July 30, 1921, be reinstated with seniority rights and
paid for all time lost?
Decision. No.
DECISION NO. 1164.-DOCKET 2017..
Chicago, Ill., August 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Question.-Claim of Louis Vincent et al. account of alleged viola-
tion of seniority rights when force was reduced.
Statement. Written and oral evidence in connection with this
dispute indicates that prior to December, 1921, no definite under-
standing or agreement had been reached as to what constituted a
seniority district. The understanding of the carrier apparently was
630
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
that the jurisdiction of the respective general foremen-one in
charge of the locomotive shop, one in charge of the roundhouse, and
one in charge of the car shop-determined the seniority district, as
contemplated in the national agreement, which practice it is claimed
has been followed for a number of years, and no complaint was
made by the employees until the latter part of 1920.
The evidence shows that during the year 1921 Louis Vincent,
Patrick Feeley, W. M. Roberts, and Clint Williams, shop laborers,
were laid off several times, while employees junior in the service
in the roundhouse were retained. These four employees, it is shown,
were under the supervision of the general foreman of the locomotive.
shop and were engaged in such work as cleaning up in and around
shops, roundhouse, and yards, and performing miscellaneous laborers'
duties which occasionally required their services in the roundhouse,
while the junior employees retained were under the jurisdiction of
the general roundhouse foreman.
It is the contention of the employees that the carrier improperly
applied the seniority rules in laying these men off and retaining
men junior in the service in the roundhouse, it being their position
that the seniority district as referred to in the national agreement
embraced the roundhouse. This point was conceded by the carrier
in December, 1921, to be effective from that time forward. The
carrier, however, would not agree to pay these employees for time laid
off during the year 1921, which was claimed by them, it being its
position that no seniority district had been agreed upon and that the
practice followed was in line with that followed for years; and,
further, that the employees raised no protest in this connection until
the latter part of 1921, shortly after which a mutually satisfactory
arrangement was effected.
Decision. The claim of the employees for pay for time lost prior
to the date of reaching an understanding regarding the proper appli-
cation of the seniority provisions of the agreement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1165.-DOCKET 2057.
Chicago, Ill., August 3, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-How shall employees coming under the provisions
of rule 48 in the agreement between the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and
the Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. be paid?
Statement.-Rule 48 of the agreement above referred to is identi-
cal to section (h) of Article V, Decision No. 501, which reads:
Employees whose responsibilities and/or supervisory duties require service
in excess of the working hours or days assigned for the general force will be
compensated on a monthly rate to cover all services rendered, except that when
such employees are required to perform work which is not a part of their
responsibilities or supervisory duties, on Sundays or in excess of the established
working hours, such work will be paid for on the basis provided in these rules
in addition to the monthly rate. Section foremen required to walk or patrol
track on Sunday shall be paid therefor on the basis provided in these rules
in addition to the monthly rate.
DECISIONS.
631
The evidence shows that subsequent to the effective date of the
maintenance of way employees' national agreement, and up until
February 15, 1922, supervisory forces such as bridge and building
foremen, painter foremen, concrete and masonry foremen, section
and extra gang foremen, etc.-were paid a monthly salary and
allowed overtime on the basis of 313 days per year, receiving extra
compensation for services performed on Sundays and in excess of
their regular established working hours while supervising their
gangs. The hourly rate of such employees was based on 208 hours
per month.
It is the position of the carrier that its reason for applying the rule
as outlined was that the United States Railroad Administration had
issued rulings interpreting the rule in that manner.
It is shown that, effective February 16, 1922, after receipt of De-
cision No. 501, issued by the Labor Board, the carrier changed the
method of paying these employees, it being their contention that
under rule 48 (which is similar to section (h) of Article V, Decision
No. 501) no provision is made for extra overtime allowance for these
classes. The instructions issued by the carrier were to the effect
that under rule 48 employees affected thereby would be paid a
monthly salary to cover all services rendered and would not be com-
pensated for services performed on Sundays or holidays, nor for
any time in excess of their regular established working hours while
supervising their gangs in the regular performance of their assigned
duties.
The employees' contention in general is that rule 48 is prac-
tically identical to corresponding rule in the national agreement, and
that it should be applied in the same manner as the national agree-
ment rule, with the modification as provided in rule 45, which deter-
mines the method of arriving at the hourly rate.
The carrier takes the position that under section 4 of the general
instructions in Decision No. 501 it is no longer bound by interpreta-
tions of the United States Railroad Administration on which it is
stated the method of payment in effect prior to February 16, 1922,
was predicated. The carrier calls attention to Decision No. 593,
which, it is claimed, covers a parallel situation with that heretofore
existing on the Missouri Pacific Railroad.
The question before the Labor Board for decision is the proper
interpretation of rule 48 in connection with overtime and Sunday
and holiday service.
Decision.-The Labor Board directs the parties hereto to Decision
No. 593, wherein its position with respect to the application of the
rule is clearly outlined, and decides that the provisions thereof shall
be made applicable to this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1166.-DOCKET 1985.
Chicago, Ill., August 4, 1922.
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers v. Lehigh Valley Rail-
road Co.
Question.-Application of rule 5 of the national agreement be-
tween the Director General of Railroads and the International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers.
632
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. A dispute has been duly filed with the Labor Board
with respect to the application of rule 5 of the national agreement
covering the firemen, oilers, etc.
Rule 5, referred to, reads as follows:
Time worked on Sundays and the following holidays-New Year's, Washing-
tou's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and
Christmas-shall be paid for at the pro rata hourly rate when the entire num-
ber of hours constituting the regular week-day assignment is worked.
On roads where an agreement or practice more favorable to the employees is
in effect, such agreement or practice, in so far as it relates to this rule, may be
retained.
Rules 5 and 6 of Decision No. 725 reads as follows:
RULE 5. Sunday and holiday work-Full-day period.-Time worked on Sun-
days and the following holidays-namely, New Year's Day, Washington's Birth-
day, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christ-
mas-shall be paid for at the pro rata hourly rate when the entire number of
hours constituting the regular week-day assignment are worked.
RULE 6. Sunday and holiday work-Less than full-day period.-When as-
signed, notified, or called to work on Sundays and/or the above specified holi-
days a less number of hours than constitutes a day's work within the limits of
the regular week-day assignment, employees shall be paid a minimum allow-
ance of three hours for two hours' work or less, and at the pro rata hourly rate
after the second hour of each hour of duty.
It is the contention of the employees that extra pay, in addition
to the monthly rate, should be allowed for service performed on Sun-
days and holidays.
The carrier contends that the monthly rate and increases for the
classes of employees covered hereby has been predicated upon 365
days per year, except for men not required to work on Sundays and
holidays, and that to allow extra payment in addition to the monthly
rate for such seven-day-assigned men would establish a double-time
payment for such service, which they feel is inequitable and not con-
templated by the rule referred to.
Decision The Labor Board decides that effective March 1, 1922,
payment shall be made in addition to the employees' monthly sal-
ary, for service performed on Sundays and holidays in conformity
with the procedure outlined in rules 5 and 6, Decision No. 725.
This decision is not applicable where the duly authorized repre-
sentatives of the carrier and the duly authorized representatives of
its employees involved have reached an agreement providing a fixed
monthly rate to cover all service rendered.
DECISION NO. 1167.—DOCKET 2085.
Chicago, August 4, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Question.-Shall Dorne Reed be paid the rate of stockman for
time actually engaged on supply car?
Statement. Written and oral evidence was presented in this case
wherein the facts and contentions of the respective parties were set
forth. The evidence so submitted indicates that Mr. Reed, who is
employed as a laborer in the stores department at Mattoon, Ill., is
DECISIONS.
633
assigned to work on the supply car approximately five days each
month. This supply car, it is shown, is handled in local freight
trains from which he distributes material to section men, car in-
spectors, bridge and building carpenter gangs, etc. The representa-
tive of the employees at the oral hearing conducted in connection
with this case made the claim that Mr. Reed should receive the rate
of stockman for time actually consumed on the supply car.
Decision. The claim for stockman's rate while actually engaged
on the supply car is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1168.-DOCKET 710.
Chicago, August 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Dispute regarding the application of rule 66 of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees to certain
hourly rated clerical employees.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board in this case indi-
cates that the alleged dispute covers a difference of opinion between
the employees and the carrier as to the proper method of comput-
ing the rate of pay of the employees involved, and it appears that no
specific claims for payment in accordance with the employees' under-
standing of the rule are pending for adjustment.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1169.-DOCKET 905.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Application of rule 49 of the national agreement be-
tween the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees and the Director General
of Railroads to certain employees enumerated in paragraph 2 of rule
1 thereof, employed at Albany and Troy, N. Y.
Decision. The Labor Board having been advised that a satisfac-
tory settlement has been arrived at in this dispute, the case is removed
from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1170.-DOCKET 1318.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Request for reinstatement of Thomas Shields, gateman,
San Francisco, Calif., who was dismissed from the service on August
31, 1920.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, includ-
ing proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the board
decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
694
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1171.-DOCKET 1326.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Chicago & North Western Rail-
way Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of B. H. Corbin, train dis-
patcher, Casper, Wyo.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised that a mutually satisfac-
tory adjustment of this dispute has been reached by the interested
parties.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1172.-DOCKET 2020.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Wabash Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding alleged arbitrary elimination of an-
nual vacations in violation of agreement between carrier and em-
ployees in clerical and station service.
Decision. The employees and the carrier having reached a mutu-
ally satisfactory settlement of the question in dispute, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1173.-DOCKET 2104.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Chicago & North Western Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the inclusion of positions of chief
and assistant chief dispatcher in agreement between the employees
and the carrier, covering rules and working conditions.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised that a mutually satisfac-
tory agreement has been negotiated between the carrier and the
employees.
The case is, therefore, removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1174.-DOCKET 2385.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the application of rule 3, Decision
No. 757, covering intermittent service, to employees at certain sta-
DECISIONS.
635
Decision. The Labor Board is advised that it is agreeable to the
employees and the carrier to have this dispute withdrawn from fur-
ther consideration by the board.
The case is, therefore, removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1175.-DOCKET 2502.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the basis of pay for overtime for
employees covered by Decision No. 630, during the period July 1,
1921, to February 1, 1922.
Decision. Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 630 covers the ques-
tion in controversy and shall govern in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1176.-DOCKET 349.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers for Rehearing on Docket 349, Decision No. 251.
Question. Request of employees for a rehearing in connection with
dispute covered by Docket 349, disposed of by Decision No. 251.
Decision. The Labor Board does not feel that the supplementary
evidence submitted in connection with this case warrants further re-
consideration in connection therewith.
The request for rehearing is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1177.-DOCKET 1854.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), V.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Claim that a differential rate of 5 cents per hour should
be paid to employees assigned to laying out work for freight-car
department.
Statement. The submission contained the following joint state-
ment of facts:
Joint statement of facts.-The carrier employs at Palestine a freight carman
whose duties are to lay out work for freight carmen. Prior to July 1, 1921,
he received a minimum rate established for planing-mill employees, rate
being 5 cents in excess of that of freight carmen. On July 1, 1921, the rate
was changed, since which time he has been receiving the rate applicable to
freight carmen.
Employees' position.-A differential rate for scratch boss or layer-out man
in freight-car department was established a number of years prior to Govern-
ment control on this railway and remained in effect during Federal control,
thereby establishing a differential rate prior to United States Railroad Labor
Board's Decision No. 2. On receipt of Decision No. 2, the increase granted
20936°-23-41
636
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
to shopmen, same being 13 cents per hour, was added to the rate then in
effect, and the rate thus established remained in effect until July 1, 1921,
the effective date of Decision No. 147, which reduced the rates of shop
crafts 8 cents per hour. Instead of putting into effect the rate authorized
by the United States Railroad Labor Board in its Decision No. 147, the
carrier reduced the rate of pay of the employee in question 13 cents per hour.
We contend that Decision No. 147 was violated by the carrier, due to the
fact that it was only authorized to reduce the wages 8 cents per hour.
We further contend that when the current agreement between the International
& Great Northern Railway and its Federated Shop Crafts was negotiated
in compliance with Labor Board's Decision No. 119, we were dealing only
with rules and working conditions and not with rates of pay, and for that
reason rates of pay were not discussed. We believe, and we had a right to
expect, the rates of pay established by the Labor Board to remain in effect
until changed either by the Labor Board or by agreement reached in con-
ference. Therefore, we request that the rates established by Decision No. 147
be restored.
Carrier's position.-The carrier contends that the rate now being paid for
the position mentioned in the joint statement of facts is correct; the rate paid
prior to July 1, 1921, was in error, and in the checking of the pay rolls by one
of our employees this rate was found in error and attention called to it as
having been in error, and correction was made accordingly. The correct rate
for a position of that kind is that of freight-car builder, and it would appear
that the position was so classified under Addendum No. 2 to Supplement No.
4 to General Order No. 27, which created a minimum rate of 5 cents in excess of
that paid a freight-car builder. However, the position is not shown as having
been classified as coming under Addendum No. 2, and for that reason, as soon as
the error was discovered, the rate was corrected. This happened to be around
July 1, 1921, the date on which Decision No. 147 of the United States Railroad
Labor Board took effect. The carrier, in making application of Decision No. 147,
has corrected the rate to what it should have been and then deducted 8 cents
per hour as authorized by the board. There was no violation on the part of
the carrier, so far as application of Decision No. 147 is concerned, for the
reason that 13 cents was not deducted, but 8 cents, as stated above, was
deducted as applying to the position.
Opinion. The Labor Board in principle 7, Exhibit B, of De-
cision No. 119, definitely recognizes that employees or their duly
authorized representatives should be consulted prior to any change
adversely affecting the wages and working conditions of employees.
The evidence indicates that the above procedure was not followed
in this case, but that the change was placed in effect arbitrarily by
the carrier without prior conference with the employee or his rep-
resentative, which procedure is necessary to properly conform to
the provisions of section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
The Labor Board does not feel that it is within its province to
decide the merit of the classification and rating unless the matter is
handled in conformity with the procedure above outlined.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides that the classifica-
tion and rating in effect prior to the date on which the change was
made by the carrier be restored and continued in force and effect
until changed in conformity with section 301 of the transportation
act, 1920.

DECISION NO. 1178.-DOCKET 1876.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts),
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
V.
Question. Proper classification and rate of pay of telegraph and
telephone linemen from March 1, 1920, to January 1,
1922.
DECISIONS.
637
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented by the respective
parties to this controversy indicates that under the provisions of the
national agreement of the Federated Shop Crafts telegraph and tele-
phone linemen on the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana
were compensated on a monthly rate of $178.84 (3,156 times $0.68
divided by 12), this rate being established as per the following agree-
ment reached between representatives of the carrier and representa-
tives of the employees:
HOUSTON, TEX., October 25, 1919.
Subject: Adjustment of pending grievances with linemen,
Mr. L. S. GORDON,
Acting for the General Chairman, Electrical Workers,
Houston, Tex.
DEAR SIR: Referring to our conference of even date in regard to pending
grievances of linemen on the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana,
the Trinity & Brazos Valley, the San Antonio & Aransas Pass, and the San
Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf.
In consideration of closing out all matters which have been under con-
sideration, I am agreeable to establishing a monthly salary of one hundred
seventy-eight dollars and eighty-four cents ($178.84) per calendar month for
linemen, which will be retroactive to May 1, 1919. If this understanding and
settlement of the matter is satisfactory, will you kindly indicate the same
on the bottom of this letter.
This will confirm my advice to you that pay will be allowed the local
committee for the time that they came to Houston on previous occasions to
handle grievances. In order to avoid any misunderstanding in this respect
for the future, would state that the terms of the national agreement will
cover grievances.
Yours truly,
Accepted,
J. G. TORIAN,
Supervisor of wages.
L. S. GORDON,
For the General Chairman, Electrical Workers.
N. W. SMITH,
Local Chairman.
The effective date of the shopmen's national agreement was Octo-
ber 20, 1919, while the agreement above quoted was dated October
25, 1919. This rate was adjusted in conformity with the provisions
of Decisions Nos. 2 and 147. On December 1, 1921, the carrier
changed the rates of the linemen to that of first-class electrical
workers in conformity with rule 140 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision
No. 222.
It is shown that subsequent to October 25, 1919, the employees
contended that under the provisions of rule 140 of the shopmen's na-
tional agreement the telegraph and telephone linemen in question
should have been rated as first-class electrical workers. The carrier
did not concur in the contentions of the employees, they taking the
position that the agreement entered into October 25, 1919, clearly
disposed of all contentions with respect to the classification and
rating of these men. The matter it is shown was submitted to the
United States Railroad Administration, and in the early part of
1920 Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2 handed down Decision
No. 1983 reading, in part, as follows:
The telegraph linemen in question performing work outlined in rule 140 of
the national agreement, will, effective May 1, 1919, be paid as provided in rule
43 or rule 44 if they were being paid on the step-rate basis.
638
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier takes the position that the employees in question were
not performing work outlined in rule 140 of the national agreement,
and declined to apply the decision in the manner as contended for by
the employees. The employees take the position that said decision of
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2 sustained their contentions.
The evidence shows that upon the refusal of the carrier to apply the
decision as contended for by the employees, the matter has been han-
dled with representatives of the United States Railroad Administra-
tion, but the Railroad Administration has not up to this writing acted
upon the employees' supplementary submissions.
As previously stated, on December 1, 1921, the carrier changed the
rating of the telegraph linemen to that of first-class electrical work-
ers, it being the position of the carrier that the following language
of rule 140, Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, specifically pro-
vided that such rating was proper for these employees. That portion
of rule 140, referred to, reads:
*
all inside telegraph and telephone equipment *
The carrier takes the position that no such provision was incorpo-
rated in rule 140 of the national agreement, which it is contended
strengthens their position to the effect that it was not the intention
of the national agreement to classify such work as that of first-class
electrical workers. The carrier, in addition to its claim that the na-
tional agreement did not provide the classification and rating as
claimed by the employees for this class of work, calls attention to and
places special emphasis upon the agreement entered into on October
25, 1919, and which is hereinbefore quoted.
It is the contention of the employees that the agreement referred to
as having been entered into on October 25, 1919, was for the purpose
of disposing of the question of back pay for division linemen, and
that the submission to the United States Railroad Administration
was intended to dispose of the question as to whether the men were
linemen or first-class electrical workers, as per the rules of the na-
tional agreement.
The question involved is with respect to the classification and
rating from March 1, 1920, to December 1, 1921. There is no dis-
pute relative to the present classification and rating of the employees
in question.
Opinion. The evidence clearly shows that on October 25, 1919,
an agreement was duly entered into and signed by representatives
of the carrier and representatives of the employees. This agree-
ment, which was entered into subsequent to the effective date of
the national agreement, specifically provided that—
***In consideration of closing all matters which have been under considera-
tion, I am agreeable to establishing a monthly salary of $178.84 per calendar
month for linemen, which will be retroactive to May 1, 1919. If this under-
standing and settlement of the matter is satisfactory, will you kindly indicate
the same on the bottom of this letter
The agreement was signed by Mr. J. G. Torian, supervisor of
wages, and accepted by L. S. Gordon, general chairman of the
Electrical Workers, and N. W. Smith, local chairman.
The Labor Board further takes cognizance of the fact that after
receipt of decision from Railway Board of adjustment No. 2, a
difference of opinion existed as to the meaning and intent of said
DECISIONS.
639
decision, which had not up to the date of the submission been
settled with the United States Railroad Administration. The evi-
dence indicates that Decisions Nos. 2 and 147 were properly applied
to the rates established by the agreement dated October 25, 1919,
and that on December 1, 1921, as per Addendum No. 6 to Decision
No. 222, the classification and rating was changed to that of first-
class electrical workers, subsequent to which date no dispute existed.
Decision. In view of the facts hereinbefore cited, the claim of
the employees for classification of first-class electrical workers from
March 1, 1920, to December 1, 1921, is denied.
Effective December 1, 1921, the classification and rating of elec-
trical workers as per rule 140, Addendum No. 6 to Decision No.
222 shall be applied to the telegraph linemen in question.
DECISION NO. 1179.-DOCKET 1916.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Question. Proper rate of pay for A. F. Bowels, electric-crane
operator, Worchester freight yards.
Statement. The Labor Board is in receipt of both written and
oral evidence in connection with this case, and has taken careful
cognizance of the facts and the contentions of the respective parties.
The evidence so submitted indicates that several agreements had
been entered into between the carrier and the various classes of em-
ployees, it being the contention of the carrier that the position in
question came under the scope of agreement entered into with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees with whom an agreement was duly
executed.
The organization party to this dispute claims that electric-crane
operators are specifically mentioned in rules 141 and 142 of Adden-
dum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, and should therefore be governed by
the rules, wages, and working conditions applicable to employees
covered by those rules.
It is shown that pursuant to Decision No. 119 negotiations were
conducted between representatives of the carriers and the Federated
Shop Crafts at which times it was agreed that the rules would be
applicable to the employees in the locomotive and car departments,
which rules the employees now claim are applicable to electric-crane
operators in the freight house.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that in view of the scope as
agreed upon between representatives of the shop employees and the
carrier, being confined to the locomotive and car departments, the
question is not now a proper one for the consideration of the board,
and is accordingly dismissed.
This decision is without prejudice to the right of the organization
to again bring the matter to the Labor Board if or when the scope
of the shop crafts employees' agreement will warrant such handling.
640
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1180.-DOCKET 1936.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Question. Proper rate of pay for Patrick Clifford, electric-crane
operator at Kneeland Street freight yards, Boston, Massachusetts.
Statement. The Labor Board is in receipt of both written and
oral evidence in connection with this case, and has taken careful
cognizance of the facts and the contentions of the respective parties.
The evidence so submitted indicates that several agreements had
been entered into between the carrier and its various classes of
employees, it being the contention of the carrier that the position in
question came within the scope of agreement entered into with the
International Longshoremen's Association, with whom an agreement
was duly executed.
The organization party to this dispute claims that electric-crane
operators are specifically mentioned in rules 141 and 142 of Adden-
dum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, and should therefore be governed
by the rules, wages, and working conditions applicable to employees
covered by those rules.
It is shown that pursuant to Decision No. 119 negotiations were
conducted between representatives of the carrier and the Federated
Shop Crafts at which time it was agreed that the rules would be
applicable to the employees in the locomotive and car departments,
which rules the employees now claim are applicable to electric-crane
operators in the freight house.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that in view of the scope as
agreed upon between representatives of the shop employees and the
carrier, being confined to the locomotive and car departments, the
question is not now a proper one for consideration by the board, and
is accordingly dismissed.
This decision is without prejudice to the right of the organization
to again bring the matter to the Labor Board if or when the scope
of the shop crafts employees' agreement will warrant such handling.
DECISION NO. 1181.-DOCKET 1970.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Question.-Protest of employees against discontinuance of differ-
ential rates for heavy-fire blacksmiths, heaters, hammer operators
and hammersmiths, and hammersmiths and heavy fire helpers.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence shows that the carrier on
December 1, 1921, discontinued the payment of the differential rates
specified in rules 119 and 124 of the national agreement of the
Federated Shops Crafts without prior conference with or consent
of the employees. Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 omitted
DECISIONS.
641
reference to rules 119 and 124 of the national agreement, which
addendum provided that all omitted rules were remanded to the
carrier and employees for further consideration, negotiation, and
adjustment as per section 301 of the transportation act, 1920. With
reference to the discontinuance of the differentials, it is the position
of the carrier that-
Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 omitted rules 119 and 124; that this
omission did away with the differentials formerly paid blacksmiths under these
rules; and that such differentials should not be paid until the company and
its employees came to an agreement on these rules.
The position of the employees is quoted below:
Our understanding is that all omitted rules, as provided in Addendum No. 6
to Decision No. 222, were of such a character that in justice to both the car-
riers and the men they were to be taken up and settled on each individual
railroad by conference to cover the different conditions existing on different
roads, and that until such time as the provisions of other rules to take the place
of these rules had been mutually agreed to in conference, or in case of dis-
agreement and a submission on same had been decided by the United tates
Railroad Labor Board, that the provisions of the rules as read in the national
agreement were to remain in force.
Upon receipt of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, this company issued
a notice that all differentials paid to the men in the blacksmith shops, with
the exception of the autogenous welders, were discontinued as of December 1,
1921. We later received a date for a conference with the superintendent of
motive power, regarding other matters, in which he stated that rules 119 and
124 could be taken up at that time. The matter was taken up in conference
on December 21, 1921, and no understanding was reached at that time. The
question was again taken up on January 31, 1922, with the result that a sub-
mission has been made on same.
Our contention is that the company has violated the provisions of the
transportation act and greatly exceeded their authority in discontinuing these
differentials on December 1, 1921, and maintain that these men are entitled to
the rates as paid by this company previous to December 1, 1921, until such
time as a decision is rendered by the United States Railroad Labor Board on
our submission.
Opinion. Section 4 of the general instructions in Addendum No.
6 to Decision No. 222 expressly provides that the omitted rules were
remanded for further negotiations, and that if an agreement could
not be reached, the matter should be again submitted to the Labor
Board, or, in other words, the procedure outlined in section 301 of
the transportation act be followed. It was not indicated in said
section 4, nor was it intended by the Labor Board that a change
would be made in the then existing practice, unless and until the
matter was handled in conformity with the procedure outlined there-
in. Therefore, the construction placed by the carrier with regard
to the omitted rules is not in conformity with the meaning and
intent of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, and especially sec-
tion 4 of the general instructions contained therein.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the differentials specified
in rules 119 and 124 of the shopmen's national agreement shall be
restored and shall remain in effect until changed in conformity with
the procedure outlined in section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
Upon failure to agree in conference, the parties at interest are
privileged to submit the matter to the Labor Board for its deter-
mination.
642
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1182.-DOCKET 2089.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Question. How shall section laborers employed under the follow-
ing conditions be compensated under the provisions of Decision No.
501?
Statement.-A gang of section laborers whose regular weekday
assignment is from 7 a. m. to 3.30 p. m., and who are assigned regu-
larly six days per week, are called to work at 1.30 a. m., on a Sunday
and continue to work until 3.30 p. m. on the same day.
The following rules are quoted from Article V of Decision No.
501:
(a-5). Sunday work-Full-day period.-Except as otherwise provided in these
rules, time worked on Sundays and the following holidays-namely, New Year's
Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas-shall be paid for at the pro rata hourly rate
when the entire number of hours constituting the regular week-day assignment
are worked.
(a-6). Sunday work-Less than full-day period.-Except as otherwise pro-
vided in these rules, when assigned, notified, or called to work on Sundays
and/or the above-specified holidays a less number of hours than constitutes a
day's work within the limits of the regular week-day assignment, employees
shall be paid a minimum of three hours for two hours' work or less, and at the
pro rata hourly rate after the second hour of each tour of duty.
(a-9) Calls.-Except as otherwise provided in these rules, employees noti-
fied or called to perform work not continuous with the regular work period
will be allowed a minimum of three hours for two hours' work or less. If held
on duty in excess of two hours, time and one-half time will be allowed on the
minute basis.
(a-10) Service in advance of work period.-Except as otherwise provided in
these rules, employees will be allowed time and one-half time on minute basis
for service performed continuous with and in advance of regular work period.
Decision.-Employees under an assignment such as outlined shall
be paid in accordance with sections (a-9) and (a-10) for service
performed between 1.30 a. m. and 7 a. m. From 7 a. m. until 3.30
p. m., which are the hours constituting their regular week-day as-
signment, they shall be paid pro rata rate therefor as per the provi-
sions of sections (a-5) and (a-6).
DECISION NO. 1183.-DOCKET 2118.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Should D. Decaria, step-rate boilermaker, who is em-
ployed at the Southern Pacific Ogden shops, have been paid 90 cents
per hour while temporarily engaged as flange turner?
Statement. The evidence in this case shows that Mr. Decaria,
step-rate boilermaker, worked as flange turner from May 14 to May
23, 1921, and was compensated according to his step rate.
DECISIONS.
643
Rule 16 of the national agreement then in effect reads, in part, as
follows:
When an employee is required to fill the place of another employee receiving
a higher rate of pay, he shall receive the higher rate;
Rule 108 of the same agreement reads:
*
Boilermakers assigned as boiler inspectors, also flangers, layers out, and
autogenous welders, shall receive 5 cents per hour above the minimum rate
paid boilermakers at the point employed.
The employees contend that he should have been paid 90 cents per
hour, the rate of the regular assigned boilermaker.
The carrier contends that it was not required to compensate a step-
rate mechanic beyond the rates established for step-rate men by the
United States Railroad Administration.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that D. Decaria while tem-
porarily filling the position of flanger should have received the rate
of the employee regularly assigned to the position.
DECISION NO. 1184.-DOCKET 2228.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Atlantic Coast Line Rail-
road Co.
Question. The question in dispute has reference to the proper
classification and rating of certain signal department employees
who were prior to January 31, 1919, classified and rated as assistant
signal maintainers.
Statement.-The evidence submitted in this case shows that prior
to the period of Federal control of railroads certain employees in
the signal department engaged on work in connection with the
maintenance of signals were classified on the pay rolls as assistant
signal maintainers. This classification remained in effect until
January 31, 1919, the employees having been paid in accordance
with General Order No. 27 and Supplement No. 8 thereto from
January 1, 1918, to January 31, 1919. Effective February 1, 1919,
the classification of the assistant signal maintainers was changed
to that of helpers, and rates of pay were established as provided
for in Supplement No. 4 to General Order No. 27 for helpers.
This change it is shown resulted in the rates of pay of these em-
ployees being reduced.
It is shown that the employees protested the action on the part of
the carrier in changing the classification and rating of employees
formerly classified as assistant signal maintainers to that of helpers,
and upon failure to reach an agreement with the carrier the matter
was submitted to the United States Railroad Administration for
decision. The decision of the Railroad Administration reads as
follows:
Effective February 1, 1920, to the termination of Federal control, the
employees in question shall be classified, rated, and paid as assistant main-
tainers under the provisions of the signalmen's national agreement.
644
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Section 3, Article I, of the national agreement covering signalmen,
reads in part:
SEC. 3. Assistant signalman, assistant signal maintainer.-A man in train-
ing for the position of signalman or signal maintainer, and under the direction
of a signalman or signal maintainer performing work generally recognized as
signal work, shall be classified as assistant signalman or assistant signal
maintainer.
The number of assistant signalmen and assistant signal maintainers on a
seniority district shall be consistent with the requirements of the service and
the signal apparatus to be installed or maintained.
The men assigned to these positions shall be promoted from helpers, ability
being sufficient, seniority will govern. They will be continued in such po-
sitions for a period of four years except that—
At the expiration of four years' service as assistant signalman or assistant
signal maintainer he will be offered promotion if a position to which he is
entitled is open. He may, if no position is open, continue as assistant signal-
man or assistant signal maintainer until it is possible to promote him to a
position to which he is entitled.
In accordance with the provisions of the decision of the United
States Railroad Administration and of the national agreement, ef-
fective February 1, 1920, the classification of one employee classified
as helper on each signal supervisor's territory was changed to that
of assistant signal maintainer, which arrangement had been con-
tinued in effect up until the time this submission was made to the
Labor Board. A number of employees classified as helpers, how-
ever, were not changed.
The employees, upon receipt of the decision of the United States
Railroad Administration, took the position that all employees classi-
fied as helpers should have been reclassified as assistant signal main-
tainers. The carrier would not agree with this position and the
matter was taken up with the Railroad Administration for inter-
pretation. Under date of November 8, 1921, the assistant to the
Director General of Railroads rendered an interpretation reading
as follows:
This decision covered all helpers who prior to Decision No. 5 had been classi-
fied as assistant signal maintainers and who were under Decision No. 5 re-
classified as assistant signal maintainers. It appears from the submissions
that a number of the employees in question were reclassified in accordance
with Decision No. 5. However, it does not appear that the total number of
employees covered by Decision No. 5 were reclassified and paid in accordance
with same. Therefore, all employees who were properly covered in the sub-
mission for which Atlantic Coast Line Decision No. 5 was issued should be
relassified as assistant signal maintainers and paid in accordance with the
same.
The evidence does not show that the carrier ever applied the de-
cision as contended for by the employees, but continued in effect the
assignment of one assistant signal maintainer to each signal super-
visor's territory.
It is the contention of the employees that the carrier has not com-
plied with the provisions of the national agreement, nor Decision No.
707 rendered by the Labor Board in the assignment of the employees
as outlined.
The employees place considerable emphasis upon the fact that
prior to the period of Federal control these men were classified as
assistant signal maintainers and were assigned to the performance
of work similar to that performed by the signal maintainers.
DECISIONS.
645
The employees further contend that their construction of the na-
tional agreement was supported by ruling of the United States Rail-
road Administration which the carrier has failed to place in effect,
and, further, that at the present time there are men employed under
the classification of helper who are performing the same services as
previously performed by them when they were classified as assistant
signal maintainers, which title it is claimed is descriptive of the work
to which assigned.
Considerable testimony is introduced by the employees purporting
to substantiate their claim and on the strength of which they contend
that the employees now classified as helpers should be reclassified as
assistant signal maintainers and allowed back pay from March 1,
1920.
The carrier contends that it has complied strictly with the provi-
sions of the national agreement and Decision No. 707 of the Labor
Board in assigning the men as outlined. The carrier takes the posi-
tion that the national agreement and Decision No. 707 definitely
established the classification of assistant signal maintainers and
helpers. The carrier lays emphasis upon that portion of the rule
relating to assistant signal maintainers which states that-
The number of assistant signalmen and assistant signal maintainers on a
seniority district shall be consistent with the requirements of the service and
the signal apparatus to be installed or maintained.
It is contended that this provision has been strictly adhered to
and that in the assignment of one assistant signal maintainer to one
signal supervisor's territory, such assignment is consistent with the
requirements of the service.
The carrier denies that the employees now classified as helpers
are performing services which can be considered as that of assistant
signal maintainers.
Reference is made by the carrier to Decision No. 226 of the Labor
Board, which has reference to the establishment of positions of
signal maintainers and claims that the principle outlined therein
is being followed on the Atlantic Coast Line railroad.
Decision.—It is not the prerogative of the Labor Board to decide
questions with respect to the compliance or noncompliance with the
provisions of decisions or interpretations rendered by the United
States Railroad Administration, and for that reason will refrain
from commenting upon that phase of the dispute.
:
The Labor Board in its Decision No. 226 definitely outlines its
interpretation of the national agreement. The board, therefore,
wishes to reiterate the expressions contained in that decision and
to again state that it does not feel that the rule with respect to
assistant signal mainainers should operate to establish a number of
positions that would be unduly burdensome to the carrier at points
or on territories where they were not actually needed. Whether
or not one assistant signal maintainer on each signal supervisor's
territory is sufficient to take care of the work properly belonging
to that class of employees is a question which this board is unable
to determine from the evidence now before it. In this connection,
however, it is the position of the board that men classified as helpers
should not be assigned to work generally recognized as that belong-
ing to signal maintainers or assistant signal maintainers, but should
be confined to work generally recognized as that of helpers.
646
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The board refers the parties to this dispute to Decision No. 226,
the contents of which should be considered in conjunction with this
case.
The Labor Board suggests that the representatives of the carrier
and the representatives of the employees confer in a further effort
to reach an agreement with respect to the question at issue.
DECISION NO. 1185.-DOCKET 2395.
Chicago, Ill., August 11, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Question.-Shall J. B. Potter, R. V. Hurlbert, and Syd Gilligan,
foremen in the bridge and building department, be paid overtime
after eight hours' service during the effective date of the national
agreement of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers.
Statement.-The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-On October 30, 1920, these foremen were required to go
to the Pipestone line, tearing out part of bridge O-69, to let the Northwestern
Drainage Co. go through with a ditcher or dredge and to drive piling and re-
build after the ditcher had gone through, and were required to work more
than eight hours on Saturday, October 30; Sunday, October 31; and on Monday,
November 1.
Carrier's position.-On November 1, 1919, rate of pay of these foremen was
increased from $125 to $170 per month, with the understanding that this
salary covered all services rendered, including overtime. On December 16,
1919, an agreement was entered into with the Director General of Railroads,
establishing rules covering working conditions of maintenance of way em-
ployees, wherein it was provided that overtime would be paid under certain
conditions.
Paragraph "L" of Article VI contains the following:
"It is understood that adjustments made by regional directors, under author-
ity of July 9, 1919, in the rates of pay of certain foremen and assistant foremen
covered by this agreement, which rates were made to compensate for all serv-
ices rendered, including overtime, are to be reconsidered by the regional directors
and readjustments made, the overtime and other provisions of this agreement
to be taken into consideration in making such readjustments and such read-
justed rates to be made effective as of the effective date of this agreement."
This evidently contemplated that monthly rates established by the regional
directors should be reduced, owing to the provisions made in the national agree-
ment for overtime and other allowances. No readjustment, however, was ever
made on this road, and the monthly rates that are in effect to-day were built
up from those established by the regional directors to include overtime. If the
above is not correct, either the present rates should be considered as covering
all overtime or else rates should be reduced, as provided in paragraph "L" of
Article VI, to a proper basis, and then allow overtime in accordance with the
agreement.
Employees' position.-Prior to Government control the above-mentioned fore-
men's rates were based on 365 days per year for all services rendered.
Since the application of the national agreement the company has taken the
stand that this rule is not changed by agreement, and these men have been
denied extra compensation when answering to calls and emergencies, or when
working in excess of the established 8-hour day and on Sundays and holidays.
We therefore contend that the employees are entitled to extra compensation
in addition to their monthly rate for all time worked in excess of the regular
8-hour day and for all time worked on Sundays and the seven designated holi-
days; this to be effective from the effective date of the national agreement
dated December 16, 1919.
DECISIONS.
647
The committee believes that our position is thoroughly verified by decisions
rendered by Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2, as follows: Dockets M-909,
M-747, H-856, and H-669.
Decision.-The Labor Board has rendered the following decisions
with respect to the payment of overtime to monthly rated super-
visory forces after regular working hours and on Sundays and holi-
days, to which the interested parties are hereby referred: Decisions
Nos. 209, 210, 233, 411, 546, 547, and 593.
The position of the Labor Board as reflected in these decisions shall
be considered applicable to this case. Attention is directed particu-
larly to Decision No. 593, outlining the board's position as to the
application of the national agreement, as well as the application of
Decision No. 501, recently promulgated, with respect to this question.
DECISION NO. 1186.-DOCKET 1296.
Chicago, Ill., August 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question. -Request for reinstatement of Mr. Sidney Bozonier, audi-
tor's office, New Orleans, La.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, includ-
ing the proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that Mr. Bozonier shall be reinstated with seniority
rights unimpaired but shall not be compensated for the time lost since
the date of his dismissal.
DECISION NO. 1187.-DOCKET 1608.
Chicago, Ill., August 19, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Question.-Shall the following rule governing rules and working
conditions be incorporated in agreement between the United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers
and the Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.:
Where special work is done outside of regular work period and extra com-
pensation agreed upon, overtime will not apply.
Statement.-Pursuant to the issuance of Decision No. 119 by the
Labor Board, representatives of the above-named parties held con-
ference for the purpose of negotiating rules and working conditions
in conformity with that decision. A number of rules were agreed
upon, but there were a number of rules upon which an agreement was
not reached, the above being one of the disagreed rules which was
submitted to the Labor Board for decision. This rule was not in-
corporated in Decision No. 501, but was remanded to the carrier and
its employees for further negotiations.
A conference was subsequently held for the purpose of discussing
the rules that had been remanded, but the interested parties were
648
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
unable to agree upon the above-quoted rule in the agreement and,
therefore, submitted the question to the Labor Board for decision.
The carrier contends that this rule should be shown in the agree-
ment, while the employees contend that it should be omitted, because
every precaution had been taken in providing payment for all service
during the 24-hour period.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the above rule, amended
to read as follows, shall be incorporated in the agreement:
Where special work not within the scope of this agreement is done outside
of regular work period and extra compensation agreed upon overtime will not
apply..
DECISION NO. 1188.-DOCKET 1304.
Chicago, Ill., August 18, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question. This decision is upon a controversy between the car-
rier and the employees with reference to vacations for train dis-
patchers in the year 1921.
Statement. The regulations of the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration governing vacations for train dispatchers reads as
follows:
Question. Will chief, assistant chief, regular trick, and regular relief dis-
patchers be granted two weeks' vacation per annum with pay?
Answer:-They will be granted two weeks' (12 working days') vacation per
annum with pay, provided they have been in service in such capacities continu-
ously one year.
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 contains the following
provision:
In lieu of any other rules not agreed to in the conferences held under Deci-
sion No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the United
States Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such time as such
rules are considered and decided by the Labor Board.
On or about June 30, 1921, the American Train Dispatchers'
Association filed with the Labor Board a report covering the result
of negotiations with the carrier with reference to proposed rule
governing vacations for train dispatchers. This report indicated
that the employees and the carrier were unable to agree on a rule
governing vacations.
On or about June 21, 1921, the carrier promulgated the following
rule pertaining to vacations:
The following instructions will cover annual vacations allowed year 1921:
Clerks who have been in the service over 1 year and less than 3 years, 6 work-
ing days will be granted. Clerks who have been in the service over 3 years,
10 working days will be allowed. This covers chief dispatchers, trick dis-
patchers, and yardmasters, as well as clerks.
The employees contend that the action of the carrier in denying
the train dispatchers vacations in the year 1921, as provided in the
rule of the United States Railroad Administration quoted above, is
in violation of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 of the Labor
Board, and request that the board direct the carrier to allow to train
dispatchers their 1921 vacations as provided by the rule above
DECISIONS.
649
quoted and any other relief to which they may be entitled in law or
equity.
The carrier states that Decision No. 119 and the interpretations
and addenda thereto have particular reference to contracts entered
into with organizations of employees of the carrier during the period
of Federal control, and that vacations with pay for train dispatchers
was not covered by an agreed-upon rule nor mentioned in any na-
tional agreement, but was simply a practice established in accord-
ance with the instructions issued by the Director General of Rail-
roads, and, therefore, not legally in effect after September 1, 1920,
as the statutory provisions for its continuance expired on that date.
Decision. Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 provides that in
lieu of any other rules not agreed to between the representatives of
the employees and the carrier, the rules promulgated by the United
States Railroad Administration shall continue in effect. Under
rule of the United States Railroad Administration, above quoted,
the train dispatchers who had been in the service continuously one
year were entitled to two weeks' vacation with pay in the year 1921.
However, since the year 1921 has passed and the rule does not pro-
vide for a double vacation period in the following year, nor for pay
in lieu of vacation not granted, the Labor Board can not afford the
employees any relief in this dispute.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissents from the decision of the majority for
the following reasons:
The carrier and the employees, parties to this dispute, were in-
cluded in and accepted Decision No. 2.
In Decision No. 2 the Labor Board states that-
The board assumes as the basis of this decision the continuance in full force
and effect of the rules, working conditions, and agreements in force under the
authority of the United States Railroad Administration. Pending the presen-
tation, consideration, and determination of the questions pertaining to the
continuation or modification of such rules, conditions, and agreements, no
changes therein shall be made except by agreement between the carrier and
employees concerned.
In the issuance of Decision No. 119 the board provided for the
procedure to be followed by the carriers and organizations in nego-
tiating rules and working conditions. Subsequently and because
of the evidence then in possession of the board, it was deemed
necessary to issue Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 in order to
meet the situation arising from the inability of many carriers and
their employees to complete these negotiations.
The rules granting chief, assistant chief, regular trick, and regular
relief dispatchers two weeks' (12 working days) vacation with
pay were established by and under the authority of the United
States Railroad Administration. The carriers and the representa-
tives of the employees did not negotiate an agreed rule governing
vacations. This dispute, among others, was submitted to the board.
The Labor Board in its rules, Decision No. 721, applying to the
American Train Dispatchers Association and the carriers named
therein, remanded the question of vacations and sick leave with pay
"to the carriers and their respective employees for the adoption of
such rules as may be severally and mutually agreed upon.
650
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Nothwithstanding the fact that (by majority vote) the board
has, prior to July 21, 1922, issued Decisions. Nos. 851, 852, 1013,
and 1014, stating therein that-
The train dispatchers who had been in the service of the carrier named for a
period of one year or more were entitled to a vacation for the year 1921. How-
ever, since the year 1921 has passed and the rule does not provide for a double
vacation period in the following year nor for pay in lieu of vacations not
granted, the Labor Board can not afford the employee any relief in this
dispute-
the Labor Board on July 21, 1922, issued Interpretation No. 1 to
Decision No. 721 reading:
Question.-Shall the rules in effect prior to the issuance of Decision No. 721,
pertaining to vacations with pay and pay for time absent account sickness for
train dispatchers remain in effect until such time as rules in lieu thereof are
agreed upon by the employees and carriers or decided by the Labor Board?
Decision.-Yes.
In the present decision the Labor Board recognizes that Addendum
No. 2 to Decision No. 119 continued in effect the rule granting these
employees "two weeks' vacation per annum with pay provided they
have been in such capacities continuously one year.
In the present dispute the evidence submitted in ex parte form,
both by the carrier and the employees, establishes the fact that the
rule granting this class of employees two weeks' annual vacation
with pay had been recognized and observed by this carrier; and that
the carrier had arbitrarily changed this rule and in so doing had
disregarded the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, and the
decisions of the Labor Board.
It is almost inconceivable that any tribunal functioning under a
Federal statute, the underlying principles of which are to render
just and reasonable decisions, can, with the evidence before it in
this case, decide that the employees were entitled to two weeks'
vacation with pay, and in the same paragraph reverse themselves
and say, in effect, but since the carrier did not comply with the rule,
the board can not afford the employees any relief.
Rules governing working conditions are usually the result of
negotiations conducted by representatives selected by the employer
and employees; these representatives are selected because of their
thorough knowledge of the technical questions connected with the
services of the particular craft or class; they are not ordinarily
qualified to draw up a contract that could not be misinterpreted and
divorced from its plain intent by technically inclined, legally trained
minds, but they have for many years proven themselves capable of
negotiating contracts which have for all practical uses been under-
stood and applied as intended.
This vacation rule was intended to give these employees two weeks'
(12 working days) annual vacation with pay; they did not get it
and the majority members of the board decide (in effect): You
should have had the vacation but we can not afford you any relief
because the carrier disregarded the contract, and because "the rule
does not provide for a double vacation period in the following year
nor for pay in lieu of vacations not granted."
The regulations of the United States Railroad Administration
governing vacation read as follows:
Question.-Will chief, assistant chief, regular trick and regular relief dis-
patchers be granted two weeks' vacation per annum with pay?
DECISIONS.
651
Answer. They will be granted two weeks' (12 working days) vacation
per annum with pay provided they have been in service in such capacities
continuously one year.
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 issued by the board contains
the following:
In lieu of any other rules not agreed to in conferences held under Decision
No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the United States
Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such time as such
rules are considered and decided by the Labor Board.
If the rules promulgated by the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration did not mean that these employees were to receive com-
pensation for 12 days during which no service was rendered, what
did the rules mean?
If the employees were not granted the 12 days' leave with pay, is
it reasonable to interpret the rule to mean that an employee is, there-
fore, to be denied the extra compensation resulting from the extra
service rendered?
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1189.-DOCKET 1335.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Mrs. Ruth M. Hanson who
was relieved from the service in connection with reduction in force
at Portland, Oreg.
Statement.—This controversy arises from the adoption of a policy
in the spring of 1921 whereby the carrier relieved from the service.
married women whose husbands were employed and retained in the
service junior employees who were married men, or single men and
women dependent on their own efforts for support. Mrs. Hanson
was employed in the agent's office at Portland. On April 11, 1921,
she was relieved in connection with a reduction in force, and a junior
employee, a single woman, was retained in the service. On June 6
the employee who was retained in the service resigned, and another
single woman with no previous experience in the carrier's service was.
employed in her place.
On June 17, 1921, Mrs. Hanson filed claim for this position in ac-
cordance with rule 21 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, reading as follows:
Rule 21. Reducing force.—When reducing forces seniority rights shall gov-
ern. When forces are increased employees shall be returned to service in
the order of their seniority rights. Employees desiring to avail themselves
of this rule must file their addresses with the proper official at time of reduc-
tion, advise promptly of any change in address, and renew address each 90
days. Employees failing to renew their address each 90 days or to return
to the service within 7 days after being notified (by mail or telegram sent to
the address last given) or give satisfactory reason for not doing so will be
considered out of the service.
The employees contend that rule 21 of the agreement was admit-
tedly violated by the carrier; that the carrier is not within its rights
20936°—23————42
652
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
in making or enforcing a rule which is not consistent with the rules
of the agreement; and, furthermore, that the carrier disregarded its
announced policy in returning to the service certain married women
in other offices.
It is claimed by the employees that there is no question as to the
ability of Mrs. Hanson, and that therefore she should be returned
to the service and paid for all time lost from June 6, 1921, to date
of reinstatement.
The carrier states that during the war it was necessary to employ
married women in clerical positions, with the result that a large
number of married women whose husbands were regularly employed
and fully able to provide for them were in the service. The carrier
states that when the unemployment situation became acute and a
large number of married men-many of whom were ex-service men—
were without employment, it did not appear proper to retain in the
service married women who were not dependent on their earnings
for support and to deprive married men of employment. Where
married women were not relieved through force reductions in the
spring of 1921, they were taken out of the service later in the year
and not reemployed except for temporary work and where it was
impossible to procure other persons on certain special work.
The carrier contends that no protest was made by Mrs. Hanson or
the organization at the time this action was taken, and that by fail-
ing to protest the action of the carrier in relieving married women
without regard to seniority, the different organizations of employees,
including the clerks, may reasonably be held to have acquiesced in
the action taken, and failing to object to Mrs. Hanson's dismissal, it
is inconsistent to ask for her reemployment within a period of less
than two months, during which time there has been no change in
conditions.
Opinion. In the joint statement signed by the employees and the
carrier the employees state that rule 21 of the national agreement
was admittedly violated by the carrier in this instance. The carrier
takes no exception to this statement in its written presentation of
the case and was not represented at the hearing. It must, therefore,
be assumed that the provisions of rule 21 with respect to filing of
addresses was complied with.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that Mrs. Ruth M. Hanson
shall be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
time lost since the date she was denied the right to return and a new
employee was hired, less any amount earned in other employment
since that date.
DECISION NO. 1190.-DOCKET 1407.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of Claire Busch, clerk, Grand Central Terminal,
New York, for pay for time absent account of sickness in April,
1921.
DECISIONS.
653
Statement.-Miss Busch is employed as clerk in the Grand Central
Terminal ticket office. She was absent from duty account of sickness
from April 18 to 30, 1921, inclusive, a total of 12 working days, for
which she received 10 days' pay.
The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees, the rules of which govern the working conditions of em-
ployees in the class of service in which Miss Busch is engaged, did
not contain any provision with reference to pay for time lost account
of sickness, but under date of January 30, 1920, the director, division
of operation, issued the following instructions:
Many questions have arisen as to payment for time lost account vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this point, but
it was the understanding that existing practices as to vacations and sick
leave would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal managers.
The employees contend that a check of the pay rolls of the Grand
Central ticket office for the period October, 1910, to October, 1917,
shows that approximately 100 employees were absent account of
sickness or otherwise; that in every instance such employees who
had been in the service over one year had been paid for time lost;
and that, therefore, Miss Busch was entitled to pay for the full period
of her absence, especially in view of the fact that there was no addi-
tional expense involved in taking care of her work.
The carrier states that Miss Busch entered the service on November
7, 1918; that between January 1 and May 25, 1921, she was off duty
account of illness a total of 18 days; and that she was paid for the
first 16 days of her absence, but not for April 29 and 30. "The carrier
further states that prior to the period of Federal control there was
no fixed rule governing the allowance of time to employees absent
account of illness and that each case was handled on a basis of its
individual merits. The carrier contends that the claim presented by
Miss Busch was given consideration on its merits and that the allow-
ance made was the result of such consideration which the carrier
holds to be fair under the circumstances.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1191.-DOCKET 2219.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of James A. Boyle to
exercise his seniority to a position in the carrier's service at Phila-
delphia, Pa.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
654
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1192.-DOCKET 2391.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question.-Dispute regarding the adoption of rules for the govern-
ment of hours and days of service, vacation, sick leave, holiday
assignments, and continuance of more favorable conditions.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the parties hereto that
an agreement has been reached on all points in dispute and that no
further consideration is necessary on the part of the board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1193.-DOCKET 2455.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question. Dispute regarding bulletined position not awarded to
employee holding seniority.
Decision. The question in controversy having occurred before the
passage of the transportation act, 1920, under which the Labor
Board was created, and the board being of the opinion that said
act was not intended to have a retroactive effect, the board decides
that it has no jurisdiction in this dispute and the case is therefore
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1194.-DOCKET 2466.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question-Dispute regarding reinstatement of Virgil Pritchard
to position of yard clerk, Valley Junction, Iowa, with seniority
rights from May 15, 1916.
Decision. The parties hereto have agreed to withdraw this dis-
pute from further consideration by the Labor Board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1195.-DOCKET 1297.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of O. L. Bennett, teleg-
rapher, Sierra Blanca, Tex., dismissed from the service on October
14, 1920.
DECISIONS.
655
Decision. Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1196.--DOCKET 1333.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway_and_Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Birmingham Terminal Co.
Question. Were the positions of baggage checkers, train an-
nouncers, gatemen, and train-crew callers at Birmingham, Ala.,
properly classified and paid in accordance with rule 49 of the na-
tional agreement between the Director General of Railroads and
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han-
dlers, Express and Station Employees?
Statement of facts.-The classes of employees referred to were
assigned to shifts of eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the meal
period, and were classified and paid under rule 49 of the clerks'
national agreement.
The employees contend that the classes of employees above named
were assigned to shifts of eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the
meal period, and not to intermittent service, as referred to in rule 49.
It is claimed that in view of the fact that these employees were re-
quired to fill these positions for the entire 24-hour period in three
shifts of eight hours each, they could not be considered as coming
under an intermittent-service classification.
The carrier contends that the duties of the positions in question
do not require continuous application, but that on the contrary the
work is intermittent; and, further, that the employees were prop-
erly classified and paid a monthly rate to cover all service rendered,
in accordance with rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the service performed by
the employees referred to in this dispute does not require continu-
ous application and that they were therefore properly paid on the
basis established by rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissents from the decision of the majority for the
following reasons:
The question submitted in this case reads as follows:
Should the baggage-room clerks, train announcers, gatemen, and train callers
be paid under the provisions of rule 49 or should they be paid under the pro-
visions of rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement?
Rule 49, above referred to, reads in part as follows:
Intermittent service.-Where service is intermittent or does not require con-
tinuous application, positions designated as "other office and station em-
ployees "in rule 1, Article I, will be paid a monthly rate to cover all services
rendered *
*
Rule 66, above referred to, reads in part as follows:
Determining daily rate.-Except as provided in rule 49 of Article VI, em-
ployees heretofore paid on a monthly or weekly basis shall be paid on the daily
basis *
656
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
It will be noted that rule 49 bears the caption "Intermittent
service."
The class of employees named in the question above were regularly
assigned to eight-consecutive-hour shifts, exclusive of the meal
period, covering the entire 24-hour period, being divided into three
shifts of eight hours each.
In the opinion of the undersigned the service performed by these
employees can not by any stretch of the imagination be construed
to come under the provisions of a rule primarily and fundamentally
designed to meet a condition described as "intermittent service or
service not requiring continuous application."
The very nature of the assignment should dispel any doubt as to
this service being either intermittent or not requiring continuous
application, as the evidence clearly shows that these employees are
on duty throughout the entire eight hours constituting the tour of
their regular assignment.
The Labor Board in the issuance of its rules in Decision No. 630,
after due consideration, promulgated the following rule in lieu of
rule 49 of the so-called clerks' national agreement :
Rule 49. Intermittent service.-Where service is intermittent, 8 hours' actual
time on duty within a spread of 12 hours shall constitute a day's work.
Employees filling such positions shall be paid overtime for all time actually
on duty or held for duty in excess of 8 hours from the time required to report
for duty to the time of release within 12 consecutive hours, and also for all
time in excess of 12 consecutive hours computed continuously from the time
first required to report until final release. Time shall be counted as continu-
ous service in all cases where the interval of release from duty does not
exceed one hour.
Exceptions to the foregoing paragraph shall be made for individual positions
when agreed to between the management and duly accredited representatives
of the employees. For such excepted positions the foregoing paragraph shall
not apply.
This rule shall not be construed as authorizing the working of split tricks
where continuous service is required.
Intermittent service is understood to mean service of a chaarcter where
during the hours of assignment there is no work to be performed for periods
of more than one hour's duration and service of the employees can not other-
wise be utilized.
Employees covered by this rule will be paid not less than 8 hours within a
spread of 12 consecutive hours.
The above rule 49 is quoted to show that the majority of the Labor
Board has decided that the "intermittent service" rule means inter-
mittent service and nothing else.
The majority in the present decision has sustained the carrier's
interpretation of the "intermittent service" rule 49 of the so-called
clerks' national agreement, which seems to be inconsistent and not
in keeping with the plain intent of the rule.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1197.-DOCKET 1337.
Chicago, Ill., August 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Do the provisions of section 6 of Article II, Decision
No. 2, apply to position classified as messenger, Boone, Iowa?
DECISIONS.
657
Statement. The employee in question is engaged in collecting and
delivering railway and United States mail between the baggage
room and the offices of the master mechanic, general foreman, round-
house foreman, car foreman, yardmaster, etc. The position was
increased 5 cents per hour under section 6 of Article II, Decision
No. 2.
The employees contend that the employee assigned to the position
is regularly required to gather and distribute mail without direct
supervision, that he does not receive instructions to perform specific
errands as in the case of messengers, and that he is entitled to an
increase of 10 cents per hour in accordance with section 5 of Article
II, Decision No. 2, which reads as follows:
Janitors, elevator and telephone switchboard operators, office, station,
and warehouse watchmen, and employees engaged in assorting way-
bills and tickets, operating appliances or machines for perforating,
addressing envelopes, numbering claims and other papers, gathering
and distributing mail, adjusting dictaphone cylinders, and other
similar work.
10 cents
The carrier contends that the incumbent of the position referred
to in this dispute is not an employee gathering and distributing mail
within the meaning of section 5 of Article II, above quoted, but that,
on the contrary, he carries mail between the various offices above
indicated and the baggage room after same is addressed and sealed.
The carrier contends that the position is properly classified as mes-
senger and increased 5 cents per hour in accordance with section 6
of Article II, Decision No. 2.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the position referred to
herein is not one the duties of which require the gathering and
distributing of mail within the meaning of section 5 of Article II,
Decision No. 2, but is a messenger's position and properly increased
5 cents per hour, in accordance with section 6 of Article II, Decision
No. 2.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissents from the decision of the majority for the
following reasons:
Section 5 of Article II, Decision No. 2, reads as follows:
SEC. 5. Janitors, elevator and telephone switchboard operators,
office, station, and warehouse watchmen, and employees engaged in
assorting waybills and tickets, operating appliances, or machines for
perforating, addressing envelopes, numbering claims and other papers,
gathering and distributing mail, adjusting dictaphone cylinders, and
other similar work____.
10 cents.
Section 6 of Article II, Decision No. 2, reads as follows:
SEC. 6. Office boys, messengers, chore boys, and other employees un-
der 18 years of age, filling similar positions, and station attendants____ 5 cents.
Section 5, above quoted, provides for an increase of 10 cents per
hour, including employees engaged in "gathering and distributing
mail." In the joint statement of facts subscribed to by the carrier
and the employees, it is agreed that this employee gathers and dis-
tributes railway and United States mail and that he is over 18 years
of age.
658
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Section 6, above quoted, provides for an increase of 5 cents per hour
and applies to "office boys, messengers, chore boys, and other em-
ployees under 18 years of age."
It is agreed that this employee gathers and distributes mail, and
that he is over 18 years of age. The decision of the majority of the
Labor Board sustains the carrier in applying the increase of 5 cents
per hour provided for in section 6, which is obviously not in accord
with the intent of the language contained in the two sections of Ar-
ticle II, above quoted.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1198.-DOCKET 1028.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of J. C. Calhoun, car loader,
Dallas, Tex.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a satisfactory settlement has been reached.
The case is, therefore, removed from the docket and the file
closed.
!
DECISION NO. 1199.-DOCKET 1466. .
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. Was the carrier, party hereto, within its rights in lay-
ing off certain clerks on California Admission Day, September 9,
1921, and Armistice Day, November 11, 1921, without allowing pay
therefor?
Statement. On the days prior to the holidays in question the car-
rier notified certain daily rated employees that the office in which
they were employed would be closed, or that certain individuals in
certain offices would lay off on the holidays named. Rule 66 of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees reads in
part as follows:
* Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the reduction of days
for the employees covered by this rule (66) below six per week excepting that
this number may be reduced, in a week in which holidays occur, by the num-
ber of such holidays.
The employees contend that the holidays in question are not holi-
days within the meaning of the term as used in rule 66. The car-
rier contends that the language of rule 66, above quoted, means that
in a week in which any generally recognized State holidays occur
such daily rated employees as are not needed may be laid off and
not paid for the time lost on such days; and, furthermore, that if it
DECISIONS.
659
was otherwise intended, the seven holidays referred to in rule 64
would have been specifically mentioned in rule 66.
Rule 64 of the clerks' national agreement designated the following
holidays, which, in addition to Sundays, are to be treated as holi-
days and paid for as such: New Year's Day, Washington's Birth-
day, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving
Day, and Christmas.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the language of
rule 66, above quoted, the holidays designated in rule 64 are the
only holidays of which either the employees or the carrier may take
advantage unless other holidays are mutually agreed upon. The
Labor Board believes that the carrier would have been well within
its rights in seeking the employees' consent to treat California Ad-
mission Day and Armistice Day as holidays. However, in the absence
of any such agreement the Labor Board decides that under the rule
above quoted the daily rated employees involved in this dispute are
entitled to pay for California Admission Day, September 9, 1921,
and Armistice Day, November 11, 1921.
DECISION NO. 1200.-DOCKET 1484.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Request for reinstatement of E. Stem, janitor, South-
ern Pacific Building, San Francisco, Calif.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board in this
case, the carrier made certain statements as to why the employee in
question was dismissed from the service. The representative of the
employees requested 30 days in which to file answer thereto. Since
the 30-day period has long since expired and no answer has been
received from the employees, the case is removed from the docket
and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1201.-DOCKET 1594.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Question.-Shall the positions held by Mrs. S. L. Kirkland, Mus-
kogee, Okla., and Miss Katherin Farrell, Parsons, Kans., be in-
creased 10 cents an hour under section 5 of Article II, or 13 cents an
hour under section 2 of Article II, Decision No. 2?
Statement. The employees in question are engaged as file clerks.
in the superintendent's office at Muskogee and Parsons. The em-
ployees state that the employees referred to in this dispute are in
charge of a large file room, and that they supervise the proper
handling of the file, maintain a card index, open mail, sort corre-
660
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
spondence, locate the subject on all correspondence, place index on
all files according to subjects, and check up files to insure prompt
handling. It is also stated that at the time Decision No. 2 was issued
the file clerks at Muskogee were required to handle all liberty-bond
loans as well as time claims, and that up until a short time ago the
file clerk at Parsons had an assistant, which, it is claimed, shows that
the position is one requiring at least as much clerical ability as any
other clerical position in the office.
The employees contend that the duties of the employees in ques-
tion required more or less writing, as well as a general thorough
knowledge of clerical duties, and that they are entitled to the classifi-
cation of clerk under rule 4 of the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handler, Express
and Station Employees, and an increase of 13 cents an hour under
section 2 of Article II, Decision No. 2.
The carrier states that these employees are not properly classified
as clerks for the reason that they do not possess the qualifications or
perform the service specifically provided for in rule 4 of the clerks
national agreement; neither do they come within the classification
of clerk in accordance with the agreement reached with the clerks'
organization, as provided by Decision No. 119.
Rule 4 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Rule 4. Qualifications.-Employees who regularly devote not less than four
hours per day to the writing and calculating incident to keeping records and
accounts, writing and transcribing letters, bills, reports, statements, and similar
work, and to the operation of office mechanical equipment and devices in con-
nection with such duties and work shall be designated as clerks. The above
definition shall not be construed to apply to-
1. Employees engaged in assorting tickets, waybills, etc., nor to employees
operating appliances or machines for perforating and addressing envelopes,
numbering claims or other papers, adjusting dictaphone cylinders, and work
of a like nature; nor to employees gathering or delivering mail or other similar
work not requiring clerical ability.
2. Office boys, messengers, and chore boys, or to other employees doing
similar work.
3. Employees performing manual work not requiring clerical ability.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employees referred to
in this dispute are properly classified as clerks and entitled to the
increase specified for this class of employees in section 2 of Article
II, Decision No. 2.
DECISION NO. 1202.-DOCKET 1833.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question. Shall the day warehouse foreman at Chanute, Kans.,
be excepted from the provisions of the national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees?
Statement.-Rule 1 of Article I, exception (b), of the clerks'
national agreement, reads in part as follows:
This agreement shall not apply to chief clerks of supervisory agents at the
larger stations, foremen who supervise subforemen
DECISIONS.
661
The employees state that the employee in question has charge of
eight employees, including one designated as assistant day foreman,
and contend that the assistant day foreman assists in checking and
delivering freight and is not wholly engaged in a supervisory
capacity. The employees state that "foreman," referred to in para-
graph (b), Article I of the clerks' national agreement, has been
interpreted by the United States Railroad Administration to mean
employees properly designated as foremen and employed in a general
supervisory capacity, having charge of various yards or warehouses
and the subforemen employed therein.
The carrier states that, effective February 1, 1921, the method of
paying the warehouse foreman at Chanute was changed from a
daily to a monthly basis, because he supervised a subforeman, as well
as other employees. The carrier contends that the assistant day
foreman supervises other employees and reports to the foreman.
Therefore, the foreman is one who supervises subforemen and the
action of the carrier is not in conflict with the provisions of the
agreement.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the assistant day fore-
man at the station in question is not a subforeman within the mean-
ing and intent of the clerks' national agreement, and therefore the
position of foreman is subject to the provisions of the clerks' national
agreement.
DECISION NO. 1203.-DOCKET 2263.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of Earl Norton, Boone,
Iowa, with compensation since date of displacement by another em-
ployee in the carrier's service.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having agreed to withdraw
same from further consideration by the Labor Board, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1204.-DOCKET 2264.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question. Dispute regarding right of Mrs. Maude Hulbert to
exercise her seniority to position in store department, Pasco, Wash.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, a satis-
factory agreement between the carrier and the employees was reached
and the dispute was withdrawn from further consideration by the
Labor Board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
662
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1205.-DOCKET 2369.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the discontinuance of allowance to
yard clerks for weighing cars, Junction City, Kans.
Decision. The parties to the dispute having agreed to withdraw
same from further consideration by the Labor Board, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1206.-DOCKET 2577.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
Co.; Rio Grande Southern Railroad.
Question. Was the arbitrary reduction in express commission
rates paid to joint railroad and express agents employed by the car-
riers parties hereto, effective June 1, 1922, authorized or permitted by
the transportation act, 1922?
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board the rep-
resentatives of the carriers and employees arrived at an agreeable
settlement of this dispute.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1207.-DOCKET 2589.
Chicago, Ill., August 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of carrier to discontinue
annual vacations with pay for certain employees in clerical and sta-
tion service.
Decision. Interpretation No. 2 to Decision No. 630 covers the
question in controversy and shall govern in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1208.-DOCKET 456.
Chicago, Ill., September 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute arising out of schedule negotiations between
the organization of employees and the carrier named in this decision.
Three questions have been submitted to the board for decision:
(a) Does Decision No. 119 issued by the United States Railroad
Labor Board abrogate the agreement under which the employees of
DECISIONS.
663
the Northern Pacific Railway Co., represented by the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, are now working? (Employees' ex parte sub-
mission dated June 30, 1921.)
(b) Does the letter of May 3, 1921, from the general manager of
the Northern Pacific Railway Co. to the general chairman of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees terminate the agreement under
which the employees of the Northern Pacific Railway Co.,_repre-
sented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, are now working? (Em-
ployees' ex parte submission dated June 30, 1921.)
(c) Disposition of the rules which were not agreed to in the con-
ferences which terminated on June 16, 1921. (Carrier's ex parte
submission dated June 30, 1921.)
Statement.—There was an agreement governing working condi-
tions in effect between the parties to this dispute prior to the period.
of Federal control. This agreement was revised effective January
1, 1918, and was superseded by the national agreement. Effective
February 16, 1920, an addendum to the national agreement was
mutually agreed upon. On March 2, 1920, the general chairman of
the employees' committee addressed a communication to the general
manager, reading as follows:
During our conference at St. Paul during the latter part of January and
the early part of February, this year, it was the opinion of the clerks' com-
mittee that we should endeavor to have the national agreement, issued by the
United States Railroad Administration, and the addenda thereto, agreed to
between the management of the Northern Pacific Railway and the clerks' com-
mittee, continued in effect on the Northern Pacific Railway after the road was
relinquished to corporate control.
I was instructed to advise you to this effect just as soon as the roads were
returned, and I am at this time asking you to give this matter favorable con-
sideration and advise at your earliest convenience.
I expect to be in St. Paul the latter part of this week and will appreciate an
interview with you in regard to this subject.
The following reply was made by the general manager under date
of March 8, 1920:
I have your letter of March 2, written at Washington, in regard to the
national agreement and the addenda thereto which have recently been adopted
by the Railroad Administration, and the desire of yourself and your committee
that this national agreement and addenda continue in effect on the Northern
Pacific Railway after the road was relinquished from Federal control.
It has been our understanding that this procedure would be followed and this
letter will confirm that opinion, and rule 87 of the national agreement will be
complied with in case any change is desired either by the company or by your
committee.
On May 3, 1921, the general manager addressed the general chair-
man of the employees' committee as follows:
In compliance with my letter of March 8, 1920, the Northern Pacific Railway
Co. hereby gives you 30 days' notice of termination of agreement and addenda
thereto under which we are now working.
In conformity with the requirements of Decision No. 119 of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, it is the desire of the officers of the Northern
Pacific Railway Co. to meet with yourself and your generel committee to
confer and decide upon such rules and working conditions as it may be possible
for them to decide, to the end that the United States Railroad Labor Board
may be informed of final agreements and disagreements prior to July 1, 1921.
664
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
With this end in view, Mr. A. V. Brown, general superintendent, has been
designated by me as chairman of the railroad's committee to confer with you
and your general committee with a view to carrying out the instructions con-
tained in Decision No. 119. Conference will be held in room 310, Railroad
Building, St. Paul. We would like to confer with your committee at the
earliest possible date. Our committee will be prepared to meet your com-
mittee at any time after May 10, 1921.
I will be glad if you will advise me the earliest possible date you will be
prepared to join us in this conference.
Conferences between the representatives of both parties for the
purpose of considering rules governing working conditions com-
menced on May 26, 1921, and terminated on June 16, 1921. On June
21, 1921, the general chairman addressed a letter to the carrier stat-
ing that it was the position of the employees that they had an agree-
ment in effect on the Northern Pacific Railroad which was agreed
to subsequent to March 1, 1920, and that Decision No. 119 did not
affect it. The carrier maintained that Decision No. 119 applied and
that submission should be made to the Labor Board in accordance.
with that decision. Following this disagreement the employees made
two submissions to the board, which are covered by question (a) and
(b), hereinbefore quoted, and the carrier made a submission showing
the rules which were agreed to in the conferences which terminated
on June 16, as well as the rules which were not agreed to, covered by
question (c).
Hearing was conducted by the board on January 31, 1922, on the
two ex parte submissions of the employees (questions (a) and (b)
above quoted), and at that hearing the representative of the em-
ployees requested the opportunity of making written and oral pres-
entation with reference to the rules which were in dispute at the
conclusion of the conferences in June, 1921, and has since that date
filed with the board a brief setting out the employees' position with
reference to these rules.
The carrier contends that the letter of March 8, 1920, did not make
the national agreement and the addendum of February 16, 1920, a
new and independent schedule between the carrier and its employees,
but was written for the purpose of assuring the employees that the
carrier did not intend to do other than comply with the transporta-
tion act and to quiet their fears that snap judgment might be taken.
The carrier further contends that if the employees are correct in
their claim that Decision No. 119 is not applicable to the agree-
ment, they had no agreement of any character after June 3, 1921,
having failed to reach an agreement with the carrier and having
further declined to submit the questions in dispute to the Labor
Board for decision.
The employees contend that the letter of March 8, 1920, made the
national agreement and addendum of February 16, 1920, an agree-
ment between the carrier and its employees; that this agreement
was not affected by Decision No. 119; and that the question in dis-
pute at the conclusion of the conferences in June, 1921, should be
referred back to the carrier and the employees for joint submission
to this board, and that they should be given an opportunity to make
oral presentation with reference to the rules in dispute.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
(a) That the letter of March 8, 1920, made the national agree-
ment and the addendum of February 16, 1920, an agreement be-
DECISIONS.
665
tween the carrier and its employees, and therefore Decision No. 119
was not applicable to this agreement.
(b) Yes. However, as there was a dispute at the conclusion of
the conference in June, 1921, the rules of this agreement which were
not replaced by agreed-upon rules remain in effect until rules in
lieu of same are decided upon by mutual agreement or decision of
the Labor Board.
(c) Effective August 15, 1922, the rules as announced by the
Labor Board in Decision No. 630 shall be applied in lieu of cor-
responding rules in dispute at the conclusion of the conference in
June 1921. Rules which this action does not dispose of are re-
ferred back for further conference between the representatives of
the employees and the carrier, and in the event an agreement is not
reached may be resubmitted to the board. Inasmuch as the rules
contained in Decision No. 630 were the subject of general hearing be-
fore the Labor Board, during which hearing the merits of the rules
were discussed by representatives of both the employees and the
carrier, the board does not deem it necessary to conduct a further
hearing upon these rules in this particular dispute.
DECISION NO. 1209.-DOCKET 1637.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-The question in dispute is with respect to contracting
certain work performed by clerical and station employees at Orange
Avenue Freight Terminal and Union Passenger Station, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Statement.-Under date of November 30, 1921, the carrier posted
the following notices at Orange Avenue Freight Terminal and
Union Passenger Station, Cleveland, Ohio.
Effective Monday, December 5, the work of handling and transferring 1. c. 1.
freight in Orange Avenue Terminal will be performed by the Terminal Operat-
ing Corporation, and employees now engaged in this work, except those other-
wise mentioned, will be released by this company.
The Terminal Operating Corporation will give preference, in building up
their force, to former freight handlers who are now employed by this com-
pany, and those desiring to accept service with the Terminal Operating Corpo-
ration should report in the same manner and at the same time they do now.
This company will retain the following positions: O. S. & D. clerks, delivery
clerks, veri-check clerks, receiving clerks, notice clerks, cooper-shop clerks route
clerks.
Employees in these positions should report for work as usual.
N. G. UNDERWOOD, Agent.
Effective 8 a. m., Sunday, December 4, the work of handling baggage and
United States mail in connection with the operation of Cleveland Union Depot
will be performed by contractor Mr. J. H. McMillan, and employees now engaged
in this work, except those otherwise mentioned, will be released by this
company.
Mr. McMillan will give preference, in building up his force, to baggage and
mail handlers who are now employed by this company, and those desiring to
accept service with Mr. McMillan should report for work as directed by him.
This company will retain the following positions: Foremen, checkmen, and
check clerks.
J. H. HAGAN, Station Master.
666
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees contend that the contracting of the work herein
referred to is for the purpose of evading the application of the orders
and decisions of the Labor Board, and that the action of the carrier
in contracting said work is in violation of the transportation act,
1920.
The carrier states that in November, 1921, an agreement was
entered into with J. H. McMillan, of Cleveland, Ohio, under the
terms of which the latter contracted to handle baggage and United
States mail in connection with the operation of the Union Depot,
Cleveland, Ohio; and that said J. H. McMillan is acting under the
provisions of the agreement, and in all respects is an independent
contractor performing for the carrier the work contemplated by the
agreement.
The carrier contends that it has no privity of relationship whatso-
ever with the individuals employed by the contractor, and that the
said individuals are neither legally nor actually employees of the
carrier; that the action taken by the carrier is within its legal right
and in the interest of economical and efficient management, and with-
out intention or purpose to evade or defeat the provisions of the
transportation act or the decisions of the Labor Board; and that
there is no existing dispute between the carrier and employees
directly interested of the nature contemplated by law for decision by
the Labor Board. The carrier, therefore, requests that the petition
herein be dismissed.
Opinion. The question involved in this dispute is similar to
other cases involving the question of contract that have been sub-
mitted to the Labor Board, some of which have been decided by
decisions recently issued.
The opinion of the Labor Board with respect to the general ques-
tion of contracting work, such as herein referred to, is clearly set
forth in Decision No. 982, and other decisions recently issued on
this subject, and for this reason the board will refrain from entering
into extensive detail in this decision. The board, however, feels
that its position with respect to this general question should be re-
enunciated in connection with this particular case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) The contracts entered into between the New York Central
Railroad Co. and the Terminal Operating Corporation for the han-
dling and transferring of freight at Orange Avenue Terminal, and
the said carrier and J. H. McMillan for the handling of baggage
and mail at Cleveland Union Depot are in violation of the trans-
portation act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are construed by the
carrier to remove said employees from the application of said act,
and that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages and
working rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos.
2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) The employees of said contractors engaged in the perform-
ance of the work herein referred to are under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board and subject to the application of the transportation
act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISIONS.
667
DECISION NO. 1210.-DOCKET 2070.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the contracting of work of clerical
and station forces.
Statement.-On various dates in the months of October and No-
vember, 1921, the carrier party hereto entered into contracts with
the Owen Construction & Repair Co., covering the handling of
freight and certain other work at Salamanca, Rochester, Birming-
ham, Buffalo, Hornell, and Elmira, N. Y.
On November 7, 1921, the janitor work at Buffalo passenger sta-
tion was contracted to Mr. Joseph Barb. On November 15, 1921, the
messenger service at Buffalo was contracted to Messrs. Warren Hoyt
and John Griffin. On December 6, 1921, certain mail-room employees
at Birmingham, N. Y., were placed under contract with P. Knicker-
bocker, and the mail room and station employees at Elmira, N. Y.,
placed under contract with Bernard W. Hutchinson.
On December 11, 1921, the train and engine-crew callers at Hornell,
N. Y., were placed under contract with H. E. Flett, and station em-
ployes at that point placed under contract with Edward Willard.
On December 12, 1921, the train and engine-crew callers at Sala-
manca, N. Y., were placed under contract with E. J. Scott.
On December 16, 1921, the yard-office clerks at Salamanca, N. Y.,
were placed under contract with W. C. Shultz, and the baggage-room
employees at that point placed under contract with F. D. Eldridge.
On December 5, 8, and 12, 1921, contracts were entered into with
the Lincoln Construction Co., covering the performance of work of
certain station employees at Port Jervis, Newburgh, Middletown,
and Goshen, N. Y., and Passaic, Dundee, Rutherford, Paterson, and
Newark, N. J.
In January, 1922, contracts covering the work performed by the
freight-handling forces at various stations were entered into with
the Consolidated Freight Handling Co.
In addition to the contracts enumerated above, many other con-
tracts covering work similar to that specified in said contracts have
been entered into at various other points, not named in the em-
ployees' written presentation of the case, but referred to at the hear-
ing
conducted by the Labor Board. It also developed at the hearing
that the contracts made with certain individuals have changed hands,
but there is no change in the situation so far as the employees effected
by such contracts are concerned.
The employees state that all of the classes of employees involved in
the contracts herein referred to are included within the scope of the
clerks' national agreement and Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board, and that the contractors have in every instance made
substantial decreases in wages and established less favorable condi-
tions of employment than prescribed in said agreement and de-
cisions.
The employees contend that the contracts herein referred to were
made for the purpose of evading the application of the decisions of
the Labor Board, and that the action of the carrier in entering into
20936°-23- 43
668
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
said contracts is in violation of section 301 of the transportation act,
1920.
The carrier contends that the clerical and station forces or other
employees referred to in the employees' presentation are employees
of certain individual contractors, and for the reasons which have
been fully set forth in other contract cases submitted to the board,
the carrier's position is that there is no violation of section 301 or
any other section of the transportation act, and that the persons con-
cerned being employees of individual contractors their wages are
not within the jurisdiction of the United States Railroad Labor
Board.
The position of the carrier, "as set forth in other contract cases sub-
mitted to the board," is that "in each of these cases the contract
was lawfully made with an independent contractor and the contract
and the wages and working conditions of the employees are beyond
the application of the Transportation Act, 1920, and the jurisdiction
of the board, and the board should so determine."
Opinion. The question involved in this dispute is quite similar
to other contract cases that have been submitted to the Labor Board,
some of which have been decided by decisions recently issued; and
the fact that the cases referred to in this decision are not sufficiently
different from other cases involving this question of contract as to
demand special treatment is indicated in the carrier's position as
herein set forth.
The opinion of the Labor Board with respect to the general ques-
tion of contracting work, such as herein referred to, is clearly set
forth in Decision No. 982 and other decisions recently issued on this
subject, and for this reason the board will refrain from extensive
detail in this decision. The board, however, feels that its position
with respect to this general question should be reenunciated in con-
nection with this particular case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) The contracts entered into with the various contractors and
individuals for the work herein described is in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by
the carrier to remove said employees from the application of said
act, and that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages
and working rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions
Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) The employees of said contractors are under the jurisdiction
of the Labor Board and subject to the application of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1211.-DOCKET 1253.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
Petition of Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana for Rehearing on
Decision No. 1152, Docket 1253.
Under date of July 31, 1922, the Labor Board issued Decision
No. 1152, which provided that Mr. H. A. Tompkins, clerk in the
DECISIONS.
669
accounting department of the carrier named, should be reinstated to
the carrier's service with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
wage loss sustained, less any amount earned in other employment
since the date of his dismissal, and less the seven days referred to in
rule 32 of the clerks' national agreement, and that he should be
granted an investigation in accordance with said rule.
The carrier named above requests that said Decision No. 1152 be
vacated and annulled, and rehearing and reconsideration of the
question in dispute granted for the following reasons:
First. That the question of the decision, as stated by the board,
does not cover the question actually at issue in this case.
Second. That for reasons set forth in the petition the board erred
in finding that rule 32 of the clerks' national agreement was in effect
July 14, 1921, when the general chairman of the clerks' organization
made application for a hearing on the offense with which Mr.
Tompkins was charged, and under the provisions of said rule the
request should have been granted.
The question for decision as stated by the Labor Board in Decision
No. 1152 is as follows:
Question.-Request for reinstatement of H. A. Tompkins, clerk, accounting
department, Houston, Tex.
The carrier contends that the question actually at issue is:
Was the carrier justified in relieving H. A. Tompkins from its service for
unsatisfactory work and incompetency?
This case was presented to the Labor Board in the form of an ex
parte submission by the employees in which the board was requested,
for reasons therein set forth, to decide that Mr. Tompkins be paid
for all time lost from June 30, 1921, that investigation be granted,
and if at the time of said investigation he should be found qualified,
that he be returned to his former position. This ex parte submission
was transmitted to the carrier, and in its response the question as
expressed in their own language is as follows:
Claim that H. A. Tompkins, formerly employed as clerk in the disbursements
accounting department at Houston general office, should be reinstated, pending
further investigation, and should be paid for all time lost.
Therefore, the question is not upon the justification of relieving
Mr. Tompkins for unsatisfactory work and incompetency, but upon
reinstatement pending investigation of those charges, and the car-
rier's contention as to the question actually at issue is not well sus-
tained.
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 provides that:
In lieu of any other rules not agreed to in conferences held under Decision
No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the United States
Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such time as such rules
are considered and decided by the Labor Board.
The carrier named in Decision No. 1152 was a party to the dispute
upon which Decision No. 119, addenda, and interpretations thereto
were rendered. Conferences were held pursuant to said decision, but
owing to a controversy as to the right of the clerks' organization
to represent general office clerks, negotiations were suspended and
the contentions of the respective parties with reference to this ques-
tion submitted to the Labor Board for decision. This dispute was

670
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
designated as Docket No. 687, and is the one upon which Decision
No. 476 was rendered. The carrier's position upon this docket is
dated June 30, 1921. This is the date on which Mr. Tompkins was
dismissed and was two weeks before the carrier declined to grant
investigation in accordance with rule 32 as requested by the clerks'
organization.
The carrier has access to the rules of the Labor Board providing
that pending decision on questions in dispute no change shall be made
unless by mutual agreement. The carrier was fully aware of the
existence of a dispute on the position which they took with respect
to general office clerks, and regardless of the date of issuance of
Decision No. 476 were not within their rights in making any change.
in the existing situation pending a decision by the Labor Board.
Furthermore, the Labor Board, under date of June 28, 1921, issued
Interpretation No. 5 to Decision No. 119, which provides that general
office clerks would not constitute, within the meaning of principle 15,
Decision No. 119, a craft or class separate and different from other
employees in clerical and station service.
As to the carrier's contention that under date of July 1, 1922, the
employees signed an agreement under the terms of which they waived
all claims to representation of general office clerks, the board does
not construe this agreement to be retroactive in its effect or to consti-
tute an abandonment of claims arising prior to its effective date.
Decision. For the reasons herein set forth, the Labor Board de-
cides that the petition of the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana for rehearing on Decision No. 1152 is denied.
DECISION NO. 1212.-DOCKET 486.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Question. Is the contract which the San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf
Railroad let for the maintenance of its track, roadway, sidings, spurs,
etc., in violation of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and
rule decisions of the Railroad Labor Board, and do said contracts
remove from the jurisdiction of the Labor Board the employees who,
under said contract, are performing work for the carrier?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that on February 17, 1921, the superintendent
of motive power and maintenance of way issued a circular letter to
section foremen and floating gang foremen, advising that effective at
midnight, February 20, 1921, their gangs would be abolished and
time checks issued; and that all roadway and maintenance work
would be performed under contract with E. S. Curtis. Under date
of February 18, 1921, the contractor, E. S. Curtis, issued a circular
letter to the foremen advising that effective February 21, 1921, cer-
tain rates of pay would be established, which rates were less than
those established by the Labor Board's Decision No. 2. It is shown
that the employees affected remained at work under protest. The
duly-authorized committee representing the employees endeavored
DECISIONS.
671
to secure a conference with representatives of the carrier for the
purpose of discussing the employees' protest, whereupon the carrier
took the position that the employees were no longer in their service,
but in the service of the contractor, and that questions with respect
to wage adjustment should be handled with said contractor.
It is the position of the employees that the action on the part of
the carrier in entering into the contract was for the purpose of
evading the provisions of the national agreement of the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and Railway Shop
Laborers and Decision No. 2 of the United States Railroad Labor
Board.
The following is quoted from the employees' submission:
The employees involved in this reduction have remained at work under pro-
test pending an adjustment, and take the position that the officials of the San
Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad had no authority to effect wage reductions by
an expedient and offer reemployment through a contractor at lower rates of
pay than those established by the United States Railroad Labor Board. To
the employees this procedure is an apparent misrepresentation in an effort to
accomplish a selfish purpose and they believe that the action taken by the San
Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad officials is a deliberate conspiracy to defeat
the intent of the execution of the provisions of the Labor Board's Decision No.
2 and the recognized national agreement governing the working conditions of
maintenance of way employees.
The employees believe that the appointment of Mr. Curtis as contractor is
an evasion of the Labor Board's Decision No. 2, and that his relations with the
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad are practically the same as heretofore,
inasmuch as there has been no change in the methods of giving orders, etc.,
other than instructions to mail weekly reports and time rolls to Mr. Curtis in-
stead of to the superintendent of motive power and maintenance of way as
under former arrangement. The San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad pay
checks are used to pay the maintenance of way employees under the present
system, the only alteration being that they bear the impression of a rubber
stamp E. S. Curtis, Contractor." *
After having exhausted every effort to get conferences with the receiver and
general manager and the contractor, and being ignored in our requests for
hearings to enable us to effect a reinstatement of working conditions and
wages in effect prior to February 21, 1921, we are appealing to the United States
Railroad Labor Board for a reinstatement of working conditions in effect prior
to February 21, 1921, with a retroactive adjustment of 21 cents per hour for
all track laborers who have been forced to accept temporarily the arbitrary
order of the contractor, reducing their pay to 15 cents per hour since February
20, 1921. We also request that the board authorize the payment of time worked
in excess of eight hours daily since February 20, 1921, by foremen and laborers,
at the rate of time and one-half time as provided in the national agreement,
Article V, sections a-5, a-6, a-7, a-8, a-9, and a-10.
The carrier denies that the contract referred to was or is a sub-
terfuge, but that it was entered into in good faith in an effort to
make ends meet in the operation of the property.
The following is quoted from the carrier's brief:
First. That said A. R. Ponder, receiver, denies that sections 300 to 316 of
the transportation act, 1920, creating the United States Railroad Labor Board
and defining its powers, destroys his right to contract for maintenance work
or to enter into any other contracts for the purpose of promoting the honest,
efficient, and economical operation of the properties in his charge, and on the
contrary avers his constitutional right of contract as said receiver has not
been impaired by said sections of the transportation act of 1920, or any other
provisions of said transportation act of 1920.
Second. The said A. R. Ponder, receiver, represents and shows to this honor-
able body that the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, section 15-A, of the inter-
state commerce act, set out in section 422 of said transportation act of 1920,
impose upon the said A. R. Ponder, receiver, the primal duty in the operation
of said railroad properties in his charge and custody of honest, efficient, and
撇
​672
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
economical management of said railroad properties, and to confine his expendi-
tures for maintenance of way, structures, and equipment to the smallest
amount consistent with the safe and proper operation of said railroad proper-
ties, and that in the performance of such duties, so imposed upon him, he did,
on February 17, 1921, in good faith, enter into a contract with one E. S. Curtis,
of Atascosa County, Tex., to maintain the track, roadway, sidings, spurs. etc.,
of the San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad in a proper state of efficiency, as
is more fully shown by said contract; and that the said railroad has been
economically and efficiently maintained by said A. R. Ponder under said con-
tract, resulting in the saving of thousands of dollars of expenditures for the
maintenance of said railroad; and that the abolition of the section and floating
gangs theretofore performing such maintenance work of said railroad company
was not the purpose of the making of said contract, but simply a necessary
incident to the making of said contract and the economical operation of said
railroad resulting therefrom.
Third. That the said A. R. Ponder, receiver, is advised and charges the fact
to be, that his primal duty is to operate the said San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf
Railroad in his charge as receiver, in the most economical and efficient manner
possible and to practice every economy consistent with safety, which will result
in a lower cost of operation with the resultant benefits to the public.
Fourth. That the said contract for track maintenance so entered into by the
said A. R. Ponder, receiver, with said Curtis, was submitted to and approved
by the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Western District
of Texas, in which court the said receivership is now pending, as is more fully
shown by certified copy of the order of said judge hereto attached and made a
part hereof [in files of the board], and that such approval by said court is con-
clusive evidence that said contract was made and entered into by said A. R.
Ponder, receiver, in good faith, to promote the economical and efficient operation
of said railroad properties.
Fifth. The receiver respectfully suggests that this honorable body is without
jurisdiction in this matter, for this, the receiver honestly, and in the utmost
good faith, has entered into a contract with the said Curtis to maintain the
tracks and roadbed of the said San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad, and that
the receiver has a lawful right to make such a contract and this board has no
jurisdiction over the contractor and can not regulate the amount of pay that
the contractor's employees shall receive, and can not deny the right of this
receiver to enter into the contract for the upkeep and maintenance of the track
and roadbed of the said San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad. Nor has this
board the right to say, or to order, that the receiver shall enter into a contract
with the maintenance-of-way employees of said San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf
Railroad, which will deprive him of his right to contract for maintenance work
or any other work that he may see fit to contract for in the proper performance
of his duty to honestly, efficiently, and economically operate said railroad in
his charge.
Wherefore, the said A. R. Ponder, receiver, prays this honorable board to
enter an order approving the contract he has made with the said Curtis and
confirming his right to limit the scope of his contract with the maintenance of
way employees so that such contract will not apply to any employees of any
contractor to whom he sees fit to let a portion or all of the maintenance of his
tracks, roadbed, and bridges.
Opinion. The Labor Board has analyzed the positions of the re-
spective parties and has taken cognizance of the carrier's position
with respect to the approval of the contract by the judge of the
District Court of the United States for the Western District of
Texas. The Labor Board construes the provisions of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, as imposing upon it the duties of deciding disputes
that may arise between employees and the management, based upon
the procedure outlined in said transportation act, 1920. The dispute
in question has been duly filed by the chief executive of the organiza-
tion representing the employees involved, and the evidence before the
board indicates that the provisions of the law have been fully com-
plied with. The case represents one properly coming within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and will be handled accordingly.
DECISIONS.
673
While the question involved in this dispute is not identical to that
involved in Decision No. 982, the general question of the "right of
contract" is the same. The Labor Board very clearly set forth its
opinion with espect to this question in its Decision No. 982, to which
both parties to this dispute are respectfully referred.
Decision.-(1) That the contract entered into between the San
Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad and E. S. Curtis for the mainte-
nance of its track, roadway, sidings, spurs, etc., is in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by
the carrier to remove said employees from the application of said act
and that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages and
working rules of said employees are in violation of wage decisions
of the Labor Board, to which this carrier was a party.
(2) That the employees referred to are under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and
decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1213.-DOCKET 1155.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers v. Great Northern Rail-
way Co.
Question. Protest against action of the carrier in contracting
work for which employees-such as fire knockers, wipers, fire build-
ers, watchmen, hostler helpers, house cleaners, engine-supply men,
cinder pitmen, tool checkers, stationary firemen, and coal-shed fore-
men-were prior to January 1, 1921, paid the rates established
by the Labor Board in its Decision No. 2; and request that the rates
previously in effect under the decision be restored and back pay
allowed from date change was made.
Statement. The representative of the employees states that on
March 14, 1921, certain employees working in the positions shown in
the foregoing question were placed under a contractor at Superior,
Wis., Willmar and Barnesville, Minn., and Grand Forks, N. Dak.,
at reduced rates of pay-reductions ranging from 10 cents to 20 cents
per hour-and that again on July 21, 1921, they were reduced
another 5 cents per hour. The board is therefore requested to direct
the carrier to comply with the provisions of its Decision No. 2 and
with the national agreement issued by the United States Railroad
Administration, restoring the rates provided therein and allow back
pay for losses suffered on account of the reduction, as prior to the
time of putting these reductions into effect the men were not con-
sulted nor given any chance to agree or disagree to the change, and
since the first reduction was put into effect they have repeatedly
tried to get a conference with the officials of the carrier, but up to
the time of this hearing, December 20, 1921, they have been unable
to secure a conference.
674
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The representative of the carrier states that for many years past
the carrier has contracted with independent contractors; that prior
to and during Federal control the carrier contracted with an inde-
pendent contractor for the handling of engines at certain round-
houses at a specified rate per engine; and that the local supervising
officers of the carrier exercise no jurisdiction or supervision over, nor
do they employ or dismiss, any of the contractor's employees. At
every terminal the contractor has a foreman in charge of his men.
Also, that an agreement governing the hours of service and work-
ing conditions of stationary engineers, boiler-room water attendants,
stationary firemen, stoker operators and assistants, oilers, coal passers,
and ashmen was entered into, effective as of July 1, 1921, between
the Great Northern Railway and the International Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers, the scope to consist of all roundhouse laborers
and engine watchmen; that the contracts similar to those complained
of, made with Addison Miller, covering among others some of the
stations involved in this dispute, were in existence, as was well
known to the men, at the time the schedule referred to in the fore-
going was made; and that no question was raised when the schedule
was agreed to as to the right of the carrier to make contracts with
outsiders, nor was any objection made.
The representative of the carrier further states that since its or-
ganization it has followed the policy of contracting certain of its
labor; that it has always contracted the work of filling icehouses
whenever and wherever it could; likewise plowing of fire breaks and
clearing the right-of-way of rubbish and weeds, as well as stevedor-
ing at Pacific Coast ports and Great Lakes ports on its line; and
that long before the transportation act was passed, or the Labor
Board created, as well as prior to and during Federal control, the
carrier was contracting its coal handling and roundhouse work at
many of its important terminals.
Furthermore, the carrier contends that its does not understand
nor does it believe that section 301 of the transportation act, 1920,
nor any other section thereof, abrogates or abridges its right, which
has aways been exercised prior to the enactment of the transporta-
tion act, of contracting such work as in the judgment of the manage-
ment can be performed more economically for the carrier by con-
tract than by day labor.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the various contracts entered into between the Great
Northern Railroad Co. and the contractor for the operation of cer-
tain facilities are in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so
far as they purport or are construed by the carrier to remove certain
employees from the application of said act, and that those provisions
of the contracts affecting the wages and working conditions of said
employees are in violation of Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
(2) That the employees of said contractor are under the jurisdic-
tion of the Labor Board and subject to the application of the trans-
portation act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board in which both
parties are shown to have been included.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with the employees the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative, giving consideration to any question that affects
the right of the employee to reinstatement.
DECISIONS.
675
DECISION NO. 1214.-DOCKETS 1204, 1205, AND 1206.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Are the contracts which the Erie Railroad Co. let for
the operation of its railway shops and the cleaning of passenger cars
in violation of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and rule
decisions of the Railroad Labor Board, and do said contracts remove
from under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board the employees who,
under said contracts, are performing work for the carrier?
Statement.—In the early part of August, 1921, the Erie Railroad
Co. posted notices that, effective August 15, 1921, the company would
cease to operate the shops, roundhouses, ash pits, and other facili-
ties theretofore used in the turning, repairing, coaling, and handling
of its engines at Marion, Ohio, and that the relations theretofore
existing between the Erie Railroad Co. and its employees engaged
in this work would cease at that time. On August 13, 1921, a con-
tract was made with the Railway Service Co. A bulletin was issued
by the Railway Service Co. to the effect that all men in service of
the Erie Railroad Co. at 7 a. m., central time, August 15, 1921, em-
ployed on the above work would when they reported for duty auto-
matically enter the service of the Railroad Service Co. in the same
employment as engaged in while in the service of the Erie Railroad
Co. and at the same rates per hour.
On March 1, 1920, the Erie Railroad Co. entered into a contract
with the Hornell Repair & Construction Corporation, under which
contract the shop premises, machinery, and tools of the carrier at
Hornell, N. Y., were leased to the corporation, and the Hornell Co.
contracted to perform repair, rebuilding, and construction work on
equipment for the carrier, having a right also to use the premises,
machinery, and tools on work for others. On October 26, 1921, the
Hornell Čo. posted a bulletin to the effect that on October 31, 1921,
certain changes in working conditions would be placed in effect,
among which was the establishment of the piecework system of
payment.
During the month of October, 1921, the Erie Railroad Co. entered
into contract with Patrick Connolly for the cleaning of passenger-
train cars at Jersey City, N. J. This contract was dated October
2, 1921.
While the three cases above referred to are contained in separate
dockets and constitute separate and distinct disputes, the board feels
that they involve the same general principle and are sufficiently anal-
ogous to be covered by one decision, and all of them have accordingly
been included in this decision.
Following the action of the carrier in contracting its maintenance
of equipment and car-cleaning work, the employees represented by
the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L., protested this
action on the part of the management as being in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, and the wage and rule decisions of the Labor
Board. Upon failure to effect a settlement the matter was submitted
by the employees to the Labor Board for decision, in conformity with
676
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, three submissions being
filed, namely, for Marion, Ohio, Docket 1204; for Hornell, N. Y.,
Docket 1205; and for car cleaning at Jersey City, N. J., Docket
1206. The written briefs and exhibits submitted by the respective
parties were supplemented by oral testimony before the Labor Board.
The positions of the respective parties are briefly summarized as
follows:
It is the contention of the employees that the employees of the
contractors are in reality employees of the Erie Railroad Co.,
and that therefore they, as well as the contractors, are subject to the
jurisdiction and decisions of the Labor Board. The employees fur-
ther contend that the action on the part of the carrier was for the
purpose of evading the provisions of the transportation act, 1920,
and the decisions of the Labor Board. Lengthy argument is ad-
vanced by the employees in defense of their position, all of which
purports to show that the carrier in so contracting its work is violat-
ing the law and imposing upon the employees an unjust hardship in
the reduction of their earnings and changed working conditions,
which they claim are protected by the transportation act, 1920, and
the wage and rule decisions of the Labor Board.
They ask relief as follows, and request that the Labor Board take
the following action:
(a) Take jurisdiction over the repair facilities at Marion, Ohio,
and Hornell, N. Y., and over the contractors and the employees en-
gaged in the service referred to.
(b) Order the establishment and maintenance at these shops,
yards, and stations of the wage scale, method of payment, and work-
ing conditions prevailing on the rest of the Erie System at the time
these contracts and leases were made, except in so far as modified by
decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) Order all men laid off by the Erie Railroad Co., on or about
the date of the contracts, restored to their former seniority rating,
and that all new employees of the contractors be placed on the
seniority list in due order after the former employees working at
that point.
(d) Order that former employees of the railroad at these points
who desire employment be restored to their former position, and
men more recently hired at these points by the contractor be re-
tained only when their seniority rating on a vacancy makes this per-
missible and provided that they qualify for such positions in accord-
ance with rules prevailing on the Erie as recognized by the Labor
Board.
(e) Order each and every man laid off at these points by the Erie
Railroad Co. just prior to the making of these contracts and leases.
to be paid the difference between what they have earned since then
at other work and what they would have received if retained at work
at that point at the rates of pay established from time to time for
their respective positions under decisions of the Labor Board.
The carrier contends that it is clearly within its rights in enter-
ing into contracts for the performance of the work in question; that
in each of these cases the contract was lawfully made with an inde-
pendent contractor; and that the contract and the wages and work-
ing conditions of the employees are beyond the application of the
DECISIONS.
677
transportation act, 1920, and the juridisdiction of the Labor Board
and the board should so determine.
The carrier contends that no man can be an employee of another
person or corporation unless the relation has one or more, perhaps all
of the following elements:
1. Power of selection and dismissal of the employee.
2. Payment of wages to employees.
3. Control of the employees' action in the performance of the
work.
The carrier further contends that—
The contracts involved in these three dockets leave none of these matters
with the carrier. They are all undertaken by and imposed upon the contractor
in each case. The relation of employee to the carrier therefore does not exist
under these contracts.
Lengthy argument is advanced by the carrier as to the carrier's
relationship or nonrelationship to the employees of the contractor,
they taking the position as aforesaid that the employees in question
do not bear the relation of employee to the carrier; that the carrier
has the legal right to secure the performance of the work covered by
these contracts, by contract with an independent contractor, rather
than through the services of its own employees; that there is nothing
in the transportation act, 1920, or in any other statute or law which
requires the carrier to continue to have such work or any part of it
performed by its own employees subject to the provisions of the
transportation act, 1920; and further the carrier's position is that-
""
There has been no "evasion or “violation" in view of the terms of the
act and the rights of the carriers.
"Evasion " or “violation” if it existed could not confer jurisdiction upon
the board.
In each of these cases the contract was lawfully made with an independent
contractor and the contract and wages and working conditions of the ein-
ployees are beyond the application of the transportation act, 1920, and the
jurisdiction of the board, and the board should so determine.
Opinion. Although not identical, the principle involved in these
cases is similar to that involved in Decision No. 982-dispute be-
tween the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L., and the
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. The board in its opinion and
decision contained in Decision No. 982 clearly indicated its posi-
tion with respect to this principle and for the purpose of conserv-
ing time and space will refrain from repeating the expressions con-
tained therein, but will refer the parties to this dispute to said
decision.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the several contracts entered into between the Erie Rail-
road Co. and the Railway Service Corporation, Hornell Repair &
Construction Corporation, and Patrick Connolly, respectively, here-
inbefore mentioned, are in violation of the transportation act, 1920,
in so far as they purport or are construed by the carrier to remove
said employees from the application of said act, and that those pro-
visions of the contracts affecting the wages and working rules of
said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of
the Labor Board to which the carrier was a party.
678
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(2) That the employees referred to are under the jurisdiction
of the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and
decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative, giving consideration to any question
that affects the right of the employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1215.-DOCKET 1271.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Request of N. T. Criss, former pumper, Van Tassell,
Wyo., for reinstatement and pay for time lost from date pumping
at that point was handled by contract. Claim of employees that
carrier violated Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board in letting work
at various points to contractor.
Statement. The following is quoted from the joint submission:
Joint statement of facts.-Claim of maintenance of way employees that the
railway company, in letting certain work at various points to contractors,
violated the provisions of Decision No. 2 of the United States Railroad Labor
Board. Request is made that employees displaced from positions as a result
of the work being assigned to contractors be returned to former positions and
compensated for all time lost as a result of contracting the work; and that
where employees were subsequently employed by the contractor at a lesser
rate than that established in Decision No. 2, United States Railroad Labor
Board, for railway employees, they be compensated the difference between
the rate paid by the contractor and that established in Decision No. 2.
Employees' position.-Maintenance of way employees and railway shop
laborers on the Chicago & North Western Railway accepted the wage award
as given in Article III of Decision No. 2, and consider that the same applies
to such positions as listed therein, but since the application of same the Chi-
cago & North Western Railway Co. has contracted many of these positions
and the employees are paid a lesser rate of pay in many instances than that
given by the provisions of Decision No. 2, and in many instances the former
employees have been removed from the service.
It is the contention of the employees that where the railway company sees
fit to contract any positions, the rate of pay must not be less than that pro-
vided for in wage orders of the United States Railroad Labor Board and that
the seniority rights of the employees must be respected in accordance with
working agreements covering such employees. And we further contend that
where such employees have suffered a reduction in wages or loss of position
on account of their positions being let to contract, and that where such em-
ployees are receiving a lesser rate of pay than that provided for by the United
States Railroad Labor Board, the railway company shall back-pay the em-
ployees the difference in the rate which they received and the rate provided for
by the United States Railroad Labor Board; and that where such employees
have suffered the loss of position on account of such position being let to
contractor or contractors, where such employees desire, they shall be given
their former position with former seniority rights and paid for all time lost.
Carriers' position.-1. The pumping of water at water station located at
Van Tassell, Wyo.
The requirements in handling water at this point necessitate from five to
six hours service over a spread of nine and one-half or more hours per day.
Prior to March 1, 1921, this work was performed by a railway company em-
ployee who was assigned eight and one-half hours per day in a spread of nine
and one-half hours, and compensated in accordance with the provisions of
DECISIONS.
679
*
wage orders and at rates of pay prescribed in Decision No. 2, United States
Railroad Labor Board, On account of the excessive cost of operation, the
work was let by contract, effective as of March 1, 1921. The railway company's
officers take the position that they have not violated the provisions of Decision
No. 2, United States Railroad Labor Board, nor the provisions of the national
agreement (maintenance of way employees and railway shop laborers) in con-
tracting the work referred to, for the reason that it is their constitutional right
to handle such work by contract when it can be so handled more efficiently
and economically than by assigning employees.
2. The handling of coal from cars to chutes at Green Bay, Wis.
Prior to March 1, 1921, coal chute at Green Bay was operated by railway
company employees. This operation did not prove satisfactory and same was
let to contractors in regular manner of handling matters of this kind.
The railway company takes the position that letting contract for the handling
of coal from cars to chutes at Green Bay, Wis., is not a violation of Decision
No. 2, United States Railroad Labor Board, nor the national agreement (main-
tenance of way employees and railway shop laborers) for the reason that it
is their constitutional right to handle such work by contract when it can be
so handled more efficiently and economically than by assigning employees.
3. The handling of coal from cars to coal chutes at Beverly, Iowa.
The facts and railway company's position with respect to Beverly, Iowa, are
the same as those with respect to handling of similar work at Green Bay, Wis.
Further with regard to the question as to whether or not it is the preroga-
tive of the railway company to handle by contract certain classes of railroad
work. It has been the practice on this railway for many years to handle by
contract the performance of certain work-such as pumping of water at water
stations where the requirements do not necessitate continuous service, the
handling of coal from cars to chutes, etc.-and at no time prior to the present
dispute has question been raised with respect to the railway company's rights
in the premises.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that—
(1) The various contracts entered into at Van Tassell, Wyo., cov-
ering pumping, and at Green Bay, Wis., and Beverly, Iowa, cover-
ing handling of coal from cars to chutes, are in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are construed
by the carrier to remove said employees from the application of said
act, and that those provisions of the contracts affecting the wages
and working rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions
Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(2) That the maintenance of way employees of said contractor are
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the appli-
cation of the transportation act, 1920, and Decision No. 147 of the
Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1216.-DOCKET 1605.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contract which the New York Central Railroad
Co. let for the operation of its railway shops at Buffalo, N. Y.,
in violation of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and
rule decisions of the Railroad Labor Board, and does said contract
remove from under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board the em-
680
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ployees who, under said contract, are performing shop work for the
carrier?
Statement. On December 14, 1921, there was filed with the Labor
Board by the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Fed-
erated Shop Crafts), an ex parte submission with respect to the
right of the New York Central Railroad Co. to contract its car
repair shops at East Buffalo, N. Y. The ex parte submission pur-
ported to show that on November 7, 1921, a conference was held
between the officers of System Federation No. 103 and representatives
of the carrier, consisting of P. E. Crowley, vice president; W. J.
Fripp, general manager of lines east; and W. O. Thompson, general
superintendent of rolling stock, at which conference the employees
state the federated committee was asked to accept the introduction
of piecework at this shop with the statement that unless they did
accept piecework, the shop would not be reopened, and that upon the
refusal of the federated committee to accept the carrier's proposition
the shops were leased to W. J. Connors, contractor.
Upon receipt of the ex parte submission from the shop, a copy was
forwarded to the carrier and an opportunity extended to present
any evidence it might desire in regard to the question submitted.
On February 3, 1922, the carrier, through W. J. Fripp, general
manager of the New York Central Railroad Co., lines east, filed a
statement setting forth the following contentions:
(1) In November, 1921, the New York Central Railroad Co. entered into an
agreement with William J. Connors, of Buffalo, under the terms of which the
latter contracted to perform certain car-repair work at East Buffalo, N. Y.
W. J. Connors is acting under the provisions of the agreement and in all re-
spects, as an independent contractor, performing for the carrier the work
contemplated by the agreement.
(2) The carrier has no privity of relationship whatsoever with the indi-
viduals employed by the contractor, and the said individuals are neither legally
nor actually employees of the carrier.
(3) The action taken by the carrier is within its legal right and in the
interest of economical and efficient management, and without intention or
purpose to evade or defeat the provisions of the transportation act or the
decisions of the Railroad Labor Board.
(4) That there is no existing dispute between the carrier and employees
directly interested of the nature contemplated by law for decision by the
Railroad Labor Board.
Wherefore, the New York Central Railroad Co. respectfully prays that the
petition herein be dismissed.
Articles IV and V of the contract so entered into read:
Fourth. The Central Co. shall provide at said car-repair shop an inspector
or inspectors who shall designate in writing the work to be done by the con-
tractor hereunder. Such designation shall be in accordance with the standard
practice of the Central Co. in such cases and upon forms to be furnished by it.
No change shall be made on said forms except by the Central Co.'s inspector.
No work shall be done except as shown on said forms. The Central Co. will
not honor any bill for work performed by the contractor that is not shown on
the Central Co.'s forms. All additional designations as the work progresses
shall be made on supplementary forms.
The Central Co.'s inspectors, upon completion of the work ordered, shall
certify as to such work having been performed in a satisfactory manner; but
such inspectors shall have no authority to prescribe methods or supervise the
performance of any work contemplated by this agreement.
Such inspectors shall have no authority to change this agreement, waive any
of its provisions, or permit any act or practice inconsistent therewith.
The Central Co. shall also provide, at its own expense, such other employees
at said car repair shop facilities as it may deem necessary for the purposes of
this agreement.
DECISIONS.
681
The Central Co. shall furnish, at its own expense, all material, that may be
necessary in its judgment, for the repair of cars or the performance of other
work contemplated hereunder.
The contractor shall use the aforesaid material furnished by the Central Co.
in accordance with the plans, specifications, and instructions of the Central Co.,
transmitted to the contractor from time to time.
The contractor shall account to the Central Co. in the manner and upon
forms prescribed by it for all material so furnished to the contractor.
Fifth. The charges made by the contractor for performing work hereunder
shall be in accordance with the Central Co.'s piecework schedules, attached to
and hereby made a part of this agreement, in effect during the month of De-
cember, 1917, to which shall be added 15 per cent: Provided, however, That the
charges for those employees of the contractor to whom the said piecework
schedules are not applicable, and who are engaged in the work contemplated
hereunder, shall be as follows:
(a) Mechanics, 60 cents per hour.
(b) Mechanic helpers, 45 cents per hour.
(c) Common labor, 30 cents per hour.
(d) Foremen, assistant foremen, clerks, and such other employees as may be
agreed upon by the parties hereto from time to time, rates of pay not to exceed
now existing rates paid by the Central Co. to like employees.
All of the above-mentioned charges shall be subject to review and readjust-
ment at any time upon 30 days' written notice from either party to the other
of its desire to make such readjustment.
To the total amount of all bills of the contractor for labor furnished as afore-
said, there shall be added an amount equivalent to not more than 6 per cent to
cover the contractor's overhead expense and profit.
On Saturday, November 12, 1921, the employees at East Buffalo
shops were notified by the carrier that the shops had been leased to
W. J. Connors, and would resume operations on November 14 at the
rates of pay stipulated by the contractor.
The employees protested the action on the part of the carrier and
through their duly authorized representatives created a dispute
which has been handled in conformity with the provisions of the
transportation act, 1920.
It is the contention of the employees that the carrier had made un-
successful efforts to establish the piecework system of payment, and
then conceived the idea that they could better coerce their employees
into accepting piecework by adopting the contract system; that in
so doing they discharged their employees in certain shops where the
contracts applied, discarded their length of service with the carrrier
and took away from them all privileges to which they were entitled
and had enjoyed for years as railroad employees; furthermore, that
the contract was not made in good faith, but as a mere subterfuge
designed to evade the provisions of the transportation act, and in
conflict with the decisions of the Railroad Labor Board.
The contention of the carrier is predicated upon "the right of
contract," the carrier taking the position that it has no connection
with, nor is it responsible for the rendition of service by, or the
wages and working conditions applied to employees of the con-
tractor.
Opinion. The contentions of the respective parties to this dis-
pute are in general similiar to the contentions set forth by the re-
spective parties to Decision No. 982. The opinion of the Labor
Board is equally applicable to this case and reflects clearly the Labor
Board's decision with respect to the general principle involved. At-
tention is, therefore, directed to the opinion contained in said Deci-
sion No. 982.
682
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the contract entered into between the New York Central
Railroad Co. and William J. Connors, Buffalo, N. Y., dated Novem-
ber 25, 1921, for the operation of its East Buffalo car-repair shops,
is in violation of the transportation act, 1920; in so far as it purports
or is construed by the carrier to remove said employees from the
application of said act, and that those provisions of the contract
affecting the wages and working rules of said employees are in viola-
tion of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(2) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of
the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative, giving consideration to any question that af-
fects the right of the employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1217.-DOCKET 1648.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contract which the New York Central Railroad
Co. has let for the operation of its car-repair shops at Campbell
Street, Toledo, Ohio, in violation of the transportation act, 1920,
and of the wage and rule decisions of the Railroad Labor Board, and
does said contract remove from the jurisdiction of the Labor Board
employees who, under said contract, are performing work for the
carrier?
Statement. The contention of the employees with respect to the
above question is as follows:
On Tuesday, November 1, 1921, a representative of the New York Central
Railroad Co., Lines West of Buffalo, notified the chairman of the American
Federation of Railroad Workers by telephone that a conference was desired on
the following day (November 2) to discuss the reopening of shops in the car
department.
The meeting was held at the company's office in Cleveland, Ohio, at 10 a. m.,
Wednesday, November 2. The committee had no knowledge of the method the
company had in mind as to how they would open the shops until they arrived
at the office and were told that the company wanted them to accept piecework,
and that unless they did so the shops would be turned over to a contractor.
After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that the committee return to their
respective points and take the matter up with the men, and a vote taken, the
officials advising them that an answer must be had not later than 10 a. m.,
November 6.
Meetings were held at the various points and the proposition put to the men,
who by a majority vote refused the proposition put before them, both members
and nonmembers voting.
On November 6, at 10 a. m., the company was notified of the result of the
vote, and they immediately sublet their Campbell Street shop, Toledo, Ohio, to
the A. S. Hecker Co., without submitting the question in dispute to the United
States Railroad Labor Board for a decision, this A. S. Hecker Co. opening the
shop on Monday morning, November 14.
It is our contention that the New York Central Railroad Co., lines west, has
violated the transportation act, 1920, by subletting its shops to the A. S.
Hecker Co. for the purpose of repairing cars on the carrier's property,
without first submitting the matter to the board for a decision.
DECISIONS.
683
The contention of the carrier in connection with this case is as
follows:
1. In November, 1921, the New York Central Railroad Co. entered into an
agreement with the A. S. Hecker Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, under the terms of
which the latter contracted to perform certain car-repair work at the Camp-
bell Street repair shop at Air Line Junction, Toledo, Ohio. The A. S. Hecker
Co. is acting under the provisions of the agreement, and in all respects as an
independent contractor, performing for the carrier the work contemplated by
the agreement.
2. The carrier has no privity of relationship whatsoever with the individuals
employed by the contractor, and the said individuals are neither legally nor
actually employed by the carrier.
3. The action taken by the carrier is within its legal right and in the interest
of economical and efficient management, and without intention or purpose to
evade or defeat the provisions of the transportation act or the decisions of the
Railroad Labor Board.
4. That there is no existing dispute between the carrier and employees
directly interested of the nature contemplated by law for decision by the
Railroad Labor Board.
Wherefore the New York Central Railroad Co. respectfully prays that the
petition herein be dismissed.
Opinion. Although not identical, the principle involved in this
case is similar to that involved in Decision No. 982, dispute between
the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop
Crafts), and the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. The board in
its opinion and decision contained in Decision No. 982, clearly indi-
cated its position with respect to this principle and for the purpose
of conserving time and space will refrain from repeating the ex-
pressions contained therein, but will refer the parties to this dispute
to said decision.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the contract entered into between the New York Central
Railroad Co. and the A. S. Hecker Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, herein-
before mentioned, is in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in
so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove said.
employees from the application of said act, and that those pro-
visions of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of said
employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board, to which the carrier was a party.
(2) That the employees referred to are under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and the
decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement, upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative, giving consideration to any question
that affects the right of the employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1218.-DOCKET 1666.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the right of the
Erie Railroad Co. to contract work which has heretofore been per-
formed by regular maintenance of way department employees.
20936°-23 44
684
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. On January 6, 1922, the United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers filed an ex
parte submission with the Labor Board protesting against action on
the part of the carrier in contracting certain work which has hereto-
fore been performed by regular maintenance of way employees.
The complaints so filed have been summarized as follows:
That section men were reduced to 30 cents per hour and their
working schedule reduced at some points to three days per week,
under the direction of the Owen Construction & Repair Co.;
That orders were issued October 14, 1921, by C. E. Stickles, super-
visor of crossings, turning over all crossing watchmen to the Owen
Construction & Repair Co., effective October 16, 1921;
That on October 29, 1921, William Possinger, track supervisor,
issued a letter addressed to section and assistant formen, advising
that, effective November 1, 1921, the Lincoln Engineering Corpora-
tion had contracted to do all maintenance work of the New York,
Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co., that the rates of section fore-
men and assistant foremen would remain the same, but that the track
men would be reduced 30 cents per hour; and, further, that all em-
ployees on these sections would work under the Lincoln Engineering
Corporation, but that the foremen and assistant foremen would con-
tinue making their reports to the supervisor's office as before.
A copy of the ex parte submission of the employees was trans-
mitted to the carrier, who takes the position that the crossing watch-
men, flagmen, trackmen, shop laborers, or other employees referred
to in the employees' submission, are employees either of the Owen
Construction & Repair Co., the Lincoln Engineering Corpora-
tion, or the Wagner Construction & Repair Co.; that these corpora-
tions are independent contractors, and that for the reasons set forth
in other cases submitted to the Labor Board, the carrier's position is
that there is no violation of section 301 or any other section of the
transportation act, 1920, or of Decision No. 120, Decision No. 147,
Decision No. 299, or of any other order or decision of the Labor
Board; and that the wages of the men concerned, being employees
of an independent contractor, are not within the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board.
Neither party to this controversy presented the Labor Board with
a copy of the contracts, and as the facts as complained of by the
employees were not disputed by the carrier, the board will proceed
to render its decision based upon the evidence in hand.
Both parties refrained from submitting voluminous data in con-
nection with this dispute and waived opportunity for oral presenta-
tion, it being the request of both the carrier and the employees that
the briefs filed and statements made in connection with previous
similar cases, which were heard on December 19 and 20, 1921, be made
a part of this record, as the principle involved in this case is similar
to cases heard on those dates.
In the previous cases referred to the carrier laid great stress upon
the legality of their action in entering into contracts for the per-
formance of work formerly performed by its employees. The car-
rier has previously taken the position that no man can be an em-
ployee of another person or corporation unless the relation has one
or more or perhaps all of these elements:
DECISIONS.
685
1) Power of selection and dismissal of employee.
(2) Payment of wages to employees.
(3) Control of the employees' action in the performance of the
work.
The carrier contended that the contracts left none of these matters
with the carrier; that they are all undertaken by and imposed upon
the contractor in each case, and that the relation of employee to the
carrier therefore does not exist under the contracts; further, that
there has been no evasion or violation in view of the terms of the act
and the rights of the carrier, as the contracts were lawfully made
with independent contractors, and the contracts and the wages and
working conditions of the employees are beyond the application of
the transportation act, 1920, and the jurisdiction of the Labor Board,
and that the board should so determine.
The employees take the position that the carrier has disregarded
the decisions and orders of the Labor Board by permitting the appli-
cation of contract work whereby the wages of employees were re-
duced, and that it has violated the provisions of the transportation
act, 1920, in so handling the matter. The employees request that the
wages and working conditions which properly apply to Erie Rail-
road Co. employees, by virtue of agreed rules and decisions of the
Labor Board, be made effective in all departments now under con-
tract, and that the employees be reimbursed for any wage loss
suffered by them through such alleged unauthorized wage reduction
or through their being out of service through operation of the
contract labor system.
(6
Opinion. The principle of contracting work involved in this
dispute is similar to that contained in Decision No. 982, in which
decision the Labor Board clearly set forth its opinion with respect
to this question. The board will not reiterate the opinion therein.
contained, but will refer the parties to this dispute to said Decision
No. 982. The nature of the work involved in this case is dissimilar
to the class of work performed by employees covered by Decision
No. 982, but this dissimilarity of work will not operate to change the
board's opinion with respect to the general question of contract.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the various contracts entered into between the Erie
Railroad Co. and the Owen Construction & Repair Co., the Lincoln
Engineering Corporation, and the Wagner Construction & Repair
Co. for the performance of certain work heretofore performed by
employees of the maintenance of way department, are in violation
of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are con-
strued by the carrier to remove said employees from the application
of said act, and that those provisions of the contracts affecting the
wages and working rules of said employees are in violation of
Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(2) That the maintenance of way employees of said contractors
are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the
application of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the
Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employees the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested
employee or his representative.
686
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1219.-DOCKET 1700.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Has the Erie Railroad Co. the right to transfer or
farm out their employees to contractors, without first seeking a
conference with their duly authorized committee, as provided in
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920?
Statement.-On January 6, 1922, a submission was filed with the
Labor Board in ex parte form by representatives of the American
Federation of Railroad Workers, wherein protest is made against
action taken on the part of the Erie Railroad Co. in turning over
their crossing watchmen, flagmen, and trackmen to the Lincoln En-
gineering Corporation, effective November 1, 1921, resulting in a
decrease in the rates of pay of said employees from 5 to 10 cents
per hour.
The contentions of the employees are summarized as follows:
(1) That the Erie Railroad Co. violated section 301 of the trans-
portation act, 1920, for their failure to confer with the employees'
duly authorized committee before they entered into the contract
with the Lincoln Engineering Corporation;
(2) That the Erie Railroad Co. violated Decision No. 120,
issued by the Labor Board under date of April 14, 1921, when they
turned the employees involved over to the Lincoln Engineering Cor-
poration; and
(3) That both the Erie Railroad Co. and the Lincoln Engineering
Corporation violated Decision No. 147, issued June 1, 1921, when they
put into effect rates of pay below those set forth in said Decision
No. 147.
The carrier's position is that the crossing watchmen, flagmen, and
trackmen referred to in the ex parte application for decision, filed by
the American Federation of Railroad Workers, are employees of
the Lincoln Engineering Corporation, an independent contractor,
and that there is no violation of section 301 or any other section of
the transportation act, 1920, or of Decision No. 120, Decision No. 147,
or any other order or decision of the Labor Board; and that the
wages of the men concerned, being the employees of an independent
contractor, are not within the jurisdiction of the Labor Board. The
carrier advanced lengthy legal argument as to its right in entering
into the contract referred to, which argument was very similar to
that advanced by the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad in connection
with dispute covered by Decision No. 982. A hearing was conducted
by the Labor Board on June 27, 1922, at which time oral evidence
was presented by both parties with regard to their respective posi-
tions.
Opinion. While the details involved in this case are not identical,
the question with respect to the principle of contracting certain work
previously performed by railway employees under the jurisdiction
of the carrier is in general the same as that embodied in Decision
No. 982. The board will not reiterate the position therein con-
tained, but will refer the parties to this dispute to said Decision
No. 982.
DECISIONS.
687
Decision. The Labor Board, therefore, decides:
(1) That the contract entered into between the Erie Railroad Co.
and the Lincoln Engineering Corporation for the performance of
certain work heretofore performed by employees of the maintenance
of way department is in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in
so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove said
employees from the application of said act, and that those provisions
of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of said em-
ployees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board.
(2) That the maintenance of way employees of said contractor
are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the
application of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the
Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employees the
matter of reinstatement upon application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1220.--DOCKET 1895.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contract which the New York Central Railroad
Co. has let for the cleaning of passenger cars and the handling of
baggage and mail at Toledo, Ohio, in violation of the transportation
act, 1920, and of the wages and rules decisions of the Railroad Labor
Board, and does said contract remove from under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board employees who, under said contract, are performing
work for the carrier?
Statement.—The following is quoted from the ex parte submission
filed with the Labor Board by representative of the above-named or-
ganization:
On or about December 20, 1921, a notice was posted, advising the coach
cleaners that at the expiration of five days their services would be dispensed
with. They were then informed that the work had been turned over to a con-
tractor; the same thing was done with the work performed by baggage-room em-
ployees and mail handlers. No conference was held with the representatives of
these men, neither was any decision rendered by the Labor Board, which we
contend was a violation of the transportation act of 1920, as well as many
decisions of the board.
We also contend that it is a mere subterfuge and was done to avoid Decision
No. 2, as the coach cleaners were placed on a piecework basis, while the other
men referred to were reduced to 30 cents per hour, which is a great deal less
than your board has ruled as being fair and reasonable wages.
We further contend that the men affected by this reduction should be reim-
bursed for the difference between what they have actually earned and the
wages your board has ruled as being fair and reasonable.
The following is quoted from the submission of the carrier with
respect to this case:
The New York Central Railroad Co., answering the ex parte sub-
mission of the above-named American Federation of Railroad Work-
ers, respectfully alleges as follows:
688
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(1) In December, 1921, the New York Central Railroad Co. en-
tered into an agreement with the A. S. Hecker Co. of Cleveland, Ohio,
under the terms of which the latter contracted to handle the clean-
ing of passenger equipment in connection with operation of Union
Depot, Toledo, Ohio. The A. S. Hecker Co. is acting under the pro-
visions of the agreement and, in all respects, is an independent con-
tractor performing for the carrier the work contemplated by the
agreement.
(2) In January, 1922, the New York Central Railroad Co. entered
into an agreement with L. W. Keefe, of Toledo, Ohio, under the
terms of which the latter contracted to handle baggage and United
States mail in connection with the operation of the Union Depot,
Toledo, Ohio. L. W. Keefe is acting under the provisions of the
agreement and, in all respects, is an independent contractor perform-
ing for the carrier the work contemplated by the agreement.
(3) The carrier has no privity of relationship whatsoever with
the individuals employed by the contractor, and the said individuals
are neither legally nor actually employees of the carrier.
(4) The action taken by the carrier is within its legal right and in
the interest of economical and efficient management, and without
intention or purpose to evade or defeat the provisions of the trans-
portation act or the decisions of the Railroad Labor Board.
(5) That there is no existing dispute between the carrier and the
employees directly interested of the nature contemplated by law for
decision by the Railroad Labor Board.
Wherefore, the New York Central Railroad Company respectfully prays
that the petition herein be dismissed.
Opinion.-Although not identical, the principle involved in this
case is similar to that involved in Decision No. 982, dispute between
the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop
Crafts) and the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. The Labor
Board in its opinion and decision contained in Decision No. 982
clearly indicated its position with respect to this principle and for
the purpose of conserving time and space will refrain from repeating
the expressions contained therein, but will refer the parties to this
dispute to said decision.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) That the contracts entered into between the New York Cen-
tral Railroad Co. and the A. S. Hecker Co., of Cleveland, Ohio,
and L. W. Keefe, of Toledo, Ohio, respectively, for the cleaning
of passenger cars and the handling of mail and baggage, is in vio-
lation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purport
or are construed by the carrier to remove said employees from the
application of said act, and that those provisions of the contracts
affecting the wages and working rules of said employees are in vio-
lation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(2) That the employees referred to are under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and
the decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employees the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISIONS.
689
DECISION NO. 1221-DOCKET 2235.
Chicago, Ill., September 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question. The following question was submitted to the Railroad
Labor Board in ex parte form by the above-named organization:
Has the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. the right to contract the
painting of buildings, water tanks and bridges, the driving of piles and other
bridge-construction work, the construction and repair of turntables, the
right of way fencing, the redecking of viaducts and other bridge-and-building-
department work while its regular bridge-and-building-department forces are
laid off and idle because of such work being contracted?
Decision. At oral hearing conducted June 27, 1922, the Labor
Board was advised that a mutually satisfactory agreement had been
reached, and further action on the part of the Labor Board was not
necessary or desired.
The docket is, therefore, closed.
DECISION NO. 1222.-DOCKET 985.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question.-Right of the carrier to contract work performed by
unskilled laborers at Perry, Iowa.
Statement.-A contract was entered into on January 3, 1921, be-
tween the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. and Addison
Miller, contractor, covering work performed at coaling stations,
locomotive cinder pits, sand houses, and roundhouses. On January
11, 1921, all work performed by unskilled laborers at Perry engine
terminal was taken over by the contractor, who was paid for having
the work performed on the basis of engines dispatched, and the un-
skilled laborers were taken over and continued in the employ of
the contractor.
The representatives of the employees contend that the carrier is
not within its rights in reducing the wages of employees, under the
contract method, below the rate stated for the class of employees
involved coming under Decision No. 2; that all the employees in-
volved have been reduced under the contract method; and that many
of them have lost time through the transaction and some were dis-
charged. Request is therefore made for reinstatement and pay for
all time lost, as well as the reestablishment of rates to conform with
the Labor Board's orders.
The representatives of the carrier contend, among other things,
that the Labor Board does not have jurisdiction in this case, and
that the employees of the contractor are no longer the employees
of the carrier and, therefore, do not fall within the provisions of
the transportation act, 1920.
690
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion. The position of the Labor Board with regard to the
general question of contracting work such as herein described has
been clearly set forth in decisions previously rendered on this subject;
however, the board desires to repeat in substance, in this specific
case, what it has stated in other cases prior to this decision.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(1) The contract entered into between the Chicago, Milwaukee &
St. Paul Railway Co. and Addison Miller, contractor, covering work
performed by unskilled laborers at Perry, Iowa, engine terminal, is
in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports
or is construed by the carrier to remove said employees from the
application of said act, and that the provisions of the contract affect-
ing the wages and working rules of said employees are in violation
of Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
(2) The employees of said contractor engaged in the performance
of the work herein referred to are under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board and subject to the application of the transportation
act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1223.-DOCKET 986.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Question. Contention of the employees that the carrier is not
within its rights in cutting the wages of employees, under the con-
tract method, below the rate set out for classes of employees involved
in this dispute and coming under Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
Statement. This docket covers the specific claim of A. J. Edel,
who, prior to April 5, 1921, was employed as coal passer at Mont-
gomery, Minn.
Decision. At the hearing held on this docket the parties at inter-
est by mutual consent agreed to withdraw the case.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1224.-DOCKET 1975.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Question. Protest against the carrier's action in discharging all
hostlers and hostler helpers and contracting all hostling jobs.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts. The representatives of the employees state that effective
December 10, 1921, the management of the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western
Railroad Co. placed the positions of hostlers at the various terminals under the
jurisdiction of a firm of contractors without calling in or having conference
DECISIONS.
691
with the representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine-
men, which organization holds a contract with the carrier for such positions,
which covered conditions and hours of service, rates of pay, etc.
The contracting firm lengthened the hours of service, reduced the rates of pay,
and eliminated punitive overtime. In some instances, former hostlers refused
to work under the new conditions and new men were employed; in other in-
stances, former hostlers accepted positions under the changed conditions and
the reduced rates.
Employees' position.-That the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad
Co., in order to get this class of employees from under the jurisdiction of the
Railroad Labor Board, evolved the plan of subletting this service to a so-called
firm of contractors, with the idea of lowering the rates of pay, lengthening the
hours of service, and abolishing punitive overtime.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen held a contract
covering the services of hostlers in which was embodied rules and working con-
ditions, hours of service, rates of pay, etc.
We hold that this carrier violated the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen's contract as well as the transportation act, 1920, and Decision
No. 299 of the Labor Board, which was a rule promulgated by the board,
which reads as follows:
First, when any change of wages or contracts or rules, previously in effect,
are contemplated or proposed by either party, conference must be had as
directed by the transportation act and by rules or decisions of procedure pro-
mulgated by the board; where agreements are not reached the dispute must be
brought before this board, and no action taken or change made until authorized
by the board ”—
in that no notice was served and no conference was had relative to change in
rates of pay, hours of service, and that contractual rights were to be trans-
ferred from the carrier to a "firm of contractors"; nor was application made
by the carrier to the Labor Board for such authorization.
We further hold that hostlers are now employed on this property and have
been since this contract became effective, and that the Cincinnati, Indianapolis
& Western Railroad Co. had no right to enter into a contract with any so-called
contracting firm, when they already had a contract with the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen for hostlers, without first going to the
Labor Board, and not then unless permitted to do so by an order of the board.
You will note in General Superintendent M. V. Hynes' letter to the two
general chairmen, which is Exhibit B [on file with the Labor Board], that
he says:
"We do not feel we have violated any law, any contract, or any
order of the Labor Board, in taking any action we have, as we reserve the
right to ourselves to operate economically, and therefore we can not do as you
request."
We contend that this statement means that the Cincinnati, Indianapolis &
Western Railroad Co. would break any contract with these organizations if
they thought it was an economical arrangement, regardless of the fact that the
Labor Board has already ordered what rates shall be paid hostlers and others
covered by our contracts with the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Rail-
road Co., and Mr. Hynes has said that the economy, in so far as the hostlers
were concerned, amounted to hardly anything.
We further contend that this action of the carrier is not in keeping with
President Worthington's promise made to the board on October 26, 1921, at
Chicago; that hostlers should be restored to their former positions; that the
previous rates of pay should be restored to hostlers; that the former hours of
service should be restored to hostlers; that the difference between the rates
paid by the contractor and the rates ordered by the Labor Board be paid
those hostlers retained in the service; that time and one-half should be paid
to all the former hostlers employed by the contractor, required by the con-
tractor to work in excess of eight hours; and that all hostlers should be fully
paid for all time lost at former rates where removed from the service.
Carrier's position.-Effective December 10, 1921, the management of the Cin-
cinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co. contracted with Hammond &
Jeffers, a contracting firm of Kansas City, Mo., to perform the work of dis-
patching engines at its various terminals, this work having previously been done
by the carrier itself.
They were prompted to contract this work by the fact that in so doing they
saved $2,000 per month; and in order to operate economically, in accordance
with the transportation act, 1920, this appeared to be the proper thing to do.
692
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
For years certain work on railroads has been contracted from time to time-
namely, repairs of bridges and renewal of bridges-when it was economical to
do so.
The present case does not differ in any way from the former practice,
except that this particular work was never heretofore contracted. There is
nothing in the schedules with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen which would prohibit the
carrier from contracting certain work.
We contend that we are within our rights under the law in attempting to
operate economically, inasmuch as this carrier has not made its operating ex-
penses in any one month during the past year, and every effort must be made by
the management to conserve its resources. The Labor Board could hardly criti-
cize the management of any railroad for taking advantage of an opportunity
to save $2,000 per month on a small job such as the dispatchment of engines
when the official records of the company show that the road has not been
earning its operating expenses.
Opinion. The question involved in this dispute is similar to other
cases involving the question of contracts that have been submitted
to and decided by the Labor Board.
The position of the board with regard to the question of contract-
ing work is fully set out in Decision No. 982; therefore, it is not
deemed necessary to elaborate on this case.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
(1) That the contract entered into between the Cincinnati, In-
dianapolis & Western Railroad Co. and a firm of contractors known
as Hammond & Jeffers, covering the dispatching of engines at va-
rious terminals, is in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so
far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove employees
from the application of said act, and the provisions of the contract
affecting the wages and working rules of said employees are in vio-
lation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(2) The hostlers and hostler helpers of said contractors are under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Board, and subject to the application
of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1225.-DOCKET 1696.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contracting of carrier's shops and facilities at
Oelwein, Iowa, to the A. S. Hecker Co. a violation of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, and an attempt to evade the jurisdiction of and
several decisions of the Labor Board?
Statement.—The representative of the employees states that at
the carrier's shops at Oelwein there were formerly employed in the
six crafts approximately 800 men-the shops are the back shops
owned by the carrier where heavy repairs are performed. During
the year 1921 the Oelwein shops were closed intermittently; that is,
the men worked for a few weeks and then were laid off for several
weeks; altogether they worked about six months between the periods
of January 1 and December 1, 1921.
DECISIONS.
693
The employees also state that on July 1, 1921, the general manager
requested a conference with the representatives of the employees in
the mechanical department at Oelwein, at which time the general
manager advised them that unless the employees would agree to work
piecework where it was considered practical, it would be necessary
to lease the facilities to a contractor who would install piecework,
and under date of July 12, 1921, the representatives of the employees
advised the general manager that inasmuch as the question of piece-
work was a matter of controversy, and had been submitted to the
Labor Board for decision, they were unable to discuss the question
unless the joint submission then before the board was withdrawn.
It is further stated that-
On October 13, 1921, five days after the issuance of Addendum No. 3 to
Decision No. 222, and while the Oelwein shops were closed the general manager
called the representatives of the employees into conference at Oelwein and
informed them that he desired the employees to withdraw from the Labor
Board the dispute upon the question of piecework as contained in rule 1,
submitted to the Labor Board under date of June 1, 1921, and agree to permit
the carrier without further question to introduce the piecework system at all
points and in all crafts; and further stated that he would open the shops for
two weeks to permit the men affected to deliberate on his proposition. On
October 26, 1921, the representatives of the employees informed the general
manager that under date of October 8, 1921, the Labor Board had rendered a
decision upon the question of piecework, and it was therefore not within the
power of the employees to grant his request of the 13th. The shops were
opened on October 17 and closed again on October 29, 1921.
On November 25, 1921, the shops being still closed, the department foremen
were called into the office of the superintendent of shops and car department,
respectively (the foremen being kept at work while the men were laid off),
and questioned as to how many of the men would be willing to return to work
under open-shop conditions; that is, under conditions where no labor organiza-
tions or agreements are recognized. All the department foremen were then
sent out on the streets of the city and to the homes of the men to solicit them
and obtain the names of those who were willing to return to work under the
so-called open-shop conditions. They promised the men that if they would
return to work under the above conditions they would receive the same rates
of pay as they received on the date they were laid off (which were the rates
prescribed in Decision No. 147); they further advised the men that unless they
agreed to return to work under conditions herein mentioned the shops would
be leased to a contractor.
On November 29 or 30 the local newspaper, Oelwein Register, announced
that the shops were leased to the A. S. Hecker Co., and would be opened on
December 1 by said company; the paper further stated that the clerical force
and the foremen employed by the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co. at the
Oelwein shops would be retained by the A. S. Hecker Co. at their old rates of
pay, while the mechanics, apprentices, and helpers would receive a slight
reduction in wages.
On November 30 the department foremen and gang foremen employed in
the Oelwein shops were called into the office of the superintendent of motive
power and advised that their services were no longer needed by the carrier,
and that they would be discharged effective December 5, 1921. They were
then given a leave of absence to enable them to take service with the A. S.
Hecker Co., which they all did immediately.
On December 1, 1921, the Oelwein shops were opened under the A. S. Hecker
Co., most of the carrier's employees furloughed on October 29 being employed.
These men were required to fill out an application blank. The blank used was
the carrier's Form No. 100, with a line drawn through the words
"Chicago
Great Western Railroad Co." and the words "A. S. Hecker Co." typed on the
form in their stead. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, tinsmiths, coach
carpenters, pattern makers, cabinetmakers, and painters were hired back at
67 cents per hour and their helpers at 40 cents per hour; freight carmen and
pipe fitters at 50 cents per hour and their helpers at 35 cents per hour (these
are the rates presented by the carrier to its employees in its request for a
reduction of wages under date of November 17, 1921). The men upon return-
694
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ing to work were informed that there would be no separation of work into
craft divisions and they would be required to do whatever they were told.
The following officers were retained in the service of the carrier on its own
pay roll: E. J. Brennan, superintendent of motive power; A. B. Clark, super-
intendent of shops; E. H. Hall, superintendent of car department; O. P. Larson,
chief clerk to superintendent of motive power; S. E. Cotnam, accountant;
G. H. Johnson, chief clerk to superintendent of car department; J. L. Feemster,
general storekeeper; E. Dupray, chief clerk to general storekeeper. All other
clerks and office forces were transferred to the A. S. Hecker Co. pay roll. Not-
withstanding this fact, they are supervised and given orders by the aforesaid
chief clerks. All store department foremen on the A. S. Hecker Co. pay roll
report directly to and receive orders directly from the general storekeeper, who
is a Great Western employee.
The Oelwein shops are operated in the same manner as they were when
operated directly by the carrier. On December 7, the acetylene welder on the
repair track at Oelwein, operated by the carrier, became sick. W. Trotter,
an acetylene welder working in the Oelwein shops and on the Hecker pay
roll, was sent out on the repair track to take this man's place although
Trotter is supposed to be an employee of the contractor. The superintendent
of shops, who is on the carrier's pay roll, issues orders directly to the general
foreman of the locomotive department who is on the A. S. Hecker Co.'s pay
roll, in the same manner as he always did. He also consults with and issues
instructions to the foremen of the various departments in just the same manner
as when the shops were operated directly by the carrier. Likewise the superin-
tendent of car department on the carrier's pay roll consults with and instructs
the general foreman and department foreman in that department who are on
the Hecker Co.'s pay roll.
The mechanical engineer, F. W. Stubbs, and his force of assistants are
still employed by the carrier but consult with and are constantly consulted
by foreman, now said to be working for the contractor, as well as with the
carrier's officials.
The A. S. Hecker Co. has two men located in the office of the superintendent
of motive power-Mr. Reynolds, who is nominally superintendent but who
has no experience and take no active part in the operation of the shops, and
Mr. Chambliss, who acts in the capacity of head timekeeper.
All material used in the Oelwein shops, all tolls used and renewed, are
furnished by the carrier. The plant is owned by the carrier. All that actually
happens in the operation of the shops is that the A. S. Hecker Co's name
is used instead of the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co., and the em-
ployees are paid by checks issued by A. S. Hecker Co., who receive a per-
centage over and above the actual pay roll.
As another instance of the fact that the carrier is still in fact operating these
shops and only using the name of the A. S. Hecker Co. as a screen, we cite
the following case: J. Gorman, machinist, and A. C. Benson, machinist helper,
while working for the carrier last August, did some overtime work for which
they were not properly paid. The employees' representative presented to the
carrier their claim for the back pay, and these two men are now working
for the Hecker Co. at the Oelwein shops. Under date of January 14, 1922,
A. B. Clark, superintendent of shops, employed by the carrier, wrote George
Wright, the employees' representative, that these men would be given back
pay, and that it would be put on their pay roll for the first period in January.
This shows that the A. S. Hecker Co. pay roll is really only the carrier's
pay roll.
The representatives of the carrier take the position that the Labor
Board is without jurisdiction to pass upon or consider the right of
a carrier to determine when and under what circumstances it will
perform certain of its work or will contract to have the same done
by others; however, under date of June 30, 1922, at the hearing held
on Docket 2387, a representative of the carrier stated that—
Within the past 48 hours the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co. received
from the Labor Board its decisions in the three proceedings before the board,
to wit: The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks v. the Railroad
Co., Docket 1260; the Railway Employees' Brotherhood of Federated Shop
Crafts v. the Railroad Co., Docket 1219; the United Brotherhood of Mainte-
nance of Way Employees v. the Railroad Co., Docket 601.
DECISIONS.
695
At the time these proceedings were instituted the Chicago Great Western
Railroad Co. was having certain work performed for it by contract because it
was able to have such work done by contract at a less cost than it could per-
form the work for itself.
It was the opinion of the railroad company that under such circumstances
it was its duty to have the work done by contract, not only because it owed
such duty to its stockholders, but also because the transportation act required
it to operate its property as economically and efficiently as possible.
Each of the foregoing proceedings involved the legal right of the company
to make or continue such contracts.
As was stated by the board in each of the decisions, it was the position of
the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co. that—
"No jurisdiction had been vested in the Railroad Labor Board by the trans-
portation act to determine when and under what circumstances the railroad
company might have its work done by contract; that the right of the railroad
to employ contractors for the purposes aforesaid was a noncontroversial ques-
tion."
For that reason the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co., in its communica-
tions with respect to the subject matter, said to the Labor Board that “with-
out intending to show the slightest disrespect to the Labor Board or any of its
members, and for the purpose of preserving in the best way its legal rights as
it understands them," it would not attend and would not be represented at the
hearings in any of the three proceedings.
The company considered that its legal position on the subject matter was
sound. It still adheres to that position, to wit, that the board was and is
without jurisdiction under the act to prohibit the company from having work
of the character involved performed in the most economical way.
However, the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co. believes that there is
involved in the proceedings before the board to-day a much larger question
than the discussion of technical legal rights. The executive officers and board
of directors of the company believe that in the passage of the transportation
act the Congress of the United States was inspired by an earnest effort to
initiate and develop a method by which industrial strife could be prevented.
The company is in sympathy with that purpose, as the company believes that
both it and its employees should cooperate in every reasonable way with the
Government, not only in attempting to work harmoniously under the plan now
in existence, but also to help to develop that plan into a perfect policy.
Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the company still believes that its
legal position with respect to contract work was and is unquestionably sound,
and without waiving its legal rights in the premises, it proposes to cooperate
with the board so far as it can. It will, therefore, take immediate steps to
cancel the contracts in question.
Opinion. The question involved in this dispute is similar to other
cases in which the contract question was involved with this carrier,
and which have been decided by recent decisions.
The position of the Labor Board with regard to questions of this
nature is clearly set forth in the decisions above referred to, and
while the carrier has stated that the contract would be canceled, the
board nevertheless desires to restate its position in this case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides-
(1) That the contract entered into between the Chicago Great
Western Railroad Co. and the A. S. Hecker Co. covering the shops
and facilities at Oelwein, Iowa, is in violation of the transportation
act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to
remove employees from the application of said act, and the pro-
visions of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of the
employees in question are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119 and
147 of the Labor Board.
(2) The mechanical department employees of said contractor are
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the appli-
cation of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor
Board.
696
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative, giving consideration to any question
that affects the right of the employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1226.-DOCKET 2088.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question. Is the carrier within its rights when it lets out by
contract its maintenance of way work, which contract has for its
principal purpose the evasion of the transportation act, 1920, and a
reduction in the pay of employees?
Statement. The representatives of the employees state that on
March 23, 1922, the employees in the maintenance of way depart-
ment—that it, the track and bridge and building departments--were
served with a notice that effective at 12 o'clock midnight, March 31,
1922, their services would not be required. The notice reads as
follows:
CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAd Co.,
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT,
St. Paul, Minn., March 23, 1922.
All Section Foremen, Extra Gang Foremen, Section Laborers, Extra Gang
Laborers, Bridge and Building Foremen, Bridge and Building Carpenters
and Helpers:
This is notice to you that effective at 12 o'clock midnight, March 31, 1922,
your services will not be required by the Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
in its maintenance of way and structures department, as work in that depart-
ment will not be conducted by the railroad company thereafter.
Circular No. 903.
S. V. ROWLAND, Superintendent.
On the same day these employees received notice from the A. S.
Hecker Co., contractors, that on and after April 1, 1922, the A. S.
Hecker Co. would operate all the maintenance of way work and that
the working day would be 10 hours, foremen to receive $110.20 per
month and laborers to receive 27 cents per hour.
The representatives of the employees contend that the foregoing
is a violation of the Labor Board's Decisions Nos. 2, 147, and 501.
and a flagrant violation of the spirit and letter of section 301 of the
transportation act, 1920; that as there was a wage dispute before
the Labor Board at the time the contract was made the carrier is
not acting in good faith in trying to reduce wages by such subter-
fuge and not awaiting the decision from the Labor Board; and
further, that the men discharged should be placed in their former
jobs and be paid for all time lost.
The representatives of the carrier contend that the Labor Board
does not have jurisdiction in this case to determine when the carrier
should have work done for it by contract or should perform such
work itself; however, under date of August 24, 1922, in a communica-
tion replying to a letter from the board, dated August 17, 1922, in
DECISIONS.
697
which the status of this case was questioned, the carrier stated in
part:
That irrespective of the status of the proceeding in docket No. 2088, the
carrier has in good faith carried out the declaration that its general counsel
made to the board on June 30 last to the effect that it would abandon, without
prejudice to its legal rights in the premises, the contracting system complained
of; and that there has since come to the attention of the general officers of the
carrier no instance of any employee affected having made application for re-
instatement which was denied.
Opinion. This case is similar to other contract cases which have
already been decided by the Labor Board; therefore, it is not felt
necessary to elaborate on this opinion or go into detail as to the
board's position on the general question of contracts.
Decision. The Labor Board, therefore, decides:
(1) That the contract entered into between the Chicago Great
Western Railroad Co. and the A. S. Hecker Co. covering all of the
maintenance of way work is in violation of the transportation act,
1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove
certain employees from the application of said act, and that those
provisions of the contracts affecting the wages and working rules
of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147
of the Labor Board.
(2) That the maintenance of way employees of said contractor
are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the
application of the transportation act, 1920, and Decision No. 147.
(3) The carrier is directed to take up with any employees the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1227.-DOCKET 2268.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Pennsylvania System.
Question.-(a) What is the proper compensation for time worked
beyond 10 hours from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(b) What is the proper compensation for time worked on Sundays
and designated holidays by regular six-day assigned employees from
July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(c) What is the proper compensation for employees released from
duty and notified or called to perform work outside of and not con-
tinuous with regular working hours from July 1, 1921, to February
16, 1922, inclusive?
Decision. The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from the in-
terested parties that the questions in dispute have been amicably ad-
justed and that no further action on the part of the board is neces-
sary or desired.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1228.-DOCKET 2475.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question. What is considered running repair work as referred to
in rule 6 of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222, for which em-
698
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ployees receive straight-time pay for work performed on Sundays
and holidays?
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from repre-
sentatives of the complainant organization that the dispute in ques-
tion has been amicably adjusted and that no further action on the
part of the board is necessary or desired.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1229.-DOCKET 2243.
Chicago, Ill., September 9, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.; Lake Erie
& Eastern Railroad.
Question.-Shall the rules and practices in effect prior to April 1,
1922, pertaining to vacations with pay and pay for time absent ac-
count of sickness for employees in clerical and station service, remain
in effect until such time as rules in lieu thereof are agreed upon by
the employees and carrier or decided by the Labor Board?
Decision.-Yes.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We dissent from the decision reached by a majority of the board
in Docket 2243, for the reason that the carrier should not neces-
sarily be governed by "rules and practices in effect prior to April 1,
1922," but should be governed in the matter of payment for vacations
and time lost account of sickness by "rules and practices in effect
prior to January 1, 1918."
At the hearing held on this docket on June 19, 1922, the representa-
tives of the organization involved in this dispute, stated:
We are making this dispute, as I stated before, under the past practice as of
January 1, 1918; Interpretation No. 16 to Supplement No. 7 to the national
agreement; Decision No. 2; and Decision No. 119 and Addendum No. 2.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The ex parte application for decision presented to the Labor Board
by the employees in this case is quoted below:
BROTHERIIOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS
AND STATION EMPLOYEES V. PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD CO.; LAKE ERIE
& EASTERN RAILROAD.
Question.-Request that practice of granting clerical forces sick leave with
pay be continued.
Statement.-The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, the rules
of which govern the working conditions of the class of employees involved in
this dispute, does not contain any specific rule covering sick leave, but under
date of January 30, 1920, the director, division of operation, United States
Railroad Administration, issued the following instructions:
Many questions have arisen as to payment of time lost account of vacations
and sick leave by employees covered by the national agreement with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, dated January 13, 1920. The agreement is silent on this
DECISIONS.
699
point, but it was the understanding that existing practices as to sick leave and
vacations would remain in effect. Please have this understood by Federal
managers."
Prior to the effective date of the clerks' national agreement it was the prac-
tice on the railroads in question to grant annual vacations and sick leave with
pay to clerical employees. On April 1, 1922, instructions were issued by Vice
President and General Manager J. B. Yohe to the effect that sick leave with pay
would not be granted to clerical forces subject to overtime for service in excess
of eight hours per day and six days per week.
At conference held subsequent to the issuance of these instructions the
management and the representatives of the employees were unable to effect a
settlement of the dispute. The management refused to join with the repre-
sentatives of the employees in a submission of the dispute to the United States
Railroad Labor Board for hearing and decision.
Employees' Contention.-We contend that inasmuch as it has been the prac
tice to grant sick leave with pay to clerical forces, such employees are still
entitled to sick leave with pay, and that this practice should not have been
rescinded by the carrier unless agreed to by the employees or so decided by the
Labor Board. We do therefore request that the carrier be directed to continue
this practice until such time as a new agreement is negotiated covering this
class of employees.
The representatives of the employees request that they be given an oppor-
tunity to make oral presentation at time of hearing of this dispute.
For the employees:
Approved May 25, 1922.
W. N. WILLIAMS, General Chairman.
E. H. FITZGERALD, Grand President.
At the hearing held by the Labor Board on June 19, 1922, the rep-
resentative of the organization made the following statement:
Mr. Examiner, on or before April 1, 1922, the following notice was posted in
all offices of the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie and the Lake Erie & Eastern
Railroads:
“PITTSBURGH, PA., April 1, 1922.
Messrs. F. G. MINNICK, A. R. RAYMER, L. H. TURNER, J. B. NESSLE, W. M.
DOULIN, A. P. BIXLER, C. M. YOHE, J. C. GROOMS, C. W. ALLEMAN, H. R.
RICHARDSON, L. A. LEE, C. H. DUFF, E. E. SMITH, W. S. SHAW.
GENTLEMEN: Effective at once, no vacation or sick leave with pay will be
granted for clerical forces subject to overtime payment for service in excess
of eight hours per day and six days per week.
For the present, no change will be made in the existing practice of granting
Saturday half holiday when the work of the office will permit, it being under-
stood that such employees will be required to work Saturday afternoon as
may be necessary to keep up the work of the office.
Will you please be governed accordingly and acknowledge receipt?
Yours very truly,
J. B. YOHE."
Under date of April 4, 1922, a communication was addressed to Mr. J. B.
Yohe, vice president and general manager, stating that the representatives of
the employees held this action to be a violation of the national agreement,
and requesting the recall of the notice and continuation of the past practice, or,
failing in that, that date be set for conference in connection therewith.
Communication was received from the vice president and general manager
under date of April 5, 1922, advising that the matter had been referred to
F. G. Minnick, assistant general manager, who would name a date for con-
ference.
Under date of April 6, 1922, communication was received from Mr. Minnick,
advising that he would meet the committee on Wednesday, April 12, 1922, at
9 a. m.
Conference was duly held on April 12, 1922, at which time the management
refused to continue practice of allowing sick leave and vacations with pay.
The above written and oral presentation of the employees clearly
contemplates the restoration of the practice as to vacations and sick
leave in effect prior to April 1, 1922. The Labor Board has con-
20936°-23- -45
700
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
sistently held that when any changes of wages or contracts or rules
previously in effect are contemplated or proposed by either party,
conference must be had as directed by rules or decisions of pro-
cedure promulgated by the board and by the transportation act,
1920, and where agreements are not reached, dispute must be brought
before the Labor Board, and no action taken or change made until
authorized by the board. This decision is consistent with this posi-
tion of the board.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1230.-DOCKET 941.
Chicago, Ill., October 5, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Question.-Was the management of the St. Louis-San Francisco
Railway Co. within its rights in entering into personal contracts for
positions of pumpers and coal passers?
Statement. The evidence indicates that during the early part of
1921 the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. posted the following
notice, which covers one of their pumping stations, similar notices
having been posted at other pumping stations:
The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. desires to contract the pumping of
water at Miami, Okla., and will receive bids for same.
All who desire to bid must, in a way, qualify for the position, the company
reserving the right to reject any or all bids offered.
It must be understood anyone bidding, and bid accepted, will be responsible
for a full supply of water in tank, both day and night. The company will
furnish all facilities and maintain same. Will also furnish all fuel and other
necessary supplies for the operation of pumping station. The contractor to
furnish his personal services only, for the proper care of machinery and the
pumping of water, and the proper washing out of boiler under the direction
of the water service foreman. Payments for this service will be made monthly
by voucher.
Those who wish to bid on the above confer with the agent, and have him
mail your bid to Mr. S. E. Melton, general foreman B. & B. and W. S., Fort
Scott, Kans.
Bids open for 10 days from date of this notice.
FORT SCOTT, KANS., March 18, 1921.
S. E. MELTON,
General Foreman B. & B. and W. S.
It is shown that several bids were filed by employees then holding
the positions of pumpers, to which the positions were awarded, while
in other cases employees were displaced by outsiders whose bids were
accepted by the carrier.
The employees whose bids were accepted were required by the
management to sign the following agreement:
This agreement entered into this
Mr.
of
day of
1921, by and between
and the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. whereby
agrees to operate the water-pumping station belonging to the rail-
way company located at
Mr.
Mr.
agrees that he will perform all necessary labor in connection with
operation of the pumping station or will employ only competent labor to assist
him. That he will make necessary minor repairs, which he may be able to
make with the facilities available, such repairs being necessary for the proper
operation of the pumping station; that in case of breakdown or in case pumping
DECISIONS.
701
operation is interfered with, he will immediately make report of same to the
chief dispatcher by filing message at telegraph office at station where plant is
located; that he will at all times make every possible effort to keep sufficient
water on hand to avoid delays to trains of the railway company.
Mr.
further agrees that in payment for service above referred to he
will receive and accept the sum of $
per month and from this sum he will
pay for all labor necessary to assist him in the proper operation of the pumping
station as referred to in second paragraph of this agreement.
It is jointly agreed that this agreement will remain in effect for a period of
one year from date unless terminated by either party giving the other party 30
days' written notice of intention to terminate the same.
Accepted.
Accepted.
By
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY Co.
Superintendent.
On February 25, 1921, the general chairman representing the em-
ployees addressed a communication to the president of the carrier
protesting the action of the carrier in entering into individual con-
tracts referred to, taking the position that such action was in viola-
tion of the national agreement in effect at that time. Numerous com-
munications were passed between the representatives of the manage-
ment and representatives of the employees, and on June 22, 1921, a
conference was held between representatives of the respective parties,
but no agreement was reached. Upon failure to agree upon a settle-
ment of the case the matter was referred to the United States Rail-
road Labor Board for decision.
It is the contention of the employees that the action on the part of
the carrier was in violation of the national agreement, in that the
scope of said agreement specifically mentions pumpers, and that each
employee covered by said agreement was under a contract with the
company which provided that there would be no change until after
30 days' notice has been given in writing. The employees further
contend that the action on the part of the management in displacing
regular assigned employees has resulted in wages being reduced arbi-
trarily and seniority rights of such employees ignored. Further,
that such action is in direct violation of section 301, transportation
act, 1920, in that the duly accredited representatives of the employees
were not consulted prior to the aforesaid action by the management;
that it was in violation of Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, in that
wages established by the provisions of that decision have been arbi-
trarily reduced; and that the action on the part of the management is
a device to evade the obligations of Title III of the transportation
act and Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
The representatives of the employees request that the employees
affected by the action of the carrier be reinstated to their respec-
tive positions with full seniority rights and paid for all time lost,
or the difference between the old rate and the new rate which may
have been earned by such employees who remained in the service, as
back pay.
The following is quoted from the carrier's position:
We have been unable to agree with the employees' contention that there has
been any violation of the transportation act, the national agreement, or
Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board. At no time have we attempted to re-
duce the rates of pay of any class of employees covered by the maintenance
of way national agreement or Decision No. 2, except through an orderly process
702
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
which resulted in certain reductions being made as enumerated in Decision
No. 147 of the Labor Board.
It is quite true, as previously stated, that in some instances certain of our
pumping plants were contracted. In arranging such contracts they have been
handled on the same basis as all other contract work. Public notices were
placed requesting bids on this work and the contract awarded to lowest bid-
der. The employees were at no time approached to accept a reduction in pay,
nor were they coerced or forced to sign any document. Any employee of the
company had the privilege under public notice to enter his bid covering the
operation of pumping plant on the same basis as a nonemployee.
The right of contract under conditions of this kind has never heretofore
been questioned. In some instances it has been found more economical to
secure our source of supply from municipal plant, which is clearly on a con-
tract basis, and such action has never been questioned. The management
of this property felt it to be its solemn duty in keeping with the transporta-
tion act to operate certain of its pumping plants in as economical and efficient
manner as possible, which could be accomplished, as before stated, on con-
tract basis.
Opinion. This dispute is somewhat different from other disputes
filed with the Labor Board involving the general principle of con-
tracting work. The contracts referred to in this dispute are so-
called individual contracts," while other contracts have been en-
tered into with firms or corporations. Attention is called to Deci-
sion No. 982 of the Labor Board which covers a dispute between the
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop
Crafts), and the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. While that
case is by no means analogous to the one covered herein, the posi-
tion of the board with respect to the general principle involved also
applies in this case and should be so accepted and considered. The
principle with respect to contracting as well as the apparent non-
conformity with the purpose and intent of the transportation act
and decisions of the Labor Board is much more pronounced in the
so-called individual contracts than in the contracts with firms or cor-
porations, and for this reason the board wishes to strongly emphasize
its position taken in the Indiana Harbor Belt case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides--
(a) That the so-called "individual contracts" between the indi-
vidual employees and the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. are
in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purport
or are construed by the carrier to remove said employees from the
application of said act, and that those provisions of the contracts
affecting the wages and working rules of said employees are in viola-
tion of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the employees are under the jurisdiction of the Labor
Board and subject to the application of the transportation act, 1920,
and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1231.-DOCKET 1419.
Chicago, Ill., October 5, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Question.-The question in dispute is with respect to the carrier
contracting certain work in connection with the maintenance of track
DECISIONS.
703
formerly performed by extra gang considered as employees of the
carrier.
The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Prior to May 30, 1921, an extra gang under the
supervision of Foreman Walter Davidson was working on the southern division
of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. and were engaged in surfacing
track, the laborers being paid 45 cents per hour. The railway company
entered into contract with the Walch Construction Co., contract dated June 18,
1921, to surface track in that territory, and the gang was laid off.
Employees' position.-We contend that the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway
Co. discharged the laborers employed in extra gang on the southern division,
under the supervision of Foreman Walter Davidson, as appears in Pages 1, 2,
and 3 of the documentary evidence.
This action took place on the 30th and 31st days of May without any previous
notice having been given to the employees involved or to their representativės,
and the first information or notice of the contemplated change desired by the
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. was delivered to this gang by one J. F.
Iftner, a representative of the Walch Construction Co. The said J. F. Iftner
instructed Foreman Walter Davidson to pay off and time-check the laborers on
his gang, which instruction was later confirmed by Roadmaster Blain, and the
information given Walter Davidson at that time was to the effect that the men
involved could secure employment with the Walch Construction Co. at 20 cents
per hour, as more clearly appears in page 2 of the aforesaid Exhibit A.
This gang, after the laborers were discharged and time checked, was filled
with colored laborers furnished by the Walch Construction Co. at 20 cents
per hour, which further appears in pages 2 and 7 of the aforesaid Exhibit A,
and the gang continued to work that had formerly been in progress under
the supervision of Walter Davidson, extra-gang foreman.
We contend that the action of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. in
discharging the regular employees referred to in the joint statement of facts
was in violation of the national agreement between the United States Rail-
road Administration and the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers in effect December 16, 1919, in that it
terminated the above-mentioned contract, so far as these men were concerned,
without giving due and legal notice. (See sec. (m), Article VI, of the na-
tional agreement referred to in this paragraph.)
We further contend that the action of the management of the St. Louis-
San Francisco Railway Co. was in violation of Decision No. 2, in that wages
established by the provisions of this decision for such positions filled by the
employees who were discharged have been arbitrarily reduced.
We further contend that the management violated section 301 of the trans-
portation act, 1920, in that neither the employees nor the duly accredited
representatives were consulted prior to the aforesaid action taken by the
management.
We contend that the management resorted to a device to evade the obliga-
tions of Title III of the transportation act, 1920, and Decision No. 2 of the
United States Railroad Labor Board, and that since the employees affected
were already under contract with the company since December 16, 1919, and
which contract, covering rules and working conditions, together with rates
of pay, was perpetuated by Decision No. 2 of the United States Railroad
Labor Board, the carrier was not within its rights when it discharged the em-
ployees of this gang, supplying their places with men furnished by the Walch
Construction Co. at a lesser rate of pay than that which had been legally
established for them.
The evidence in the exhibit shows that the management of the St. Louis-
San Francisco Railway Co. had arranged and contracted with the Walch Con-
struction Co. for the men who supplied the places of the discharged employees
at a time and date prior to that on which they ordered the regular employees
to be discharged and time checked, which act shows conclusively that it was
the intent and purpose of the management to bring about a reduction of wages
for the classes involved without complying with the transportation act, 1920,
Decision No. 2, or the national agreement. The fact is established that the
work being done by the gang was continued without any material interruption
and under supervision identical to that previous to the discharge of the
regular employees.
704
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In view of these facts we urgently request that the employees involved and
represented by the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers be reinstated to their former positions with full
seniority rights and compensation for all time lost, or the difference between
the old rate and the new rate, which may have been earned by such employees
who remained in the service, as back pay.
The undersigned general chairman, representing the employees in this case,
requests the privilege of appearing before your honorable board before this
dispute is finally passed upon, in order to give oral evidence which may be
helpful to the board in reaching a decision.
Carrier's position.-As shown in the joint statement of facts, an extra gang
was employed in the vicinity of Hoxie, Ark., surfacing track, the laborers being
paid 45 cents per hour. The gang was disbanded and laid off on May 30, 1921.
It has been our practice at all times for many years, and continuing up to date,
to employ extra gangs and lay them off at will. This is a necessary arrange-
ment. The work done by these gangs is undertaken largely according to our
financial ability to carry on the work. Some of the work is seasonal and can
only be done under certain conditions. The gang referred to was employed in
the ordinary way to do certain work and after being employed for a time
was dispensed with.
During the early part of May definite instructions were issued to discontinue
this work the last of May, for the reason that the money was not available to
carry on the work at the then existing expense. It was stated at that time
that if it would be possible to enter into contract later to permit carrying on
the work at greatly reduced expense the question would be given further con-
sideration when it was determined what effect such expense under contract
would have on our financial situation. If arrangement had not been made
to subsequently handle this work under contract, the work would not have
continued beyond May 31, under instructions above mentioned.
Contract was entered into with a construction company to take care of this
surfacing work at an expense of approximately one-half of what it had previ-
ously been costing us.
It is a time-honored principle that we can, and have in the past, contracted
maintenance work, and that was all we did in this case. We were up against
a very serious problem in financing our maintenance, and, as previously stated,
arrangements had been made during the early part of the month to discon-
tinue the work at the end of the month, but we saw an opportunity to contract
about the time we actually stopped the work which enabled us to continue for
about one-half of what it was previously costing us.
The management is in position to show that for years it has carried on vari-
ous classes of maintenance work both by contract and with its own forces.
This is a right that has never been denied it in the past.
The transportation act, 1920, obligates the management to operate the prop-
erty as efficiently and economically as possible. The company has the inalien-
able right to carry on work of this character under contract arrangement if it
so elects. Further, we have always reserved the right to disband and tem-
porarily suspend the employment of or completely reorganize extra gangs, as
our best judgment indicated was necessary. It is not felt that we have violated
the provisions of the maintenance-of-way agreement in any way. Our handling
in the matter is certainly directly in line with the spirit of the transportation
act and in the general public interest.
Opinion. This case, while not analogous to that covered by Deci-
sion No. 982, involves the same general principle with respect to the
carrier contracting work formerly performed by railroad employees-
that is, displacing employees or establishing wages and working rules
less favorable than provided in the decisions of the Railroad Labor
Board. The board, in Decision No. 982, clearly indicated its position
with regard to this general principle, and accordingly refers the par-
ties to this dispute to that decision.
The Labor Board can understand how the carrier reached the con-
clusion that it had the right to make such contracts because some-
what similar ones had been made through a long course of years, but
those precedents have been robbed of their potency by the enactment
of the transportation act.
DECISIONS.
705
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the St. Louis-San
Francisco Railway Co. and the Walch Construction Co. for the sur-
facing of track referred to was in violation of the transportation act,
1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove
said employees from the application of said act, and that those pro-
visions of the contracts affecting wages and working rules of said
employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board.
(b) That the employees of said contractor who performed the
work of surfacing track referred to were under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board and subject to the application of the transportation act,
1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1232.-DOCKET 2011.
Chicago, Ill., October 5, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. Dispute regarding the contracting of freight at Frank-
lin Street, Barclay Street, St. Johns Park, Sixtieth Street, Thirty-
third Street, and Pier 83, North River Stations, New York City,
N. Y., and Weehawken, N. J.
Statement. Under date of October 16, 1920, the carrier entered
into an agreement with the New York Marine Co., under the terms
of which the latter contracted to perform the physical handling of
freight at the Weehawken Freight Station, including the moving of
such freight from car to platform, from car to bulkhead, from car
to car, from car to boat, from car to ground, from platform to boat,
from platform to platform, and vice versa.
On the dates shown below contracts were entered into with the
New York Marine Co., under the terms of which the latter con-
tracted to perform similar work at the following stations: Septem-
ber 1, 1921, Franklin Street Freight Station; September 1, 1921,
Barclay Street Freight Station; December 16, 1921, St. Johns Park
Freight Station.
On the dates shown below contracts were entered into with Wil-
liam Spencer & Son Corporation, under the terms of which the lat-
ter contracted to perform similar work at the following stations:
December 20, 1920, Sixtieth Street Freight Station; December 16,
1921, Pier 83, North River; December 16, 1921, Thirty-third Street
Freight Station.
In connection with the contracting of freight handling as above
described, notices were posted by the carrier similar to the following,
which was posted at the Franklin Street Station:
Effective Thursday, September 1, 1921, the physical handling of freight at
Franklin Street Station will be performed by the New York Marine Co. under
contract with the railroad company.
706
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Employees now in the service engaged in this work will retain their pension
rights with the railroad company and will be eligible to bid on positions
advertised by the railroad company so long as they continue in the employ
of the New York Marine Co. Such employees will be carried on the pay
roll of and will be subject to the rules and regulations of that company.
Mr. Peter Fahy will be general foreman of the New York Marine Co. and
will have direct charge of the handling of traffic under contract mentioned
above. Mr. Fahy will confer with our various employees and arrange with
them in the organization of his force.
The employees contend that the contracting of freight handling
at the stations herein named was done for the purpose of evading
the application of the orders and decisions of the Labor Board, and
that it is in violation of the provisions of the transportation act,
1920.
The carrier states that the New York Marine Co. and the William
Spencer & Sons Corporation are acting under the provisions of the
agreements and in all respects are independent contractors perform-
ing for the carrier the work contemplated by the agreements.
The carrier contends that it has no privity of relationship what-
soever with the individuals employed by the contractors and that
the said individuals are neither legally nor actually employees of
the carrier; that the action taken by the carrier is within its legal
right and in the interest of economical and efficient management and
without intention or purpose to evade or defeat the provisions of
the transportation act or the decisions of the Labor Board; and
that there is no existing dispute between the carrier and employees
directly interested of the nature contemplated by law for decision
of the Labor Board. The carrier therefore requests that the peti-
tion herein be dismissed.
Opinion. The question of contract involved in this dispute is
similar to other cases that have been submitted to the Labor Board,
some of which have been decided by decisions recently issued.
The position of the Labor Board with respect to the general ques-
tion of contracting work such as herein referred to, is clearly set
forth in Decision No. 982 and other decisions recently issued on this
subject, and for that reason the board will refrain from entering into
extensive detail in this opinion.
The Labor Board feels that its position with respect to this general
question should be reenunciated in connection with this particular
case.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contracts entered into between the New York Cen-
tral Railroad Co. and the New York Marine Co. covering the
handling of freight at Weehawken, N. J.; Franklin Street, Barclay
Street, and St. Johns Park Freight Stations, New York City; and
with the William Spencer & Son Corporation covering the per-
formance of similar work at Sixtieth Street, Thirty-third Street,
and Pier 83, North River Station, New York City, are in violation
of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are con-
strued by the carrier to remove said employees from the applica-
tion of said act, and that those provisions of the contracts affecting
the wages and working rules of said employees are in violation of
Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the freight-house employees of said contractors are
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the applica-
DECISIONS,
707
tion of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor
Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1233.-DOCKET 1937.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Pennsylvania System v. Employees in Telegraph Service.
Question. This decision is upon a controversy or dispute between
the carrier and the class of employees named above as to what shall
constitute just and reasonable rules and working conditions for
managers, assistant managers, and wire chiefs who regularly work
as telegraphers, train directors, and assistants, telegraphers, tele-
phone operators (except switchboard operators), block operators,
operator clerks, levermen, and printer-operators.
Statement. In conformity with the provisions of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, representatives of the carrier and employees above
named have held conferences on rules and working conditions and
have made joint certification to the Railroad Labor Board containing
the rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they dis-
agreed, with the respective proposals of the parties as to the latter.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board representatives of both
carrier and employees were present. At this hearing it was mutually
agreed to apply to the disputes on articles designated as 4-B-1,
4–B-2, 4-B-3, 4-C-1, and 4-F-1, the rules of Decision No. 757, which
pertain to the subject matter thereof. These rules were thereupon
eliminated from the further consideration of the Labor Board. The
remaining rules upon which the board has been asked to render a
decision are those designated in the submission as 1-B-1, 3-D-1,
4-D-1, and 8-I-1.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out are
just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board hereby made effective
October 1, 1922, are as follows:
ARTICLE No. 1-B-1.
Employees required to report for reexamination will be paid their regular
daily rate for the time lost, except that employees who have been properly
notified and lose time due to failure to report at the time arranged shall not
be paid for time lost.
ARTICLE No. 3-D-1.
Employees covered by this agreement accepting promotion shall retain and
accumulate seniority; and if they return to the service covered by this agree-
ment may displace the junior regularly assigned man and thereafter exercise
their full seniority rights to any subsequent vacancy or new position in ac-
cordance with the rules of the agreement.
The subject in dispute in article 4-D-1 is covered by rules 5 and 8
of Decision No. 757, and at the hearing conducted by the Labor
708
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Board the representatives of the employees and carrier stated that
they were agreeable to the application of these rules in settlement
of the question in dispute, but the employees contend that rule 10,
entitled "Guarantees," should be applied in conjunction with rule 8
in order to establish the regular week-day hours. It appears, how-
ever, that there is no dispute upon the guaranty rule included in
the submission, and the board can not, therefore, include this rule in
this decision.
Article 8-1-1 covers request of the employees for two relief days
per month for all except agents, agent-telegraphers, agent-tele-
phoners, and relay telegraphers, and two weeks' annual vacation with
pay for the classes of employees named. The general question of vaca-
tions is now before the board, and the request for a specific rule will
be given consideration in conjunction therewith.
DECISION NO. 1234.-DOCKET 2660.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Wabash Railway Co.
Question. This decision is upon an application of the organiza-
tion named above for the issuance by the Labor Board of a status
quo order restoring the conditions of service in effect prior to the
application of intermittent-service rule 3, Decision No. 757, at 43
stations on the Wabash Railroad.
Under date of October 1, 1922, the board received from the presi-
dent of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers a communication written
in part as follows:
I am making an exhaustive survey of these different methods of misapplica-
tion of the rules formulated by the board to govern certain phases of employ-
ment of members of our organization. The survey is not yet completed, but the
returns so far received clearly indicate that no two of the railroads cited in
Decision No. 757 agree in their interpretation of the certain rules in question,
and the resulting application of the rules by the managements are consequently
discordant.
A seriously disturbed condition of employment among the members of the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers has thus been created by the various interpreted
and misapplied rules.
In the interest of harmony among our members and in the interest of their
efficiency as railroad employees. I petition your honorable board for an oppor-
tunity to appear before its full membership in a request for interpretation and
proper application of the following basic rules of Decision No. 757, to wit:
Rules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Decision. The Labor Board considers it desirable to conduct a
general hearing on the question of application of the rules of De-
cision No. 757, referred to in the letter of October 1, above quoted,
and has notified the interested parties of the date set for said hear-
ing. This hearing will cover all disputes pertaining to the rules of
Decision No. 757, above referred to, which have been presented and
not heard or which may be presented prior to the date of hearing.
Hearing was conducted by the board upon the dispute referred to
in this decision, designated as Docket 2660, on September 27, 1922,
and the evidence will be given consideration in conjunction with that
presented in the other cases already heard or to be included in the
DECISIONS.
709
hearing above referred to and decision rendered as soon as possible
thereafter.
The application of rules promulgated by the Labor Board neces-
sarily devolves upon the carrier, and when such interpretations are
not satisfactory to the employees it is their right to make protest
to the carrier; and, if agreement can not be reached, submit the dis-
pute to the Labor Board for decision. It appears that this procedure
has been followed in this case and, as above stated, the board will
render decision as promptly as possible.
The application for the issuance of an order restoring the status
quo is denied.
DECISION NO. 1235.-DOCKET 1651.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Question.-Can the carrier permanently discontinue the operation
of its shops and engine houses at Gibson, Ind., and Blue Island and
Norpaul, Ill., and turn the operation of those shops and engine
houses over to an alleged private contractor?
Statement. The representative of the employees states that on
August 8, 1921, the carrier caused to be issued the following notice:
To All Concerned:
SPECIAL NOTICE 50.
Effective 7 a. m., August 15, 1921, this company will permanently discontinue
operation of the shops and engine houses at Gibson, Blue Island, and Norpaul.
All machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, electricians, apprentices, molders,
pipe fitters, tinsmiths, carpenters, tank repairers, painters, air-brake repairers,
inspectors, handy men, tool-room men, all mechanics' helpers, and helpers will
be permanently released from the company's service at that time.
C. B. NELSON,
Master Mechanic.
GEO. HANNAUER,
Vice Pres. and Gen. Mgr.
Consequently, the operation of those locomotive shops and engine
houses was taken over and operated by the United Boiler Heating
& Foundry Co., of Hammond, Ind.
It is also alleged that the so-called contractor has not observed the
agreement in effect with the carrier, known as the national agree-
ment covering shop crafts, and neither has the contractor paid the
scale of wages nor maintained the working hours or the working
conditions fixed by the Labor Board in its several decisions as being
just and reasonable. The employees request consideration of the
testimony submitted in connection with Docket 850 in which the
parties to this dispute were also involved.
The representatives of the carrier contend that the Labor Board
is without jurisdiction in this case, and respectfully suggest that
under the act of Congress creating the Labor Board and defining
its powers the Federated Shop Crafts are not directly interested in
the alleged dismissal of employees in the locomotive repair depart-
ment; further, that there is no dispute within the jurisdiction of the
710
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
board between the carrier and the Federated Shop Crafts or its
members in respect to the alleged dismissals, as the board by the
express terms of the act of Congress creating it can only entertain
jurisdiction upon the complaint of employees, organized or unor-
ganized, where there exists an unadjusted dispute which can sub-
stantially interrupt the operation of the carrier; and which must
be a dispute between the complaining employees and the carrier in
which the complaining employees are directly interested.
Opinion. The question involved in this dispute is similar to other
cases involving the question of contracts, many of which have re-
cently been decided by the Labor Board.
The position of the board with respect to the general question of
contracting work, such as referred to herein, is clearly set forth in
Decision No. 982, which covered a case involving the same parties
as are concerned in this case, and for that reason the board does not
deem it necessary to again go into detail in this opinion; however,
the board feels that its decision in the case previously decided and
mentioned in the foregoing substantially applies to this case.
Decision. The Labor Board, therefore, decides-
(a) That the contract entered into between the Indiana Harbor
Belt Railroad Co. and the United Boiler Heating & Foundry Co., of
Hammond, Ind., covering the operation of locomotive shops and
engine houses at Gibson, Ind., and Blue Island and Norpaul, Ill., is
in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports
or is construed by the carrier to remove certain employees from the
application of said act, and that those provisions of the contract
affecting the wages and working rules of said employees are in vio-
lation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the mechanical department employees of said contractor
engaged in the performance of the work herein referred to are under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application
of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of this board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employees
or his representatives, giving consideration to any question that
affects the right of employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1236.-DOCKET 2434.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the excepting of certain employees
from an agreement between the carrier and the employees in clerical
and station service.
Decision.-The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that a satisfactory settlement has been reached, and it is mutu-
ally requested that it be withdrawn from further consideration by
the board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
711
DECISION NO. 1237.-DOCKET 515.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. El Paso & Southwestern System.
Question.-Dispute regarding alleged violation of rule 84 of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees in con-
nection with rearrangement of force and changes in hours of service
of certain employees at Tucumcari, N. Mex.
Statement. Prior to November 14, 1920, there were employed at
Tucumcari three chief clerks assigned to three consecutive 8-hour
tricks in the 24-hour period. On the date named, the positions of
second and third trick chief clerks were abolished, and the position
of assistant agent was created with an assignment of 12 hours ex-
tending from 7 p. m. to 7 a. m., and the hours of the first-trick chief
clerk extended to cover the period from 8 a. m. to 7 p. m. with one
hour for lunch.
Rule 84 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under
a different title covering relatively the same class of work for the purpose
of reducing the rate of pay or evading the application of these rules.
The employees state that the duties of the assistant agent are
practically the same as the duties of the second and third trick
chief clerks, the only difference being that he is unable to do as
much work in 12 or 13 hours as the second and third trick chief
clerks performed in 16 hours; and that to take care of the work thus
left undone by the assistant agent the assignment of the first-trick
chief clerk was lengthened by two hours, thus restoring the condi-
tions that prevailed at the station before the 8-hour rule was applied.
The employees contend that the action of the carrier is in conflict
with rule 84, above quoted, and request the restoration of the posi-
tions abolished on November 14, 1920, and the payment of overtime
to the clerk carrying the title of assistant agent from November 14,
1920, to date the former status is restored.
The carrier states that Tucumcari station is one of the most im-
portant stations on the railroad, being a junction point with a
number of other railroads, and it is necessary to maintain a day and
night force at this station, as trains are entering and departing at all
times of the day and night. The carrier further states that there is
a supervising chief clerk on duty during the day and it is just as
important that they have an assistant night agent in a supervisory
capacity as it is to have a night chief dispatcher. The carrier con-
tends that its action taken was not in conflict with rule 84 or any rule
of the clerks' national agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board has carefully reviewed the evidence
presented in connection with this docket, and while the board recog-
nizes the right of the carrier to make such changes as will enhance
the efficient and economical operation of its stations, such changes
must be made in accordance with rules of existing agreements and in
the manner provided by the transportation act, 1920. Where the
rules interfere with the establishment of economical conditions, the
712
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
matter should be handled in negotiations with the representatives
of the employees in the manner provided in existing agreements and
the transportation act, 1920. The evidence before the board does.
not indicate that this was done in this case.
The position of the employees is therefore sustained.
DECISION NO. 1238.-DOCKET 479.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New York Central Railroad Co.; Michigan Central Railroad Co.; Boston &
Albany Railroad Co.; Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.; Indiana Harbor
Belt Railroad Co.; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.; Cleveland, Cincin-
nati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.; Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.;
Toledo & Ohio Central Railroad Co.; Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Subject. This dispute arises under an application filed on May
17, 1921, by the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L., on
behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The
dispute involves questions relating to contracting for certain work
done or to be done by members of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers.
History of controversy.-The exact question or questions for de-
cision will be more clearly understood and can be more accurately
stated after setting out the facts which are practically undisputed
and out of which the controversy arose. It appears that about April
6, 1921, the New York Central System, including the New York
Central Railroad and its affiliated and subsidiary companies, all of
which make up the system, gave notice that on April 15 it would
discontinue from the service electrical linemen, station linemen, and
line gang employees for the maintenance of poles, lines, wires, and
equipment controlled by the contract between the New York Central
System and the Western Union Telegraph Co.
On or about April 9, 1921, the Western Union Telegraph Co.
notified the superintendent of telegraph that on April 15, 1921, the
superintendents were authorized to employ the necessary forces for
the maintenance of the poles, lines, wires, and equipment controlled
by the contracts between the New York Central System and the
Western Union Telegraph Co. at the rate of wages prevailing for
the Western Union employees for that class of employment. These
employees were thereafter to be carried on the pay rolls of the West-
ern Union Telegraph Co. at wages to be specified and paid by that
company. Superintendents of telegraph were also authorized to re-
employ such station linemen and line gang employees as might be
released by the New York Central System on April 15.
On April 9, 1921, the electrical workers' organizations, of which
the station linemen and line gang employees affected were and are
members, protested against the transfer of these men to the Western
Union Telegraph Co. as a violation of the transportation act and
rules of the United States Railroad Labor Board. They requested
a conference with the railroad officials and a meeting was held on
April 19. The railroad officials took the position that the men were
no longer employed by the New York Central System and that they
DECISIONS.
713
were within their rights and within the law in turning the work over
to the Western Union Telegraph Co. under certain contracts which
they claimed existed.
There was no discussion at this conference of the reasonableness
of the wages paid by the Western Union Telegraph Co. on account
of the position taken by the railroad managers, but the carrier re-
fused to change its position and insisted that these men were no
longer in its employ. Thereupon the labor organization brought
this dispute before the Labor Board and charged that the action of
the New York Central System constituted an evasion of the trans-
portation act, 1920, and previous decisions of the Labor Board.
The prayer was that the board declare the action of the carrier
illegal, set aside the action of the carrier, and restore the men to
their positions with the rights they possessed prior to April 15, 1921.
On July 25 the carrier filed an answer to the application of the
employees, which answer sets out pretty fully the facts, contracts
complained of, and the action taken by the carrier. Thereafter, and
on September 13, 1921, the parties were granted an oral hearing,
which was had. Learned and able counsel for the employees did
not seriously controvert the statement of facts set out in the answer
and accompanying documents, but, practically speaking, filed a de-
murrer to the answer, and the facts now stated are practically un-
contradicted.
Statement of facts.-On and prior to June 1, 1907, the Western
Union Telegraph Co. and the Great Northwestern Telegraph Co.
owned and operated the telegraph system, having offices, poles, lines,
and wires along the lines of said New York Central Railroad Co.
and its subsidiary companies constituting the system. The carrier
also owned certain lines, telegraph poles, and wires which it had
been operating along the lines of some of its railroads. The mile-
age of wires controlled and operated by the carrier amounted to
4,920.52. The lines of telegraph wires and poles controlled by the
telegraph company amounted to a mileage of 45,647.10. The tele-
graph company was doing a commercial business, but on parts of
its lines it was doing railroad business, and as we infer from the
record, commercial business was also done through the telegraph
company on parts of the lines owned by the railroad. In other
words, we understand that there was an interchangeable use of the
two properties.
The parties negotiated a contract which was consummated and
signed on June 1, 1907, covering the use, occupation, maintenance,
repair, etc., of these properties. A copy of this contract is
filed with the record and is referred to and made a part of this
opinion, though it is not necessary to set it out in full as it covers
some 22 printed pages. The questions are raised and arguments
are based upon the provisions of this contract and as to whether or
not it was a lease or a partnership arrangement, and as to what the
legal effect of the provisions of this contract are upon the rights of
the employees. We will only refer to and cite such provisions of the
contract as we deem necessary for setting out what we understand
to be the substance of the contract. The contract recited the terri-
tory within the scope contracted, the mileage of the railroads, the
line of telegraph poles and wires owned and controlled by the tele-
graph company, which is set out in Schedule B referred to, the line
714
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
of telegraph poles and wires owned and controlled by the railroad
company, set out in Schedule C filed with the record and made a
part thereof. It further recited that the telegraph lines of both
parties had heretofore been operated under provisions of another
contract referred to and made a part thereof, but that the parties
found it desirable to have an agreement of uniform provisions gov-
erning the maintenance and operation of the telegraph lines of both
parties to be entered into between them covering all the railroads
and branches or extensions then owned, leased, or controlled, and
also all branches or extensions thereof of all minor railroads to be
thereafter owned, leased, or controlled by the railroad company in
said territory.
As stated, this contract was dated June 1, 1907, and provided that:
It shall be and continue in force from the 1st day of January, 1906, until
the 1st day of January, 1936, and shall continue after the close of said term
until the expiration of one year after written notice shall have been given,
after the close of said term, by either party to the other of an intention to
terminate the same.
And, so far as necessary to understand the matter, it further pro-
vided:
First. The railroad company does hereby agree to let, lease, and demise, and
does by these presents let, lease, and demise unto the telegraph company, its
successors, and assigns, any such line of poles, with the wires thereon, and the
instruments, batteries, machinery, tools, loops, insulators, cross-arms, fixtures,
and appurtenances thereto belonging, as may now or hereafter be owned or
controlled by the railroad company, if any there shall be, along any or all of
the said railroads intended to be covered by this agreement, as hereinbefore
provided, and the same shall be shown in said Schedule C hereto annexed; with
the right to erect and maintain on said poles additional wires as hereinafter
provided; together with the right to operate and use all of said poles, wires,
and other property hereby leased, and to enjoy the returns and profits thereof,
as fully and effectually as could be done by the railroad company.
To have and to hold the same unto the telegraph company, its successors, and
assigns, during the continuance of this agreement, and subject to the uses and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
During the continuance of this agreement said poles, wires, and other tele-
graph property shall be used, maintained, repaired, and renewed as herein-
after provided, and upon the termination of this agreement, said poles, wires,
and other telegraph property enumerated in the said Schedule C, and hereby
leased to the telegraph company, or such poles, wires, and other telegraph
property as may have been substituted therefor, in the proper repair, mainte-
nance, and renewal thereof, shall be returned to the railroad company in like
good order and repair as when received by the telegraph company, and the
telegraph company shall thereupon remove from said poles such wires and
fixtures as it may have thereon.
The telegraph company agrees to pay all taxes lawfully assessed upon the
telegraph property of both parties hereto; and the railroad company agrees to
pay to the telegraph company the proportion of such taxes so assessed upon
the telegraph property leased to the telegraph company in this section.
Second. The telegraph company agrees to furnish at some station on the
railroad company's railroads all poles, wire, insulators, and other material and
tools, and all skilled labor, and the railroad company agrees to furnish all the
unskilled labor to dig holes and assist in setting poles and anchors, braces and
guys, and in stringing wires, for the construction of a line of poles and one
wire along each and every extension and branch of or from the railroad com-
pany's railroads, and along any railroad now or at any time hereafter during
the life of this agreement owned, leased, or controlled by the railroad company,
to which this agreement may extend, and on which there may be no line of tele-
graph; and also for the construction from time to time of the additional wires
necessary to make up the mileage of wires to be set apart for the business of
the railroad company, as hereinafter provided, along all or any of its railroads,
DECISIONS.
715
and the said branches and extensions thereof, now or at any time hereafter
covered by this agreement.
The telegraph company further agrees to furnish at some station on the rail-
road company's railroads, as and when necessary, all poles, wires, insulators,
and other materials, and tools, and all skilled labor, and the railroad company
agrees to furnish all the unskilled labor to dig holes and assist in setting or
resetting poles and anchors, braces and guys, and in stringing wires, for the
maintenance, repair, and reconstruction of all the lines of poles and wires now
or at any time hereafter belonging to either party hereto, along the said rail-
roads now or at any time hereafter covered by this agreement. And the joint
superintendent hereinafter provided for shall keep and maintain all of said
lines of poles and wires in good order and repair and shall exercise the same
care and diligence in the maintenance and repair of the wires which the tele-
graph company has or may have along said railroads that he does in the main-
tenance and repair of wires used exclusively by the railroad company.
The railroad company further agrees to furnish to the telegraph company
the free use of hand cars, tool cars, and boarding cars in the work of construc-
tion, repairs, and reconstruction provided for in this agreement, whenever the
railroad company may hav: the same available for this purpose.
The section men of the railroad company shall examine and look after the
condition of the lines of poles and wires of both parties hereto, along all the
railroads covered by this agreement, and in cases of breaks or interruptions,
shall notify the nearest lineman, who shall put the lines in good order as soon
as practicable; but such temporary repairs and replacements as can be per-
formed by railroad section men to put the lines in working order shall be made
by said section men, the telegraph company supplying all tools and materials
therefor.
The work of construction and reconstruction hereinbefore provided for and
of the construction of additional wires hereinafter provided for shall be done
under the immediate direction of a foreman to be furnished by the telegraph
company, acting under the orders of the joint superintendent hereinafter men-
tioned.
The telegraph company agrees to furnish the use of its main batteries or
other source of main-line current for the operation of wires covered by this
agreement, and to furnish from time to time standard telegraph instruments
and other telegraph equipment and local batteries, for the offices of both par-
t'es hereto along said railroads; it being understood and agreed that instru-
ments and local batteries belonging to the railroad company, and now in use
at its offices, shall continue to be used thereat until it shall be necessary to
replace them.
The railroad company agrees to furnish in its station houses when required
by the telegraph company suitable space for, and the linemen shall attend to,
main batteries for branch-line purposes.
In addition to the wires furnished for its use as hereinafter provided,
the railroad company may at its own expense place and maintain such signal
wires, cables and telephone wires as may be necessary for its railroad business
only, on the poles along the railroads covered by this agreement; said wires
and cables to be placed and maintained in such manner and position on the
poles as the telegraph company may designate, and to be shifted or changed
from time to time at the railroad company's expense, from one location to
another on said poles as may be necessary to meet the telegraph company's
requirements in the use of the poles for its own wires. Nothing herein con-
tained shall be construed as requiring the telegraph company to furnish any
material, labor, instruments, batteries, or appliances for the construction,
maintenance, repair, or operation of such signal wires or telephone wires for
the railroad company's use, except at the railroad company's expense.
The railroad company's wires and wires furnished for its use under this
agreement, shall have equal rights as to location with the telegraph company's
wires of equal importance, but the telephone wires used by the railroad com-
pany in long-distance service and wires for dispatching trains shall have
preference as to location in the discretion of the railroad company. (Agree-
ment dated June 1, 1907, pp. 3, 4, and 5.)
The twelfth article of said contract reads as follows:
Twelfth. It is further agreed that the management and maintenance of the
telegraph lines and wires, and of the offices and operators in railroad stations,
along the railroads, covered by this agreement, the construction, maintenance,
20936°-23 46
716
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
repair, and reconstruction of the lines and wires, and the distribution of
material for use on said railroads, shall be under the supervision and control
of a competent joint superintendent of telegraph, who shall be appointed by
the railroad company, subject to the approval of the telegraph company, and
shall be paid jointly and equally by the railroad company and the telegraph
company, and whose salary shall be fixed by mutual consent, the railroad com-
pany paying one-half thereof and the telegraph company the other half.
The railroad company or the telegraph company may discharge said joint
superintendent, but his successor shall only be appointed on the written con-
sent of both parties hereto.
Said joint superintendent shall (except as provided in the ninth section
hereof) be equally the servant of the railroad company and of the telegraph
company and shall be satisfactory to both parties, and shall be subordinate to
and under the control of the telegraph company's district superintendent, so
far as his duties to the railroad company will permit, to enforce said telegraph
company's rules and regulations, and its orders in regard to the construction,
maintenance, repair, and reconstruction, operation, arrangement, and manage-
ment of the telegraph lines and wires, and the transaction of the commercial
telegraph business, and shall assist the telegraph company in such matters, it
being understood and agreed that he shall cooperate with both parties hereto
in giving the utmost efficiency to the working of the lines upon said railroads
and the transaction of the railroad and commercial telegraph business thereon.
The railroad company shall furnish, free of charge, suitable office room and
light and heat the same for the occupancy of said joint superintendent.
The general expenses, including clerical assistance, of said joint superintend-
ent's office (other than that strictly applicable to handling reports of commer-
cial telegraph business and to railroad business other than telegraphing) shall
be divided equally between the parties hereto.
The expenses of said office, including clerical assistance, applicable to han-
dling reports of commercial telegraph business shall be divided between the
parties hereto in the same proportion as the receipts from commercial telegraph
business at the railroad company's offices are divided. (Agreement dated June
1, 1907, pp. 19 and 20.)
The contract contains may other provisions in regard to the uses.
to be made of all the lines by the respective parties. Among others,
the telegraph company agreed to set apart, from time to time as and
when necessary, on its poles and in its submarine cables under
streams, and in underground cables which it may have through
cities or towns along the railroads now or hereafter at any time
covered by this agreement and owned, leased, or controlled by the
railroad company for its exclusive use in matters pertaining to its
railroad business, continuous wires of the best standard for the pur-
pose of telegraphing and telephoning, and to meet the differing and
changing conditions, equipped by the telegraph company for tele-
graph purposes only, not exceeding a mileage equal to 40 per cent
of the mileage of wire used by the telegraph company for commer-
cial or public telegraph business along said railroads, but the total
mileage of said railroad wires shall not be less than 12,000 miles for
the railroads shown in Schedule A attached to the contract. It
provided for the joint use of certain wires by the respective parties;
also, for putting in other wires required by the business of both or
either of the companies. It further provided that either party
might at any time establish and maintain telegraph offices at such
stations on said railroad covered by the agreement as might be
deemed necessary, and that at all such offices as the railroad com-
pany might establish the telegraph company agreed to supply from
time to time standard telegraph instruments and other telegraph
equipment and local batteries, and material to maintain said bat-
teries, and blank forms and stationery for commercial business. It
also provided that the telegraph company should have the right to
DECISIONS.
717
place signs, etc., necessary to properly advertise its commercial busi-
ness, and it made provisions relative to the work done by operators
for commercial and railroad business.
It was provided that the railroad company so far as it legally
might grant and assure to the telegraph company the exclusive right
to do and conduct commercial or public telegraph business, and to
construct and maintain telegraph lines on, along, across, and under
the line, lands, and bridges and in the premises of the railroads now
or hereafter covered by this agreement during the continuance of
the agreement.
The contract also contained this provision:
The telegraph company expressly convenants and agrees that the joint super-
intendent and all other persons engaged in the work in this agreement con-
templated, whether provided or paid by the telegraph company or the rail-
road company, shall be deemed for the purposes of this contract to be the ser-
vants of the telegraph company, except when engaged in the work of trans-
mitting messages for the railroad company, and of constructing and maintain-
ing signal wires, cables, and telephone wires for the railroad company, pro-
vided for in section second hereof; and the telegraph company assumes all
liability for and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the railroad company
against, of, and from all loss, damage, or injury of or to person or property
sustained by the parties hereto, or either of them, or by the said servants or
any of them, or by third parties, arising out of the negligent or other acts
or omissions of the said servants, or out of defects in the material furnished
by the telegraph company as herein provided, or otherwise, in the transaction
of the business herein contemplated: Provided, however, Nothing herein con-
tained shall be deemed to require the telegraph company to be liable for or to in-
deminify the railroad company against any loss, damage, or injury to person
or property of passengers of the railroad company or to property of third
persons in the hands of the railroad company for transportation, except in
case of gross or willful negligence of the telegraph company or its said ser-
vants. (Agreements dated June 1, 1907, pp. 18 and 20.)
We have thus set out what we consider the main and pertinent
provisions of the contract having a material bearing on the questions
before us.
In this connection it may be stated that able arguments have been
made as to whether or not this contract is a lease or a partnership
contract. We do not regard it as material, at least not decisive, as
to whether or not it is a lease or a partnership arrangement. But
in any event, the language of the paper is that the railroad leases its
lines and it certainly did lease for a term of years the use of its lines,
poles, etc., to the telegraph company, but retained certain rights, or,
rather, it was granted certain rights by the telegraph company over
its lines and over all the lines for the transaction of railroad business.
Upon the execution of said agreement the several lines of tele-
graph and their appurtenances of said railroad companies were de-
livered to said telegraph companies to be developed, maintained,
and furnished for the use of said several railroad companies pursuant
to the terms of said agreement, and thereupon in the construction,
maintenance, and development thereof the telegraph company fur-
nished all skilled labor and the railroad company furnished all
unskilled labor subject to the control of said joint superintendent
charged with the duty of maintaining, repairing, and constructing
said telegraph lines.
1
On the 5th day of January, 1910, the several parties to said
agreement, acting through their respective vice presidents, entered
into an understanding supplemental to said agreement whereby they
718
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
issued instructions under the general contracts for the guidance of
joint superintendents of telegraph and other officials, which were
approved by the operating officers of the several companies and
which were made subject to change on notice from either party.
Said instructions were duly signed by each of said vice presidents
and thereupon became a supplemental agreement between the parties.
(A copy of the same, marked" Exhibit B," was attached to the answer
and made a part thereof.)
By virtue of said supplemental agreement the original under-
standing between the parties whereby the telegraph company fur-
nished skilled labor and the railroad company furnished unskilled
labor in the performance of maintenance, repair, and construction
was abrogated, and in lieu thereof it was provided in said instruc-
tions as follows:
SKILLED AND UNSKILLED LABOR IN GANGS.
(Not station linemen.)
The number and size of gangs employed on joint work shall be determined
by the joint superintendent, subject to the approval of the superintendent of
construction of the telegraph company and of the general manager of the rail-
road company.
Regular gangs will be carried on the railroad company's pay rolls and their
wages and subsistence expenses, if any, shall be paid by the railroad company
in the first instance.
Special gangs shall be organized by the telegraph company and carried on
its pay rolls, and their wages and subsistence expenses, if any, shall be paid
by the telegraph company in the first instance.
Such forces will perform under the supervision of the joint superintendent
the work contemplated in the contract, subject to the approval of the general
manager of the railroad company and of the telegraph company's superin-
tendent of construction, and such forces may be employed for such exclusive
work of either party as will not interfere with their employment on such
contract work.
Wages and expenses for work in which either company is exclusively in-
terested, or for work performed at the expense of any third party, shall be
charged to the party interested before making the division hereinafter provided
for.
At the end of each month, or oftener, if agreed, the telegraph company shall
pay to the railroad company 50 per cent, and the railroad company shall pay
to the telegraph company 50 per cent of the amount of the pay rolls and sub-
sistence expenses paid in the first instance by the other, as aforesaid, after the
deduction of the amounts exclusively chargeable to either company or to third
parties, as aforesaid.
This division, 50 per cent and 50 per cent, is a commutation of provisions of
the contract requiring the telegraph company and the railroad company, re-
spectively, to furnish certain labor, and is made as a matter of mutual con-
venience, subject to revision at any time on 60 days' written notice from either
party.
STATION LINEMEN.
The station linemen shall be carried on the railroad company's pay rolls,
and their wages, subsistence, and other expenses, if any, shall be paid by the
railroad company in the first instance; and the telegraph company shall re-
imburse the railroad company the amount thereof monthly, or oftener, as agreed.
Where such employment will not interfere with their regular work the station
linemen may be employed in work on the railroad company's telephone wires
and telephone equipment, and its signal wires and cables; and the wiremen em-
ployed by the railroad company may perform work of wiring and rewiring
telegraph offices, and placing switchboards and telegraph instruments in offices,
and in such cases the salaries and expenses of such linemen and wiremen shall
DECISIONS.
719
be paid jointly by the two companies, pro rata according to the time actually
given to each company.
The joint superintendent shall make the proper apportionments of such pay-
ments by the two companies, subject to the approval of each company.
A stated percentage may be adopted on recommendation of a joint superin-
tendent, by approval of the district superintendent of the telegraph company
and of the general manager of the railroad company, and in such cases the
number of linemen and wiremen and their home stations and rate of com-
pensation shall be determined by like recommendation and approval.
They shall make such reports and return such vouchers and pay rolls as may
be required by each company.
The station linemen, acting under instructions of the joint superintendent,
may call upon the railroad company's section men or may employ, at the rail-
road company's expense, other unskilled laborers to assist in making repairs
to the lines.
Thereafter the joint superintendent of telegraph proceeded to
organize his forces and to employ the same pursuant to said instruc-
tions as above quoted, and the parties accounted between themselves
for the payment of said forces as provided for in said instructions.
On January 1, 1918, the Director General of Railroads assumed
control of the several railroad properties and continued in control
until February 29, 1920. During the period of Federal control there
were certain increases in the wages of the force made under orders
of the Director General of Railroads without consultation with the
telegraph company. Thereupon, on June 20, 1919, the Western
Union Telegraph Co., by its president, wrote a letter to P. E.
Crowley, Federal manager of the New York Central System, in
which the telegraph company declined to pay its proportion of the
cost of labor charged to it by the Federal Administration under
contracts made with the railroad, New York Central System, giving
reasons therefor, but offered to pay in accordance with the scale in
force by the Western Union Co. Thereafter, during Federal con-
trol, the telegraph company refused to make any payments whatever
under these contracts, and at the end of Federal control on March 1,
1920, the Director General of Railroads held unpaid bills against
the Western Union Telegraph Co. for $1,171,074.43. Upon the
return of the railroads to the owners the Western Union Telegraph
Co. continued in its attitude of refusing to pay the railroad com-
pany its proportion of the wages thereafter due and paid by the
railroad company and claimed from the telegraph company. These
claims continued to accrue until they amounted to $250,409.60.
There were certain negotiations and agreements with reference to
statements the Government claimed against the Western Union Tele-
graph Co. that we do not deem necessary to set out here.
The railroad company continued the negotiations with the tele-
graph company for the purpose of adjusting the controversy be-
tween them, and there were some compromises and settlements as to
the amount claimed due up to that time. The parties, however, were
unable to make final settlement, and as the claims of the railroad
company continued to accrue and the telegraph company refused
to pay, the railroad company then determined to terminate the last
arrangement they had made and go back to the original contract,
and on March 15, 1921, the railroad company served formal notice
on the Western Union Telegraph Co. of its intention to terminate
the supplemental agreement made between the railroad company
720
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and the telegraph company dated January 5, 1910, and revert to the
provisions of the original contract between the parties.
The president of the Western Union Telegraph Co. acknowledged
receipt and agreed to the termination, which took the parties back to
the original contract of 1907. Thereupon the railroad company
served notice upon the station linemen and line gang employees to
discontinue their service and the telegraph company agreed to em-
ploy them.
Now it is this action of terminating the supplemental contract
and going back to the original that is principally complained of,
and able argument is also made as to the effect of the original con-
tract.
The class of employees before us and to be affected by the decision
were, under the terms of the contract of June 1, 1907, at least as
between the parties thereto, to be furnished, employed, and paid
by the telegraph company. Under the supplemental contract dated
January 5, 1910, certain changes were made, among others, the
following:
The joint superintendent whose employment might be authorized
by the two companies was to be paid one-half his salary and travel-
ing expenses directly by each company, except such traveling ex-
penses which might occur in the interest of either company ex-
clusively.
The general foremen and clerical forces that might be authorized
by the two companies were to be carried on the pay rolls of the rail-
road company, and the telegraph company charged with its propor-
tion of the expense. The general foremen and clerical forces were
to be appointed by the joint superintendent subject in respect to the
clerical forces to the approval of the district superintendent, and in
respect to the general foremen to the approval of the superintendent
of construction of the telegraph company, and in respect to both sub-
ject to the approval of the general manager of the railroad company.
Regular gangs were to be carried on the railroad company's pay
roll and their wages and subsistence expenses, if any, were to be paid
by the railroad company in the first instance. Special gangs were
to be organized by the telegraph company and carried on its pay rolls
and their wages and subsistence expenses, if any, were to be paid by
the telegraph company in the first instance.
The forces were to perform under the supervision of the joint
superintendent the work contemplated in the contract subject to the
approval of the general manager of the railroad company and super-
intendent of construction of the telegraph company, and it was pro-
vided that such forces may be employed for such exclusive work of
either party as will not interfere with their employment in contract
work, and that the wages and expenses for work in which either party
was exclusively interested, or for work performed at the expense of
any third party was to be charged to the party interested before
making a division thereinafter provided for.
Aside from this, it was provided that the telegraph company should
pay the railroad company 50 per cent and the railroad company
should pay the telegraph company 50 per cent of the amount of the
pay rolls and subsistence expenses paid in the first instance by the
other, after deduction of the amounts exclusively chargeable to either
party or to third parties.
DECISIONS.
721
It was also provided that station linemen should be carried on the
railroad company's pay rolls and their wages, subsistence, and other
expenses, if any, should be paid by the railroad company in the first
instance, and the telegraph company should reimburse the railroad
company the amount thereof monthly or oftener, as agreed.
It was further provided that where such employment will not in-
terfere with their regular work, station linemen may be employed in
work on the railroad company's telephone wires and telephone equip-
ment and its signal wires and cables, and the wiremen employed by
the railroad company may perform work of wiring and rewiring
telephone offices, in placing switch boards and telephone instruments
in offices, and in such case the salary and expenses of such linemen
and wiremen shall be paid jointly by the two companies pro rata.
according to the time actually given to each company.
It is questionable whether even under the terms of the supple-
mental contract the railroad company could employ men to do the
joint work provided for by the contract and pay the scale of wages,
unless it was agreed to by the officials of the telegraph company.
However, it is not necessary in our opinion for us to decide this point.
That supplemental contract was terminated under the express pro-
visions contained in the contract on notice given by the railroad
company after the telegraph company had refused to pay the in-
creased charges and expenses arising by reason of the orders of the
United States Railroad Administration and the decisions of the
Labor Board with reference to railroad employees. It is true it was
terminated upon notice given by the railroad company, but the tele-
graph company had previously refused to comply with the terms of
the supplemental contract unless the scale of wages paid and to be
paid was approved by them. In fact, in a letter written by the tele-
graph company to P. E. Crowley, Federal manager, dated June 20,
1919, the telegraph company took substantially this position with the
Federal administration and afterwards continued to reiterate its
position on this subject. This itself was a virtual abrogation of
the supplemental contract, and the railroad failing, after the return
of the roads to their owners, to arrive at an understanding and to
have the telegraph company pay its proportion of the increased
charges, gave notice of the termination of the supplemental con-
tract and reverted to the original contract.
It has been suggested in the argument that this was a matter of
collusion between the railroad company and the telegraph company.
However, this is only an inference which is not, we think, borne out
or established by the facts of the case. On the contrary, we are of
the opinion that the railroad company was practically forced to this
action by the position of the telegraph company. But, however
that may be, either party had a legal right, we think, to termi-
nate the contract of 1910 and revert to the terms of the original con-
tract. Certainly the railroad company had a right to do it when the
conditions arising showed it was practically impossible to further
operate under the terms of the supplemental contract, or at least
that it would only lead to litigation and trouble, and in view of the
fact that either party had the right to terminate it and the telegraph
company had refused to comply with said supplemental contract un-
722
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
less it was allowed to approve the wages that were to be paid. We
are unable to see that there is anything in the transportation law that
would prevent an exercise of the carrier's legal right to cancel this
supplemental contract which it could not enforce and revert to the
original contract.
It becomes now necessary to consider the legal effect of the con-
tract of June 1, 1907, so far as it affects the rights of the employees
and their legal relation and status toward the railroad company. It
is argued with much force and ability, and is one of the main con-
tentions of the employees, that the contract entered into between
these parties was not a lease, but a contract in the nature of a part-
nership agreement or an agreement for the joint operation of the
properties, and that therefore the employees affected were the em-
ployees of both parties and entitled to be paid under and in accord-
ance with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, and the
decisions of the Labor Board made thereunder.
As first stated, it is not material, at least not decisive of the ques-
tion before us, as to whether this contract be termed a lease or what
it may be designated. Certainly by its terms it purports to be a
lease, and in most respects in legal effect it is certainly true that
the railroad company does lease certain of its poles, wires, equip-
ment, etc., to the telegraph company, retaining for itself certain
rights in the lines leased and procuring for itself over other lines
of the telegraph company certain rights of use. Under this con-
tract, however, as between the parties it was expressly agreed that
the class of men on behalf of whom this complaint is made and who
are affected by the action of the parties and will be affected in the
decision to be rendered, were to be furnished, employed, and paid
by the telegraph company.
While it is true that the work done or to be done was to a certain
extent for the benefit of both parties, yet so far as the contractual
relation was concerned, these men were to be furnished, employed,
and paid by the telegraph company, and as we understand the record
under that contract and under the change made by the supplementa!
contract which was canceled, they were so furnished, employed, and
paid. So far as we can see there is no reason, legal or equitable, or
reason founded in public policy why such a contract should not be
made, and why the parties who accepted the employment by either
of the companies should have any legal ground for complaint. They
were and are employees of the company by which employed.
Aside from any governmental regulations fixing the wages of such
employees, the company employing them had the right to negotiate
the terms of the contract of employment and fix the wages.
It is argued, however, that because the contract contained a pro-
vision for the selection of a joint superintendent, to be appointed by
the railroad company, subject to the approval of the telegraph com-
pany, and to be paid jointly and equally by the railroad company
and the telegraph company, that this makes the contract one of joint
partnership and of joint and several liability of both parties to the
employees. In the opinion of the Labor Board, the employment of
this joint superintendent did not make the employees employed by
one company under its contract the employees of the other, so far as
responsibility for wages, etc., is concerned. It is frequent and gen-
erally incident in the making and execution of contracts for doing
DECISIONS.
723
work that joint or several supervision of the work to be done, includ-
ing inspection and approval, is agreed upon. For instance, in the
building of a house, railroads, or other work, although the work may
be done by contractors under whom there may be several subcon-
tracts, the work is made subject to the supervision of an engineer,
inspector, architect, or other party for whom the work is to be done.
This fact does not of itself alter the contract relations between the
men doing the work and the real party for whom it is done, nor does.
it destroy the legal relation of an independent contractor.
A number of cases are cited by able counsel bearing upon the ques-
tion as to rights and liabilities in cases of injuries and torts, but, in
our opinion, these are not conclusive of the question before the Labor
Board. It may well be that under certain of our statutes prescrib-
ing the duties and liabilities of the owners of such property that
such employees may be held and treated as employees of the parties in
regard to such matters, but the question before us is whether, under
this contract and under the law existing when the contract was made,
these particular employees were the employees of the telegraph com-
pany or of the railroad company, or of both parties; and considering
it in that relation, we are of the opinion that they were and are the
employees of the telegraph company, which company had the right
to employ them and fix their wages, in the absence of a statute regu-
lating the matter, and there was none which applied to the telegraph
company.
If the case before us involved the construction and legal effect of
such a contract made since the passage of the transportation act,
1920, it would be at least doubtful if such contract could be held to be
illegal. The liberty and the free right to contract between parties.
capable of making contracts in the absence of provisions contrary
to public policy or opposed to some statutory provision are affirmed
and protected by provisions of our constitution and have been zeal-
ously guarded by the courts. This case covers a great system of
railroads along whose lines both parties had wires and poles and
other telegraph equipment. The railroad company found it neces-
sary to use these facilities in the transaction of its own business.
The telegraph company needed the equipment and facilities in the
transaction of its commercial business. It was evident that such an
arrangement as was made was for the mutual benefit of the parties,
and so far as we can see was in the interest of the public, being con-
ducive to the convenience of the public and resulting in economy
and efficiency of construction and operation, and there was nothing
in the contract when made that was beyond the legal rights of the
parties, nothing contrary to any statutory provision, and nothing
contrary to any established public policy.
It is not necessary for us to decide whether such contract made
since the passage of the transportation act, 1920, would be legal or
whether it would conflict with the purposes and provisions of the
transportation act, 1920. It was legal so far as any reason has been
suggested when made, and we are unable to see that there is any
provision or principle in the transportation act, 1920, which makes
its further carrying out and enforcement illegal.
Decision.—After careful consideration of all the facts and all the
arguments submitted the Labor Board decides that the contract in
724
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
question was not and is not illegal, that the action of the parties was
within the law, and that the application on behalf of the employees
is denied.
DECISION NO. 1239.-DOCKET 1593.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding proper seniority date of Mr. C. S.
Booth.
Statement.-Mr. C. S. Booth was employed by the carrier as de-
livery clerk at Fourth and King Streets freight stations, San Fran-
cisco, Calif., May 11, 1917, under the supervision of W. J. Hardy,
agent.
The employees state that in accordance with orders from the com-
manding officer of the reserve officers' training camp, Mr. Booth re-
ported for Army service and left the service of the carrier on May
27, 1917, in accordance with arrangements made with his superior
officer; that Mr. Booth was discharged from the Army service in
December, 1918, and reported to Agent Hardy, who during the
interim of Mr. Booth's absence had been transferred to Drumm
Street Station, San Francisco, and Mr. Hardy assigned him to work
at Drumm Street. The two freight stations above named are under
separate agents, but both under the superintendent of the coast
division.
The employees further state that at the time of his reentering the
service after returning from war service the carrier was unable to
locate Mr. Booth's original personal record, and he was required to
file a new personal record and submit to a physical examination, for
which he was charged the usual $1 examination fee; that after Mr.
Booth submitted his Army service record, together with another
statement dated April 15, 1919, the examination fee was refunded to
him and his continuity of service established as dating from May 11,
1917. In support of this statement reference is made to carrier's
refund voucher 266092 and letter from Agent Hardy, reading as
follows:
DRUMM STREET, April 21, 1919.
Mr. BOOTH: Your letter April 15th regarding your personal record, seniority.
Records have been corrected and show you reinstated as of December 26,
1918, seniority dating from May 11, 1917.
W. J. HARDY.
The employees state that when seniority rosters for the year 1920
were posted Mr. Booth's seniority date was shown as December 26,
1918, but was later corrected at the request of the employees to May
11, 1917.
In April, 1921, when the position held by Mr. Booth was abolished,
he sought to displace a junior employee but was notified that it
would be necessary to establish his seniority date as December 26,
1918.
The employees contend that Mr. Booth has been an employee of the
carrier on the coast division since May 11, 1917, and that his continu-
ity of service covering the period he was absent from active service
DECISIONS.
725
and engaged in Army service was fully covered and protected by
arrangements made by the carrier itself subsequent to the date of
his entering Army service and by provisions of orders issued by the
United States Railroad Administration. The employees further con-
tend that after the establishment of the seniority rights of clerical
employees by the United States Railroad Administration in Supple-
ment No. 7 to General Order No. 27, the carrier and employees
reached the following agreement with reference to seniority:
Seniority will take effect the date last entering the service on the division,
except as provided for in exchange of positions and transfers as covered by
items C and D.
Employees contend that the carrier in granting Mr. Booth his
seniority as of May 11, 1917, have acknowledged the correctness of
the employees' contention during the years 1919 and 1920; that at
this time there is no just and reasonable grounds for denying Mr.
Booth his proper seniority date; and that in doing so the carrier has
violated the agreement entered into in July, 1919, and forced Mr.
Booth from the service through reduction in force, while employees
junior in the service have been retained in active employment by the
carrier.
The carrier states that after having been employed for 17 days
in May, 1917, Mr. Booth resigned and subsequently entered the
officers' training camp; that there was no arrangement made by him.
for leave of absence; and that he voluntarily severed his connection
with the carrier and was considered out of service. It is further
stated that in December, 1918, when his term of military service ex-
pired, Mr. Booth returned to San Francisco freight station and
inquired for Mr. Hardy, who was agent at the time of his previous
employment, and was informed that Mr. Hardy had been transferred
to position of agent at Drumm Street Station. He thereupon pro-
ceeded to Drumm Street Station and applied to the chief clerk for
employment and made no mention of his previous service. This,
the carrier states, is substantiated by letter from the chief clerk at
Drumm Street Station, who stated, in part, that—
"When relieved from the Army, he (Booth) was employed at Drumm Street
December 26, 1918, as a temporary clerk. At that time I did not understand
that he had been formerly employed by the Southern Pacific.
The carrier further states that Mr. Booth was given position as
temporary clerk and signed the following application:
CO-38.
SAN FRANCISco, Dec. 23, 1918.
SUPT. COAST DIVISION: Bearer, signature below, to file personal record papers
as temporary clerk. Age, 26 years, # mos.; height, 5 ft. 10 inches; complexion,
ruddy; color eyes, blue; color hair, dark; marks of deformation, none; weight,
168.
W. J. HARDY, Agent.
Per R. C. F.
I fully understand that I am to be employed by the Southern Pacific Co.,
provided there is need for my services and I can pass satisfactory examina-
tions; and that I am entering the service on probation and will not become
a permanent employee until such time as my application is fully approved, and
if not approved I will of course not be retained in the service.
CHAS. S. BoотH, Applicant.
726
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier therefore contends that Mr. Booth at no time on his
immediate return made application for reinstatement or reference
to his previous employment, and that his excuse for not doing so-
namely, “He assumed that having worked for Mr. Hardy before he
would have to again do so on resuming employment "—is manifestly a
flimsy one.
(6
""
The carrier further states that the letter (above quoted) from
Agent Hardy to Mr. Booth was written under a misapprehension
of the facts, and with the impression that Mr. Booth had been trans-
ferred among others in a bureau from San Francisco freight station
to Drumm Street freight station, which was not a fact, as Mr. Booth
had reentered the service at Drumm Street Staton as a new employee;
that later when, as a result of this letter giving Mr. Booth seniority
as of May 11, 1917, other clerks protested, and an investigation was
made and instructions issued by the division superintendent to Agent
Hardy to make Mr. Booth's seniority date from December 26, 1918,
which was the date he reentered service at Drumm Street freight
station.
The carrier has expressed a willingness to give Mr. Booth, who is
no longer in its service, credit for his Army service in so far as it
affects his continuity of employment in the matter of pass and pen-
sion privileges, but contends that in view of the facts stated above he
is not entitled to seniority from May 11, 1917, and that his seniority
should date from December 26, 1918.
Rule 47 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Employees who since April 6, 1917, have entered the military or naval service
of the United States or into service of their respective railroad corporations;
employees temporarily assigned to railroad associations handling arbitrations,
rate cases, and matters of similar scope; employees temporarily in the service
of the United States Railroad Administration, and employees elected as repre-
sentatives of employees, shall be considered on leave of absence and in the
service of the railroad and shall retain their seniority rank and rights, if
asserted within 30 days after the release from excepted employment.
It is not disputed that Mr. Booth left the carrier's service to enter
military service.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that C. S. Booth's seniority
shall date from May 11, 1917.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1240.-DOCKET 1631.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
Question. Dispute regarding alleged violation of rule 72 of the
national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, in con-
nection with the consolidation of certain positions at Jackson, Miss.
Decision. This dispute has been withdrawn from further consid-
eration by the Labor Board. It is therefore removed from the
docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
727
DECISION NO. 1241.-DOCKET 2375.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contract let by the Erie Railroad Co. to the Mead-
ville Machinery Co. for the operation of its railway shops at Dayton,
Sharon, Meadville, Hammond, Huntington, Marion, Rochester-Avon,
Elmira, Cleveland, Binghamton, Galion, Dunmore, Avoca, and
Stroudsburg in violation of the transportation act, 1920, and does
said contract remove from under the jurisdiction of the Railroad
Labor Board the employees who, under said contractor, are perform-
ing shop work for the carrier?
Statement. The evidence submitted in this case shows that on
March 1, 1922, the Erie Railroad Co. entered into a contract with
the Meadville Machinery Co. (Inc.) very similar in context to the
contracts referred to in Decision No. 1214. The position of the car-
rier with respect to the contract with the Meadville Machinery Co.
is in conformity with the position taken relative to the contracts.
covered by said Decision No. 1214, above referred to.
The position of the employees with respect to the contract in ques-
tion is identical to that taken in connection with numerous other
cases involving this question that have been submitted to the Labor
Board for decision.
For the above reasons the Labor Board will refrain from going
into a detailed statement as to the positions of the respective parties
in connection with this particular case.
Opinion. The principle of contracting work involved in this dis-
pute is similar to that contained in Decision No. 982, in which de-
cision the board clearly sets forth its opinion with respect to this
question. Attention is also directed to Decision No. 1214, which
covers similar questions affecting other points on the Erie Railroad.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Erie Railroad Co.
and the Meadville Machinery Co. (Inc.), for the operation of its
railroad shops as enumerated in the question is in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are construed
by the carrier to remove said employees from the application of
said act, and that those provisions of the contract affecting the
wages and working rules of said employees are in violation of De-
cisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of
the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the matter
of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee or
his representative.
DECISION NO. 1242.-DOCKET 1891.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question.-Was the changing of the assignment of second-trick
operator at Englewood, Kans., proper under the telegraphers' agree-
ment?
728
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. Prior to November 13, 1920, the second-trick operator
at Englewood, Kans., was assigned to work from 10.30 p. m. to
6.30 a. m., seven days a week. On the date named instructions
were issued by the superintendent to discontinue the shift from
10.30 p. m., Saturday night, to 6.30 a. m., Sunday morning, making
his assignment six days per week instead of seven. On the two Sun-
days following November 13 (November 14 and 21, 1920), the second-
trick operator worked from 5 a. m. to 7 a. m., on a call, but after
November 21, 1920, he was not required to perform service on the
shift from 10.30 p. m., Saturday night, to 6.30 a. m., Sunday morning.
The employees state that the shift commencing 10.30 p. m., Satur-
day, is the regular week-day assignment and that the Sunday assign-
ment commences 10.30 p. m., Sunday, and this is the shift which
should have been discontinued in connection with the establishment
of a six-day assignment. The employees further state that during
part of the time the second-trick operator was given a call Sunday
morning (5 a. m. to 7 a. m.), but later this call was given to the
agent. The employees further claim that the first, second, and third
tricks establish the day's service in the order of assignment, and that
the Sunday assignment for the second-trick operator starts 10.30
p. m., Sunday, and ends 6.30 a. m., Monday.
The employees contend that section (a), Article III of the teleg-
raphers' agreement, establishes an eight-hour day for each day
worked, except Sundays and holidays, and that section (d), Article
III, provides that employees shall not be required to suspend work
during regular hours to absorb overtime.
The carrier states that the telegraphers' agreement does not specify
any fixed number of days as constituting a week's work, nor does it
contain a guaranty rule providing that operators will be assigned
for either six or seven days a week; that in this case instructions
were issued in the usual manner to all concerned advising them of
the change from a seven to a six-day assignment, and definitely
specifying the shift to be discontinued in accordance with the rules
of the agreement.
The carrier contends that section (d), Article III, does not apply
in this case, since the employee was not required to suspend work
during regular hours or to absorb overtime, as the regular working
hours for the week were permanently changed from seven to six
days of eight hours each, and the question of overtime was not
involved.
The carrier further contends that the service requirements at
Englewood Station do not require an operator on the second trick
seven days in the week, and inasmuch as no rules or past practices.
were involved in making this change, the action taken was entirely
proper and consistent with economical operation.
Decision.-Claim of employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1243.-DOCKET 1914.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis
Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding seniority of W. J. Farrell, agent-
telegrapher, and his right to displace Agent Langham, Lockland,
DECISIONS.
729
Ohio, involving claim for all time lost from July, 1921, until the date
checked in as agent at Lockland, Ohio.
Statement. On March 19, 1921, Mr. Farrell, who was agent at
Carthage, Ohio, was notified that, effective April 1, 1921, the agency
at Carthage would be discontinued and that he could then exercise
his seniority rights in accordance with the provisions of the teleg-
raphers' agreement. Mr. Farrell requested a 90-day leave of absence,
and when he was ready to resume duty notified the superintendent
of his desire to displace G. D. Langham, agent, Lockland, Ohio.
This request was declined on the ground that he did not hold suffi-
cient seniority to make the displacement.
Mr. Farrell entered the carrier's service March 22, 1905. Mr.
Langham entered the carrier's service as a clerk, Cincinnati, Ohio,
October 5, 1898. He later held positions in the telegraph service on
the Chicago division, and on July 1, 1916, was transferred to the
Cincinnati division. At the time this dispute arose his seniority
date was shown on the telegraphers' seniority roster, Cincinnati
division, as October 5, 1898.
This dispute was presented to the Labor Board by the employees
with an ex parte application for decision upon the question herein
shown. In its original response in the case the carrier took the
position that the continuity of Mr. Farrell's service was broken in
July, 1917, and that his seniority should date from February 19,
1918, on which date, it is claimed, he was reemployed. However,
at the hearing conducted by the Labor Board the carrier conceded
Mr. Farrell's seniority date as March 22, 1905.
The position of the employees is that Mr. Langham's seniority
should date from July 1, 1916, the date he transferred to the Cin-
cinnati division, while the carrier contends that the establishment of
his seniority date as October 5, 1898, is consistent with the practice
followed with respect to this class of employees transferring from
one division to another.
In view of the difference of opinion on this question the representa-
tives of the carrier and employees were requested to make a joint
check of the seniority record of agents whose positions have been
added to the telegraphers' schedule from year to year and through
that check establish the practice in effect on the railroad.
The check was made as requested by the board, but the parties
have been unable to agree upon the established practice, the em-
ployees claiming that the evidence secured bears out their contention
that the past practice has been not to permit employees to transfer
with seniority rights from one division to another, and the carrier
claiming that the check established the fact that a uniform practice
did not exist over the entire railroad and that in many instances
agents have been shown on the telegraphers' seniority list for all
continuous service rendered for the carrier regardless of class of
service and so carried a number of years without protest.
Opinion. It appears that Mr. Farrell's senitority date on the
Cincinnati division telegraphers' roster is March 2, 1905, and the
seniority date of Mr. Langham on the said roster is October 5,
1898. While there may have been a discrepancy in the handling
of the seniority of these two employees, the Labor Board feels that
their seniority standing is something which should be adjusted be-
tween the employees and the carrier. Their seniority date as shown
730
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
on the roster which was in effect at the time this dispute arose in-
dicates that Mr. Langham was senior to Mr. Farrell, and this, the
board believes, should govern in this dispute.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides that upon the basis
of the evidence presented to the board in this case the claim of
W. J. Farrell for right to displace G. D. Langham as agent at
Lockland, Ohio, is denied.
DECISION NO. 1244.-DOCKET 2393.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers' Association v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha Railway Co.
Question. This decision is upon a joint application of the parties
hereto for elimination from the ex parte submissions of the carrier
and the employees, covering several matters in dispute, that part of
the controversy pertaining to vacations with pay and pay for time
lost account of illness.
Decision.-The Labor Board grants the request for withdrawal
of dispute on the matters referred to, and they are hereby removed
from further consideration in connection with this docket.
DECISION NO. 1245.-DOCKET 2418.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-Southwestern Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of C. B. Harman, delivery clerk, Waco, Tex.,
for time worked in excess of eight hours, February 7 to April 30,
1921, inclusive.
Decision. The parties to this dispute having requested that it be
withdrawn from further consideration by the Labor Board, the case
is removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1246.-DOCKET 1334.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question-Shall the carrier be required to bulletin the position
designated as "Drivers' route No. 4." San Diego, Calif.?
Statement. On January 25, 1921, the driver of position desig-
nated as “Drivers' route No. 4" resigned from the service. At the
same time the vehicle force was reduced by one driver's position.
Route No. 4 was not bulletined, and a controversy has arisen between
the employees and the carrier as to the obligation of the carrier to
bulletin route 4.
DECISIONS.
731
The employees contend that the position should have been bulle-
tined in accordance with rule 10 of the agreement between the em-
ployees and the carrier, reading as follows:
New positions or vacancies will be promptly bulletined in agreed-upon places
accessible to all employees affected, for a period of 10 days in the districts
where they occur; bulletin to show location, title, description of position, and
rate of pay. Employees desiring such positions will file their applications with
the designated official within that time, and an assignment will be made within
10 days thereafter; the name of the successful applicant will immediately
thereafter be posted for a period of 5 days where the position was bulletined.
The employees further contend that the abolition of a position of
some other route has no bearing on the bulletining of position desig-
nated as "Drivers' route No. 4," and that rule 10 contemplates giving
every employee an opportunity in accordance with his seniority to
secure, through his right to bid on bulletined positions, his prefer-
ence to such positions in accordance with seniority. The employees
also contend that the practice now in effect with respect to bulletin-
ing of drivers' positions deprives the employees of the right to bid
upon vacancies in better routes in which the work might be more
agreeable and the hours of service more satisfactory.
The carrier states that rule 10 requires the bulletining of new posi-
tions or vacancies, and that in this instance there was no new posi-
tion created at San Diego, nor was there a vacancy. The carrier
further states that there was no position abolished, but that there was
a reduction of force in the vehicle service and no one was actually
laid off at the time, for the reason that an employee happened to
resign. The carrier contends that rule 10 of the agreement has been
complied with and that there is nothing in said rule requiring the
bulletining of the position in question.
Decision. The Labor Board in Decision No. 917 stated its views
in regard to bulletining of positions in the class of service in which
the employees referred to herein are engaged, and under the princi-
ples set forth in said decision it is not necessary to bulletin the posi-
tion involved in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1247.-DOCKET 1339.
Chicgo, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding position not awarded to employee
holding seniority.
Statement.-At Miles City, Mont., the carrier maintains a wool
warehouse, which is open each season for a period of approximately
60 days for the purpose of receiving, handling, and forwarding wool.
During the season of 1921, the warehouse was open for a period of 55
days. On June 7, 1921, the position of wool-warehouse foreman was
bulletined for bid, in accordance with the existing rules governing
working conditions of employees in clerical and station service.
L. E. Gingry, an employee of the carrier, bid for the position, but on
June 4 it was assigned to S. Gupton, who was not an employee of the
carrier and who held no seniority rights in the carrier's service.
20936°-23- -47
732
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Gingry as to the reason for not
assigning him to the position in accordance with his bid, the super-
intendent advised him as follows:
Your application of June 8 for wool-warehouse foreman, Miles City, has been
carefully considered, and, as you are already employed, I do not deem it advis-
able to assign you to this temporary position, which will last about 30 or more
days.
This position was assigned to Mr. G. S. Gupton, who is experienced in handling
of wool shipments. While you may be fully acquainted with this work, you
understand, account of short season, it requires an experienced man to handle
same without trouble.
The employees contend that Mr. Gingry was thoroughly com-
petent to handle the position for which he bid and that it should
have been awarded to him in accordance with his seniority rights, as
clearly provided for in the rules of the agreement.
The carrier states that the position of wool-warehouse foreman is
one requiring experience in the handling of wool and Mr. Gupton
was selected in view of his familiarity in the handling of wool, and
the further fact that in the selection of an incumbent for this posi-
tion it was necessary to consider not only experience and competency
but ability to attract business of a strongly competitive character.
It is claimed that in addition to his experience in the handling of
wool, Mr. Gupton was acquainted with every wool shipper in the
territory, while Mr. Gingry had practically no acquaintance with
wool growers and shippers.
The carrier contends that Mr. Gingry had not the experience and
qualification necessary to assume the duties of the position to the
satisfaction of the carrier and the shippers, and that its action in
selecting Mr. Gupton was not in conflict with the provisions of the
clerks' national agreement.
Opinion. The evidence presented to the Labor Board in this case
clearly indicates that no exception was taken to the fitness and ability
of Mr. Gingry for the position which he sought; in fact, the letter
from the superintendent herein quoted is in effect an admission of
Mr. Gingry's qualifications.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that L. E. Gingry was en-
titled to the position of wool-warehouse foreman and should have
been assigned to same when it was bulletined in June, 1921, and shall
therefore be reimbursed for any monetary loss sustained as a result
of failure to assign him to the position.
DECISION NO. 1248.-DOCKET 1340.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of J. F. Jackson, assistant
chief clerk, Auburn Transfer, Wash.
Statement. Mr. Jackson was employed as assistant chief clerk at
Auburn Transfer, and on September 7, 1920, was dismissed from
the service for insubordination alleged to have been committed on
August 24, 1920.
DECISIONS.
733
An investigation was held by the agent on August 31, 1920. The
employees contend that the investigation held by the agent on
August 31, 1920, was improperly conducted and served to influence
other officials passing upon the case against the best interest of Mr.
Jackson, as the employees were not permitted to present certain
relevant evidence in his behalf.
It is the contention of the carrier that the investigation was prop-
erly held in accordance with rule 32 of the clerks national agree-
ment, that Mr. Jackson and his representative in the investigation
were given every opportunity to present evidence bearing upon the
charge, and that the evidence fully sustains the action taken in dis-
missing Mr. Jackson from the service for insubordination.
There has been filed with the Labor Board a transcript of the
investigation conducted by the agent in this case from which it
appears that a controversy arose between the chief clerk and Mr.
Jackson over the revision of a rate sheet, and that at this contro-
versy, which took place in the presence of the agent, Mr. Jackson
made certain remarks to both the chief clerk and the agent which
are considered in violation of rule 807 of the transportation rules of
the carrier, reading as follows:
Civil, gentlemanly deportment is required of all employees in their intercourse
with the public, their subordinates, and each other.
Courtesy and attention to patrons is demanded.
All employees are prohibited from entering into altercations with any person,
regardless of the provocation.
They will make a note of the facts, if necessary, and report to their immedi-
ate superior.
Decision.-The Labor Board has carefully reviewed the written
and oral evidence presented in this dispute and decides, in view of
the extenuating circumstances indicated therein, that J. F. Jackson
shall be reinstated to the carrier's service with seniority rights un-
impaired, but shall not be paid for time lost.
DECISION NO. 1249.-DOCKET 1403.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Are the employees at Whitefish, Mont., performing the
work herein described entitled to an increase of 12 cents per hour
under section 7, Article II of Decision No. 2, or an increase of 8
cents per hour under section 9, Article II of said decision?
Statement.-At Whitefish, Mont., there are employed about 20
laborers who the carrier states are engaged in getting ice from the
ice house, preparing it for passenger trains, assisting in icing refrig-
erators, cleaning and filling oil heaters for refrigerator cars in fruit
trains in cold weather, supplying cabooses, shifting freight in cars
in connection with repair work, adjusting bad-order loads, picking
up scrap in shop and repair track, and keeping shop and repair track
premises clean.
The employees claim that the employees referred to in this dispute
are performing identically the same work as the warehouse forces
734
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
with the exception that they transfer every class of freight handled
by the carrier and transfer it in carload lots direct from one car to
another, such as lumber, shingles, L. C. L. merchandise, machinery,
ore, apples, and other perishable freight. It is claimed that the
transfer of this freight is checked by the foreman in charge and that
the employees are required to truck or stow it in cars the same as is
done by truckers at other freight transfer points. The employees
contend therefore that the employees in question are entitled to an
increase of 12 cents per hour under section 7, Article II of Decision
No. 2, reading as follows:
Station, platform, warehouse, transfer, dock, pier, storeroom, stockroom, and
team-track freight handlers or truckers, and others similarly employed, 12
cents.
The carrier contends that they have been properly increasd 81
cents per hour under section 9, Article II of Decision No. 2.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employees referred
to herein are not station or platform freight handlers or truckers,
or others similarly engaged, within the intent of section 7, Article II
of Decision No. 2.
The claim of the employee is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1250.-DOCKET 1406.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding refusal of carrier to advertise for
bids and make assignments to vacancies existing in certain positions
as required by the provisions of agreement between the carrier and
the employees in telegraph and station service.
Statement. The carrier has declined to advertise for bids, vacan-
cies in the agencies at Covington, Franklinton, and Bogalusa, La.,
and Columbia, Monticello, and Tylertown, Miss.
The working conditions of employees in telegraph and station
service are governed by agreement between the carrier and Order of
Railroad Telegraphers, effective November 1, 1919. Article I of this
agreement provides, in part, that-
The following rules and rates of pay will apply to *
such station
agents, assistant agents, ticket agents and ticket sellers as are listed here.
in. * *
The list of positions appended to the agreement includes the fol-
lowing positions:
Bogalusa, freight agent.
Franklinton, agent-telegrapher.
Covington, agent.
Monticello, agent-telegrapher.
Tylertown, agent-telegrapher.
Article VIII of the agreement reads as follows:
(a) Service age will date from last time entering service on the division.
(b) Employees will be in line of promotion and where ability and qualifica-
tions are sufficient seniority will prevail.
(c) When vacancies occur or new positions are created, they will be adver-
tised to all employees on that division at once and accepted within 10 days
thereafter. The positions must be permanently filled within 30 days after
advertisement.
DECISIONS.
735
The employees contend that under the provisions of the existing
agreement vacancies in the positions of agent at the stations herein
referred to must be advertised and the senior employee in point of
service assigned to the position, if qualified.
The carrier states that Covington, Franklinton, Columbia, Monti-
cello, and Tylertown are county seats, and Bogalusa, La., is the
largest and most important station on the railroad, and that they
are stations which the carrier should not be required to bulletin when
a vacancy occurs. The carrier further states that the agents at these
stations are considered subordinate officials, as their work consists
of "looking after the company's affairs generally and keeping the
officers of the company advised of everything that happens or that
is about to happen that might in any way affect the interest of the
company."
The carrier claims that there is no objection to bulletining the
small stations, but that they can not perform the obligation resting
upon it to efficiently operate the property if they are required to
bulletin these important stations and jeopardize their business while
they are trying out an agent who it is known in advance is not cap-
able of performing the duties of the position.
Opinion.-Proofs submitted in the original presentation, but
tressed by that offered at the hearing, clearly discloses the existence
of the agreement hereinbefore described, and this agreement, sub-
scribed to by the accredited representative of the carrier, provides
that the several stations here in dispute, except Columbia, Miss., shall
be subject to all of the rules contained in the agreement.
Columbia, Miss., agency was created subsequent to the negotiation
of the existing agreement, but since every open station on the line
was included in the agreement it is a reasonable assumption that
Columbia would also have been listed had the agency been in exist-
ence at that time.
The contention of the carrier of being forced to jeopardize its
business while trying out at these important stations agents who
it is known in advance are not capable of performing the duties of
the positions, is not well taken, since paragraph 3 of Article VIII
clearly provides that before seniority can prevail ability and quali-
fications sufficient must be in evidence.
If for any reason the carrier desired to except from the agreement
certain stations previously included, it must proceed in accordance
with the provisions of the agreement.
The carrier raises the question as to the advisability of including
said positions in the agreeement, but this question is not in issue
before the board, and is therefore not passed upon.
Decision.-Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1251.--DOCKET 1251.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of B. A. Noone, car distributor, superintendent's
office, Cumberland, Md., for seniority over H. T. Henry, and adjust-
ment in rate of pay for the period of time displaced by Mr. Henry.
736
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. The position of assistant trainmaster held by W. E.
Yarnell on the Cumberland division was abolished. Mr. Yarnell
had been in the service of the carrier for a number of years and
formerly filled the position of car distributor, to which he was again
assigned on February 22, 1921, after his position of assistant train
master was abolished. Mr. Henry, who was thus displaced, exer-
cised his seniority to the third-trick car distributor's position in the
same office held by B. A. Noone, and the latter in turn exercised his
seniority to the position of assistant car distributor.
A dispute has arisen between the carrier and the employees as to
the right of Mr. Henry to displace Mr. Noone, the employees claim-
ing that Mr. Henry's seniority date is April 1, 1919, and the carrier
claiming that it is June 15, 1904. Mr. Noone's seniority date is June
25, 1916.
Prior to the issuance of Supplement No. 7 to General Order No.
27 by the United States Railroad Administration, no seniority rosters
were maintained for clerical employees in the carrier's service. It
was therefore arranged to give all clerical employees in the service
on September 1, 1918, the effective date of Supplement No. 7 to
General Order No. 27, the benefit of their continuous seniority as a
clerk from the date last employed in that capacity.
Mr. Henry entered the carrier's service as warehouseman on June
15, 1904, and has been continuously employed since that date as
warehouseman, traveling car agent, clerk, agent, relief agent, and
car distributor.
The employees state that the last service performed by Mr. Henry
in a position subject to the provisions of the clerks' national agree-
ment was April 1, 1919, and on the basis of seniority agreed to at the
conference following the issuance of Supplement No. 7, his seniority
on the clerks' roster should date from that date; and that therefore
the action of the carrier in permitting Mr. Henry to displace Mr.
Noone, whose seniority date is June 25, 1916, was in conflict with
the agreement, and it is requested that Mr. Noone be reinstated to
the position of third-trick car distributor and reimbursed for the
wage loss sustained since the date of his displacement by Mr. Henry.
The carrier states that Mr. Henry has never held any position
under the telegraphers' agreement; that the agency which he held
was a small nontelegraph agency not included in the agreement; and
that the position of relief agent was not included in the telegraphers'
agreement until after the issuance of Interpretation No. 4 to Supple-
ment No. 13 to General Order No. 27, at which time Mr. Henry was
engaged as car distributor.
The carrier contends that in accordance with understanding
reached at the conferences held after the issuance of Supplement No.
7 for the purpose of establishing the seniority date of employees
shown on the clerks' seniority roster, Mr. Henry was given seniority
as a clerk from June 16, 1904, and has been so carried on the Cum-
berland division seniority rosters; that no exception has been taken
by any one to the date shown; and that, therefore, since the record
shows that Mr. Henry is senior to Mr. Noone as a clerk on the Cum-
berland division, the action of the carrier in permitting him to dis-
place Mr. Henry was not in conflict with the provisions of the
agreement.
DECISIONS.
737
Rule 22 of the clerks' national agreement reads in part as follows:
A seniority roster of all employees in each seniority district, showing name
and proper dating will be posted in agreed upon places accessible to all em-
ployees affected. The rosters will be revised and posted in January of each
year, and will be open to protest for a period of 60 days from date of
posting.
Copies of the clerks' seniority rosters posted by the carrier on
January 31, 1919, July 10, 1919, November 26, 1919, and September
20, 1920, have been filed with the Labor Board. Mr. Henry's sen-
iority date as shown on these rosters is June 15, 1904. There is no
evidence of the employees having protested the seniority date of
Mr. Henry as shown on the said rosters within the 60-day period
provided in rule 22 above quoted.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1252,-DOCKET 1336.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper application of rule 14
of the agreement between the carrier and the employees in clerical
and station service.
Statement. The national agreement of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees contained the following rules pertaining to the bulletin-
ing of vacancies:
RULE 14. Short vacancy.-Positions or vacancies of 30 days' or less duration
shall be considered temporary and may be filled without bulletining.
RULE 15. Indefinite vacancy.-Positions or vacancies of indefinite duration
need not be bulletined until the expiration of 30 days from the date of em-
ployment or vacancy.
RULE 16. Long vacancy.—Positions or vacancies known to be of more than
30 days' duration will be bulletined and filled in accordance with these rules.
At a conference between representatives of the carrier and the
employees held in accordance with Decision No. 119, the carrier pro-
posed two rules as follows:
Short vacancy.-Positions or vacancies of 6 months' or less duration shall
be considered temporary and may be filled without bulletining.
Indefinite vacancy.—Positions or vacancies of indefinite duration shall not
be bulletined until the duration thereof is known, and then only provided the
future duration of the position or vacancy shall exceed six months. Positions
or vacancies known to be of more than six months' duration shall be bulletined
and filled in accordance with these rules.
The employees did not propose any rules on this condition of em-
ployment but objected to the six-month period in the rule proposed
by the carrier, and sought to have it changed to 30 days. After con-
siderable discussion the following rule, designated as "rule 14" in the
agreement between the carrier and the employees, was adopted:
Positions or vacancies of 90 days or less duration shall be considered tempo-
rary, and may be filled without bulletining.
NOTE. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to seasonal positions such
as cotton clerks, perishable clerks, inspectors, etc.
738
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A controversy has arisen as to the proper application of the above
rule, the carrier claiming that the provisions of this rule apply to
regularly established permanent positions covered by the agreement,
and the employees claiming that the provisions of the rule do not
apply to such positions.
The employees contend that at the conferences at which the rule
above quoted was adopted, the employees were given to understand
that "this rule would apply only so as to give the carrier the privi-
lege of handling legitimate positions required by reason of special
work and not work usually performed by the employees covered by
the agreement; or vacancies in such 90-day positions without bul-
letining for a period of 90 days, but should the work continue beyond
90 days then the positions or vacancies were to be considered perma-
nent and bulletined," and it was with this understanding that the
rule was agreed to.
The employees state that on or about July 30, 1921, the carrier an-
nounced that this rule would apply to all existing positions of a per-
manent nature and vacancies therein. Employees further state that
while the rule in controversy is somewhat similar to rule 14 of the
clerks' national agreement, it is considered by the employees as a new
rule adopted at a conference between the employees and the carrier
and carries with it the intent and application indicated by the min-
utes of the conference and not the application of a rule of the clerks'
national agreement.
The employees contend that the action which the carrier has taken
places a construction upon the rule that is not in accordance with the
understanding reached at the conference, and that if it were under-
stood that this rule would apply to permanent positions or vacancies
in such permanent positions it would not have been agreed to by the
employees.
L
The carrier admits that if a vacancy occurred or a new position
was created, and it was known to be a permanent proposition, it
would be promptly bulletined and assigned, but contends that it is
within its rights under the rule in not bulletining vacancies in per-
manent positions of 90 days or less duration.
The carrier contends that this rule, with the exception of the note,
is an exact duplicate of rule 14 of the clerks' national agreement,
except for the 30-day period; that under rule 14 of the clerks'
national agreement the carrier reserved the right to fill positions or
vacancies of 30 days' or less duration without bulletining; and that
when rule 14 was agreed to it was assumed to carry the same appli-
cation. The carrier further contends that if it were intended to
apply the rule in the manner stated by the employees, the word
vacancies" would not have been used in the rule.
66
Decision. The Labor Board decides that under the language of
rule 14 of the agreement between the carrier and the employees in
clerical and station service, positions or vacancies of 90 days' or less
duration may be filled without bulletining.
The position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISIONS.
739
DECISION NO. 1253.—DOCKET 1192.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Question. (a) Shall employees who operate drawbridges, classi-
fied by the United States Railroad Administration and the carrier as
lever men, be paid a rate of pay less than that provided in Decision
No. 2 for such classes?
(b) Shall the employees who declined to sign an application of
employment or contract providing for a less rate of pay and condi-
tion of employment than is provided in Decision No. 2 be given em-
ployment in their former positions and paid for time lost because
of their refusal to sign such a contract?
Statement.-Drawbridges are maintained by the carrier at various
points, on which there are employed drawbridge tenders, whose
duties are to manipulate certain signals governing the movement of
trains over the bridge when it is closed, manipulate levers governing
the opening of the draw for the passage of river traffic, and operate
derails and interlocking apparatus maintained in connection there-
with. Where the employment is seasonal, the period of navigation
usually extends from April 1 to December 15.
The employees state that just prior to the opening of the 1921
season, the employees seeking to return to positions they held the
previous season were requested to sign the following agreement :
I, the undersigned, agree to perform the duties required as bridge tender on
bridge for the sum of $125 per month, on a basis of 12 hours per day, all
days of the month; two shifts, known as day and night shifts; no overtime.
The employees further state that two employees, namely, Emil
Vetengle and Joe Vetengle, who were employed on bridge No. 3,
Saginaw River, during the seasons of 1919 and 1920, declined to sign
the above agreement, and were thereupon deprived of employment.
However, these employees did subsequently express their willingness
to accept the carrier's proposition pending settlement of the dispute
with reference to their rates of pay and working conditions, but their
request was denied.
The employees also state that it has been the practice for employees
in this class of service" when navigation closed and the operation of
bridges was discontined, to await the opening of navigation and con-
tinue in the same service with the rights given other employees,"
and in support of this statement cite the specific case of M. L. Terry,
who, after 10 years' service as bridge-tender lever man, and seniority
dating from the time he entered the service in that capacity, was
permitted to exercise his seniority rights to position of lever man at
Watson Street tower, Grand Rapids, Mich., over other applicants
with less than 10 years' service in the telegraph, tower, and lever-man
service.
The employees contend that the Labor Board has prescribed cer-
tain rates of pay and conditions of employment as just and reason-
able for the class of employees involved in this dispute, and that the
carrier had no right to request these employees to sign an agreement
under the terms of which they would be required to work under less
favorable conditions. The employees therefore request that the car-
740
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
rier be required to restore the rates established for these positions by
the decisions of the Labor Board, and that the employees affected be
returned to the service with seniority rights unimpaired and paid
for all monetary loss.
The carrier states that at points where the operation of the draw-
bridges is seasonal, the service of the drawbridge tenders is consid-
ered terminated at the end of the season; that they know of nothing
in the rules or regulations of the Labor Board or elsewhere that pre-
vents the carrier from making such terms with persons applying for
this work at the beginning of the season as are mutually agreeable to
the carrier and the applicant, nor of any reason that compels the
carrier to employ any particular person on these positions.
The carrier contends that the fact that some particular person
may have held one of these positions during a previous season is not
in its judgment controlling, and that the carrier has merely exercised
its rights in this instance. The carrier further contends that the
rates of pay and conditions of employment established for these em-
ployees are just and reasonable and are more favorable than those
enjoyed by employees in similar service on bridges not controlled by
the carrier.
Opinion.-Question (a) of this decision is taken. from the em-
ployees' ex parte submission, which indicates that the specific points
involved in this dispute are Charlevoix, St. Joseph, Saginaw, and
Port Huron, Mich., and Wallaceburg, Ontario.
Since Wallaceburg, Ontario, is not within the territorial limits of
the United States, the Labor Board has no jurisdiction and the
claims presented in behalf of employees at that point are therefore
dismissed.
Question (b) is also taken from the employees' ex parte submis-
sion, but it appears that the only employees in whose behalf specific
claims were presented to the carrier are E. Vetengle and J. Vetengle,
Saginaw, Mich.
Interpretation No. 10 to Supplement No. 13 to General Order No.
27 of the United States Railroad Administration contains the fol-
lowing provision with respect to the rates of pay and working con-
ditions of employees who operate drawbridges:
Question. How shall drawbridge tenders who operate drawbridges and
signals and derailing devices incident thereto, with or without interlocked
switches, by means of levers from a central point, be classified?
Decision. They shall be classified as levermen and be subject to the pro-
visions of Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27.
The duties of the drawbridge tenders referred to in this dispute
are described by the carrier as follows:
When the bridge is closed for use by trains, it is locked in that position and
is protected by interlocking signals, so that when a train approaches from
either direction it is necessary to operate the signals to allow the trains to pass.
When it is necessary to open the bridge to allow a boat to pass, they operate
levers which open the derails and unlock the bridge, and then by the use of
another lever they turn the bridge into its position up and down stream to
allow the boat to pass. After the boat passes it is restored to its original
position.
The bridge at Saginaw is operated by hand, and two men are on
duty on each shift to handle the bridge in the event of high winds
or unfavorable weather conditions. The bridge at St. Joseph is
DECISIONS,
741
power operated, but two men are employed on each shift as a matter
of safety and precaution.
The duties of these drawbridge tenders, as described above,
justified their classification as lever men under Interpretation No. 10
to Supplement No. 13, above quoted, and it appears that they were
classified and paid accordingly from the effective date of that
interpretation.
The provisions of Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27
were incorporated in the agreement between the carrier and em-
ployees in station and telegraph service. When Interpretation No.
10 was issued, the employees sought to have the provisions of the
agreement applied to the positions of drawbridge tenders, but they
were advised by the carrier that-
Inasmuch as the last proof of the telegraphers' schedule is now in the
hands of the printer, it would be rather difficult to add any more positions
to the telegraphers' schedule; and inasmuch as these men have been properly
classified and are drawing the rate authorized under Interpretation No. 10
to Supplement No. 13, I do not consider it necessary to show them in the
telegraphers' schedule,
With respect to the claims presented in behalf of E. Vetengle and
J. Vetengle, it appears that these employees declined to work under
the terms of the agreement presented to them at the opening of
navigation in 1921, and that they thereupon severed their connection
with the service.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides as follows:
(a) Inasmuch as the positions of drawbridge tenders at Charle-
voix, St. Joseph, Saginaw, and Port Huron, Mich., were classified
and paid as lever men in accordance with Interpretation No. 10 to
Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27 of the United States
Railroad Administration and subject to the provisions of the agree-
ment between the carrier and employees in station and telegraph
service, no change should have been made in the rates of pay and
conditions of employment prescribed by the agreement for such posi-
tions, unless made in accordance with the rules of said agreement or
in the manner provided in the transportation act, 1920.
(b) Claim of E. Vetengle and J. Vetengle is denied.
DECISION NO. 1254.-DOCKET 1710.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question. Is the contract which the Chicago & Alton Railroad
has entered into with Joseph Colianni & Bros. for the handling of
coal, sand, and cinders, for the pumping of water, and for engine
watchmen, in violation of the transportation act, 1920, and of the
wage and rule decisions of the Labor Board; and does said contract
remove from under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board employees
who, under said contract, perform work for the carrier?
Statement.-The evidence in this case shows that shortly prior to
December 1, 1921, the carrier caused to be circulated a notice to the
#
742
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
employees affected advising that, effective December 1, 1921, or
shortly prior thereto, Joseph Colianni & Bros. would take over the
handling of coal, sand, and cinders, the pumping of water where same
was then being handled by coal-chute men and engine watchmen, at
certain designated points.
In the notice circulated by the carrier it was stated that it was the
intention of the contractors to offer the employees then handling this
work the privilege of remaining in the service as employees of the
contractor, and that in the event they were not employed by said
contractor, by reason of the men not desiring to work for them, or
otherwise, they would be permitted to exercise their seniority to
any other position to which they were entitled and capable of fill-
ing. It is shown that the rates of pay and working conditions
applied to this service by the contractors were less favorable than
those established in Decisions 2, 119, and 147 of the Railroad Labor
Board.
The evidence shows that on November 30, 1921, a conference was
held between representatives of the carrier and representatives of
the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers, at which time the representatives of the
employees protested the action on the part of the management in
contracting work performed by its own employees at less favorable
wages and working conditions than established by the Labor Board
in its decisions. Upon failure to reach an adjustment in conference,
the employees filed an ex parte submission with the Labor Board,
in which is incorporated the following:
Beginning with Nov. 22, 1921, and days following, the Chicago & Alton Rail-
road Co. contracted to Joseph Colianni & Bros. the following-described positions:
Mazonia, Ill_
Varna, Ill.
Ridgely, Ill___
Godfrey, Ill____.
Virden, Ill
Coal chute, pump, and cinder men.
Coal chute.
Coal chute.
Coal chute.
Tallula, Ill
Odessa, Mo..
Larrabee, Mo_-
Roodhouse, Ill.
Booth, Mo_
Slater, Mo___
Kansas City, Mo-
Ill___
Brighton Park, Ill.
Glenn, Ill__.
Joliet, Ill___.
Dwight, Ill____
Bloomington, Ill.
Granville, Ill_.
Lawndale, Ill___.
Springfield, Ill___
Girard, Ill.
Carlinville, Ill.
Venice, Ill
Coal chute and pump.
Coal chute and engine watchmen.
Coal chute.
Coal chute.
Coal chute, pump, and cinder pit.
Cinder pit.
Coal chute and cinder pit.
Coal chute and cinder pit.
Coal chute and coal passers.
Coal passers, coal chute, and sand house.
Coal engines and loading cinders.
Coal chute and cinder pit.
Coal chute and cinder pit.
Engine watchman.
Engine watchman.
Coal chute.
Coal chute.
Engine watchman.
Cinder pit.
The wages paid the employees filling the positions at the above locations
prior to contracting them to Joseph Colianni & Bros. ranged from 383 cents to
474 cents per hour, working eight hours per day.
1
The wages paid by the above contractors to the men now filling the above
positions range from $3.35 per day to $130 per month, working as many hours
as is necessary to fill the requirements.
*
DECISIONS.
743
The employees protest the action of the company in contracting the above-
stated positions for the following reasons:
First. That it is a violation of the purpose and intent of the transportation
act, 1920, under which the Labor Board was created, and in keeping with
what appears to be a well-defined conspiracy between the various railroad
managements to evade the provisions of the transportation act.
Second. That the transportation act was enacted for the purpose, among
other things, of providing a method whereby disputes between railroad man-
agements and employees can be handled by an impartial tribunal, and by which
the interest of the public, the employees, and the management can be protected.
Third. That the doing of work under the " contract labor system entirely
removed the employees employed by the contractor from the supervision of
the Labor Board, and renders it possible, if such can be done, for the railroad
management to contract the upkeep of their entire railroad system and thereby
wholly evade the provisions of the transportation act, which are beneficial to
the employees, making it possible for labor disturbances, strikes, and lockouts
of those engaged in the upkeep of the railroads to take place, completely tying
up traffic without any relief whatever through the Labor Board.
Fourth. That the provisions of the transportation act clearly imply that
the management and upkeep of the railroads and the action incident thereto
must be done in such a way that the jurisdiction of the Railroad Labor Board
will not be evaded, and that any disputes, disturbances, or questions as to the
justness or unjustness of the wages paid, or of the working conditions under
which the employees are required to work, can be brought before the Railroad
Labor Board for an amicable and impartial adjustment.
Fifth. That the doing of the work under the "contract labor system" is not
only a violation of the provisions of the transportation act relating to the
Labor Board, but is also a violation of the transportation act as it applies to the
Interstate Commerce Commission. The Interstate Commerce Commission
under the provisions of the Federal statutes clearly is entitled to have a voice
in the supervision and control, in a measure, as to the operation and upkeep
expenses of the railroads, and if the "contract labor system" is permitted
then the Interstate Commerce Commission is thereby deprived of any super-
vision thereof, except as to determine whether or not the amounts paid for
any particular kind of work was the price called for in the contract.
The con-
tractors, not being engaged in interstate commerce and being independent
and distinct personages or corporations, not subject to the supervision, con-
trol, or inquiry of the Interstate Commerce Commission, furnish an avenue
for the evasion of the Federal statutes enacted for the purpose of protecting
the traveling and shipping public in such matters.
In addition to the reasons hereinbefore set out in support of the employees'
protest, i. e., that the method of doing the work in this manner is a violation
of the spirit, intent, and purpose of the transportation act, we further submit
that it is a violation of the agreement existing between the Chicago & Alton
Railroad Co. and the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and Railway Shop Laborers, effective July 1, 1921, and of the assurance given
by the company that they would live up to the agreement, and submit that
the employees have and are endeavoring to live up to the spirit and purpose of
the transportation act and to the provisions of the agreement.
We further protest against this method of doing work on the "contract labor
system" on the ground that it is a violation of the decisions of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, in that it is a change of working conditions and
a reduction of the force in a method and manner not provided for in the
contract of the employees with the railroad management, and not in the
manner provided by the provisions of the latter, not pointed out by the deci-
sions of the United States Railroad Labor Board.
We here wish to call your attention to Decision No. 120 of the Labor Board
where the board, in giving its opinion on identically the same question, states
in part:
(*
Such a device can not and will not be allowed to prevail. It can
easily be seen that if a carrier may evade the decision of the Labor Board by
abolishing a position and reestablishing it as in this case, there is an end to any
obligation to obey a decision of the Labor Board as to wages, if the carrier is
willing to employ this subterfuge."
We respectfully request your honorable board to order the Chicago & Alton
Railway Co. to immediately discontinue the contracting of the above positions;
and order the company that the rates of pay already determined upon by your
744
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
honorable board to be just and reasonable be reestablished; and, further, order
that all employees laid off as a result of the work done by the above contractor
be reinstated without impairment of seniority rights and paid for time lost less
what they have been able to earn in other employment during the period of
time held out of service of the railroad,
The following is quoted from position taken by the carrier in
response to employees' claim:
The action of this company in contracting this work is in no way new. It
has been handled in this manner for a long period of time; and before there
was a transportation act and before there was any labor board to govern such
transactions, this company proposed to contract this class of service, and what
we have finally done is only the carrying out and fulfillment of a plan under-
taken before Government control and is in full keeping with the practice and
custom on many railroads; therefore what the Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
has done is in no way an act or intent to evade the law, or to break down and
evade the rates of pay fixed by the Labor Board or the existing schedules.
The action of this company in contracting this work is not in our judgment
in violation of the law as cited in your letter, being Title III of the transporta-
tion act of 1920; therefore our position in this respect is unchanged.
On June 30, 1922, Mr. W. G. Bierd, president of the Chicago &
Alton Railroad Co., made the following statement in response to
question by the chairman of the Labor Board:
Mr. W. G. BIERD. Mr. Chairman, the Chicago & Alton is cited to appear here.
Our case is very brief and probably of not great importance. It is for the
contracting of the handling of coal, sand, and cinders. We have no contracts,
do not expect to have, and never have had for the repair of any class or equip-
ment or the building or doing of any maintenance work.
As is well known, the handling of coal, sand, and cinders by contract is of
many years standing, with valid contracting parties, a contracting firm that is
handling material on four or five large systems of the country.
We believe that we are fully within our rights. We did not get before the
board, only as we were brought here by an ex parte submission. We do not
fear at all what the decision of the board might be. We were cited to appear
and be heard. We have not been heard. But whether decided in our favor
or against us, or whether our case is finally heard or not, if it is the opinion
of this board that we may be in violation of your order, or that it may be even
harmful of the movement now in progress, we propose to cancel the contract
and obey the decision of the board, whatever it may be.
Opinion. Although not identical, the principle involved in this
case is similar to that involved in Decision No. 982, dispute between
the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L., and the Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad Co. The board in its opinion and decision
contained in said Decision No. 982 clearly indicated its position with
respect to this principle and for the purpose of conserving time and
space will refrain from repeating the expressions contained therein,
but will refer the parties to this dispute to said decision.
Decision. The Labor Board decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Chicago & Alton
Railroad Co. and Joseph Colianni & Bros. for the performance of
work above specified is in violation of the transportation act, 1920,
in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove said
employees from the application of said act, and that those provisions
of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of said em-
ployees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board.
(b) That the employees referred to are under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and de-
cisions of the Labor Board.
DECISIONS.
745
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1255.-DOCKET 1984.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Is the contract which the Michigan Central Railroad
Co. entered into with the Illinois Car & Manufacturing Co. for the
operation of its car-repair shops, West Detroit, Mich., in violation
of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and rule decisions
of the Labor Board; and does said contract remove from under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board employees who under said contract
are performing service for the carrier?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that in February, 1922, the Michigan Central
Railroad Co. entered into an agreement, or contract, with the Illinois
Car & Manufacturing Co. under the terms of which the latter com-
pany agreed to perform for the carrier certain car repair work at
West Detorit, Mich. It is shown that, in accordance with the agree-
ment or contract so entered into, the Illinois Car & Manufacturing
Co. did, on or about February 15, 1922, take possession of the said
car shops, tools, plant, and other items mentioned in the contract and
had been and was at the time of this submission performing the work
of repairing cars in conformity with the terms of said contract.
The representatives of the employees take the position in this case,
as in other cases involving the question of contract, that the carrier
violated the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, and also the
wage and rule decisions of the Labor Board in contracting its shops at
West Detroit, as outlined. It is the contention of the employees'
representatives that at conferences held prior to February 15, 1922,
between the general chairman, representing the carmen, and the
general manager regarding other disputes originating under the
then existing agreement that the management informally proposed
the 1917 piecework basis as a proposition to reopen the West Detroit
car shop, which had been closed for a period of approximately 14
months.
It is shown that no further conference was held between represent-
atives of the employees and the carrier until March 17, 1922, at
which time the employees protested the action on the part of the
carrier in contracting its shops. Being unable to reach an agree-
ment in conference, the submission was filed with the Labor Board
for decision in conformity with section 301, transportation act, 1920.
The following is quoted from the carrier's position:
1. Prior to February 15, 1922, the Michigan Central Railroad Co. had
itself operated its car repair shops, located at West Detroit, Mich., at times
employing a considerable number of men in and about the work done at said
shops, which shops were substantially closed and the forces employed thereat
laid off, except necessary watchmen and a few other employees, on or about
December 20, 1920.
746
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
2. That for a period of practically 14 months prior to February 15, 1922, said
car shops remained closed and not operated except as watchmen and other
persons were employed in and about said property for the protection thereof,
and occasionally during that period a few workmen employed in making cer-
tain minor repairs.
3. All of the persons employed in and about said shops of whatsover char-
acter were relieved from duty thereat as of February 15, 1922.
4. Under date of February 3, 1922, a contract was entered into with the
Illinois Car & Manufacturing Co., of Chicago, Ill., which contract, except cer-
tain of the exhibits attached thereto descriptive of certain classes of work
and not necessary here to recite, is as follows:
NOTE. At this point in the hearing the following parenthetical statement
was made:
(That has already been filed. That asks the board to find that the contract
shown in Exhibit No. 1 is a contract in effect, and to make the finding re-
quested in paragraph or request No. 4 in this request of findings.)
5. Pursuant to said contract the Illinois Car & Manufacturing Co., on Feb-
ruary 15, 1922, took possession of the West Detroit car shops, the tools, plant,
and other items mentioned in said contract and commenced work thereunder
and from thence hitherto has been and is now in possession of said plant
under said contract, and operating thereunder.
6. The Michigan Central Railroad Co. ceased doing work at said shops of
any sort on February 15, 1922, and from thence hitherto has not been and is
not now doing any work thereat or directly or indirectly operating said shops
or any part thereof, and since the date last aforesaid has not actually, di-
rectly or indirectly employed the petitioners or any other persons represented
by them, or for or on behalf of whom said petition was filed, on or about the
work of said shops in any manner whatsoever.
7. Petitioners first complained of said contract between the Michigan Cen-
tral Railroad Co. and the Illinois Car & Manufacturing Co. to the officers of
said Michigan Central Railroad Co. on or about March 16, 1922, at which time,
or shortly thereafter, the Michigan Central Railroad Co., through its proper
officers, declined to enter into any conference with the petitioners or their
representatives in relation thereto.
Respondent further requests this board to find and make the following con-
clusions:
1. Neither the petitioners nor those they represent, nor those for or in
behalf of whom the same is filed, were actually employed by the Michigan
Central Railroad Co. at the time the alleged controversy set forth in the com-
plaint filed herein arose, nor at the time the said complaint was filed; that
the relation of employer and employee ceased as a fact as regards the
operations of the Michigan Central Railroad Co.'s car shops at West Detroit,
Mich., February 15, 1922, and has not existed at any time since said date.
2. Neither the petitioners nor those they represent, nor any persons for or
on behalf of whom the same is filed, at the time the alleged dispute arose,
nor at the time the said petition was filed nor at the present time, were or
are employees of the Michigan Central Railroad Co. within the meaning of
transportation act, 1920.
3. In any aspect of the matter the facts appearing to this board in this
case do not present a dispute involving only grievances, rules, or working con-
ditions or wages or salaries arising between the Michigan Central Railroad
Co. and its employees and subordinate officials.
4. This board is without jurisdiction under the provisions of transportation
act, 1920, of either persons before us or the subject matter of the complaint
filed herein by petitioners.
5. This board has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question propounded by
the petitioners herein, viz: Has the Michigan Central Railroad the right to
contract their repair shop at Detroit?
6. The petition filed herein should be and is hereby dismissed and the relief
therein prayed for denied.
Opinion. While not identical in its various details, the question
involved in this dispute is similar to that which has been decided by
the Labor Board in numerous decisions. Attention is directed par-
ticularly to Decision No. 982, wherein the board's position is clearly
DECISIONS.
747
outlined as to the status of employees affected by said contract with
relation to the scope and application of the transportation act, 1920,
as well as the wage and rule decisions of the Labor Board.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Michigan Central
Railroad Co. and the Illinois Car & Manufacturing Co. for the
operation of car shops at West Detroit, Mich., is in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by
the carrier to remove said employees from the application of said
act, and that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages
and working rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions
2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board, of which the carrier was a
party.
(b) That the employees referred to are under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and
decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the
matter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em-
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1256.-DOCKETS 2234, 2236, 2339, AND 2340.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Question. Were the following contracts, let by the Chicago, Rock
Island & Pacific Railway Co., in violation of the transportation act,
1920, and of the wage and rule decisions of the Railroad Labor
Board; and did the contracts remove from under the jurisdiction
of the Railroad Labor Board employees who under said contracts
were performing work for the carrier:
Docket 2234. Contract for the operation of coal chute, Courtland,
Kans.
Docket 2236. Contract for the operation of pumping station,
South Bend, Nebr.
Docket 2339. Contract for operation of coal chute, Fairbury,
Nebr.
Docket 2340. Contract for operation of coal chute, Lincoln, Nebr.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with these cases shows that the carrier did enter into contracts for
the operation of its coal chutes and pumping station as indicated.
It is further shown that rates of pay and working conditions as
applied by the contractor were less favorable than those specified
in Decision No. 2 of the United States Railroad Labor Board. The
contracts, it is shown, ran for a duration of several months and were
canceled May 1, 1921.
The employees' position with respect to the right of the carrier
to contract such work is as follows:
On July 20, 1920, the Labor Board rendered its Decision No. 2 as to what
constituted just and reasonable wages for the employees of carriers party to
the dispute, reserving for a later determination that part of the dispute which
related to rules and working conditions. The dispute had been in conference
extending from March 10 to April 1, 1920. This conference had failed to
agree and the parties thereupon referred the dispute to the Labor Board for
20936°-23
48
748
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
decision, pursuant to section 301 of the transportation act of 1920. The Chicago,
Rock Island & Pacific and the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Cos. par-
ticipated in this conference by their duly authorized representative and joined
in the reference. Their duly authorized representative participated in the
hearing before the Labor Board and presented evidence tending to show what
wages were just and reasonable to the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific and the
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Cos. and their employees. These carriers
accepted the decision and up to and including the month of January, 1921, paid
their employees the wages determined just and reasonable.
The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. and the Chicago, Rock
Island & Gulf Railway Co. were parties to proceedings before the Interstate
Commerce Commission, dated July 29, 1920, entitled Ex parte No. 74, whereby
the commission authorized an increase to the group to which these carriers be-
long in freight and passenger rates. Approximately one-third of this in-
crease was stated by the commission to have been authorized for the purpose
of providing revenue to meet the wages determined by the Labor Board to
be just and reasonable.
Under Title III, transportation act, 1920, it is the duty of the Labor Board,
after failure of conference between the parties, to decide disputes between car-
riers and their employees. The board did decide such a dispute between the
complainant organization and the carrier in Decision No. 2. It decided that
the wages established by article 3 of the said decision constituted reasonable
wages for the positions specified in the resolution quoted above. But it is
urged by the carrier that it has abolished these positions; that they no longer
exist; that the work formerly done by the incumbents of such positions is
now being done by contract, and that the persons performing said work are
not employees but contractors.
We therefore request that these employees be paid for actual time lost during
the life of these contracts, less amount earned at other work during said
period.
The following is quoted from a communication of the carrier
addressed to the representative of the employees with respect to one
of the cases in question, which also expresses the carrier's position
with regard to the other cases involved:
In your letter of February 16, 1922, you indicate that Contractor Hamm was
master carpenter of the Nebraska division. While it is true that he was
master carpenter, he was not in that capacity at the time he contracted with
us for the operation of these chutes, as he was relieved from service account
reduction in force, resulting from consolidation of certain divisions; therefore
he was acting as a bona fide contractor, and as it has always been the right of
the management, and exercised in numerous cases, to operate coal chute where
it was found economical to do so, it was entirely proper that we make that
arrangement with Mr. Hamm.
If it were true, as claimed by you, that parties working under a contractor
would still be governed by a wage agreement applying to the railroad for its
employees, then I feel that Mr. Fritzinger should have continued in the service
under the contractor and made claim for the difference in rate of pay, if any.
which he received from the contractor and what he considers he should have
received from the railroad. Furthermore, there is no indication in your
correspondence as to why Mr. Fritzinger, when displaced at Courtland, did
not exercise his seniority to a position of coal-chute foreman at some other
point, or in any capacity where his seniority would entitle him to secure a
position. Statement made by him indicates that he earned $7.60, but that for
most of the period, as indicated above, he was putting in a little garden and
doing some other tinkering work but not working for wages.
*
*
*
*
As there is nothing in the wage orders or schedules which would prohibit the
carrier from contracting work of this character, in other words maintaining
the practice which has alw ys been followed when possible to effect economies
as required by the transportation act, 1920, I do not consider that the manage-
ment did anything improper, and the men had a perfect right to exercise their
seniority in the service or reenter the service when vacancies occurred if their
seniority entitled them to such positions; and under these circumstances can
not consistently authorize the payment of time which is evidently claimed by
these parties.
DECISIONS.
749
The following is quoted from statement_of_representative of the
carrier made at oral herring conducted by the Labor Board June 30,
1922 (p. 10):
Speaking for the Rock Island, I hardly know what to say, because the officers
on the railroads I represent saw the handwriting on the wall some year and
a half ago concerning contract and piecework, and as a result we did not au-
thorize, sanction, or approve the contracting of labor work, or the farming out
of car-repair work as mentioned by the board as being the practice on various
railroads, contrary to the board's decisions.
In fact, we did this one year and a half ago; doing then what our associate
railroads have in the last two or three days agreed with this board to do, that
is, stop it.
These four cases occurred a year and a half ago, and at that time we put a
stop to such work, hoping that shortly the board would render a decision, and
that we would then be able to know just what to do. Consequently, as I see it,
so far as this hearing is concerned it is a post-mortem on these four cases.
As soon as we found that we were listed among other carriers as contracting
work, we immediately made an explanation to the board, addressing a letter
to your honorable secretary, dated June 20, and I believe we sent copies to
each member of the board individually.
I do not know but what it would be well for me to read that letter into the
record at this time, to show that we feit we were wrongfully classified, and that
we had no business being before the board at this time.
This letter is dated Chicago, June 20, 1922, files 36104, 34929, 32972, 36103,
addressed to Mr. L. M. Parker, secretary, United States Railroad Labor Board,
Chicago, Ill., and reads as follows:
"Referring to letters of advice from you regarding following disputes filed
with the board:
“Docket 2234. Letter of June 8, 1922, pertaining to contracting for operation
of coal chute at Courtland, Kans.
"Docket 2236. Letter of June 8, 1922, pertaining to contracting for operation
of pump station at South Bend, Nebr.
"Docket 2339. Letter of June 17, 1922, pertaining to contracting for opera-
tion of coal chute at Fairbury, Nebr.
"Docket 2340. Letter of June 17, 1922, pertaining to contracting for opera-
tion of coal chute at Lincoln, Nebr.
"I am in receipt of advice from Mr. J. W. Higgins, executive secretary of the
Association of Western Railways, under date June 14, 1922, file circular AWR
225 (1), which indicates that our cases have been grouped with numerous other
dockets for hearing beginning 10 a. m. Monday, June 26, 1922, and if my infor-
mation is correct, the disputes submitted from a great many of the other rail-
ways constitute disputes resulting from the operation of certain facilities, or the
performance of certain items of work, under contracts which are still in force
and operative at the present time.
"Each of the four disputes listed above, as pertaining to the Rock Island,
covers merely temporary operation of facilities during period of 30 to 75 days,
early part of this year, and in no case are the facilities being operated by a
contractor at the present time, so that the dispute is merely a claim from the
representatives of the maintenance of way employees for the payment of time
lost while the facilities were being operated by a contractor and the employees
refused to perform work for the contractor and failed to exercise their seniority
to other positions; and in the case of Docket 2340, the original and principal
claim is that of a section foreman at Lincoln, Nebr., who was given an arbitrary
allowance of two hours' pay per day in addition to this basic salary as a section
foreman, which two hours' pay per day was to compensate him for supervising
the operation of the coal chute, and the employees claim that the carrier had
no right to eliminate such extra work from his assignment, even though we con-
tinued im in his regular assigned position as section foreman, for which he
received the customary and proper rate of pay.
In view of the fact that the disputes submitted by the employees of the
Rock Island appear to be of an entirely different nature from those on other
railways, we do not feel that it is proper to couple these disputes with others
set for hearing on June 26, 1922, but feel they should be set apart from those
docketed for other roads and given special consideration, even to the extent
of a separate hearing, especially in view of the fact that when complaint
was made by the representatives of the employees the contracts were canceled
and operation taken care of by our direct employees, as it was felt to con-
750
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tinue operation by contract might embarrass the Labor Board in carrying out
its expressed desire to enforce the observance of its decisions."
We received no advice and took no action, but we are still in the same
category, and are forced to appear and defend ourselves in these cases.
In explanation. I might say, taking the Courtland case under consideration,
that one of our local superintendents undertook to contract his coal chute and
pumping stations, but his contracts were not approved, and the former ar-
rangement was promptly restored, which action was taken purely and solely
for the purpose, first, of promoting harmony among our men and, second, to
keep in tune with the expressed views of this board until such time as a clear-
cut decision could be rendered.
Now, that was a year and a half ago. We have no disputes regarding
live contracts. These contracts, you understand, were only temporary in
character, lasting from 30 to 60 days, February to March, 1920, a year and
a half ago; and we do not understand why we have been cited to appear
before this board under the guise of having existing contracts in violation of
this board's decisions.
Opinion. The Labor Board has taken cognizance of the oral state-
ment made by representative of the carrier at hearing conducted
June 30, 1922, wherein he advises that the contracts referred to have
been canceled. Question submitted to the Labor Board by the em-
ployees was with respect to the right of the carrier to contract this
class of work, and as the evidence clearly indicates that the carrier
did enter into contracts for the performance of the work, as
specified, which were placed in effect, the board feels that it is re-
quired under the law to render decision with respect to the action
taken by the management in this regard.
The Labor Board's position with respect to the right of the carrier
to contract work formerly assigned to its own employees, such as was
done in these cases, is clearly set out in Decision No. 982. While the
cases herein present different details as to the class of work per-
formed, it is felt that the general principle involved is identical to
that referred to in said Decision No. 982. The board will refrain
from repeating the opinion contained therein, but will refer the
parties to this dispute to that decision.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contracts entered into for the performance of work
specified in the question and in the manner as outlined were in
violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as they purported
or were construed to remove said employees from the application
of said act, and that those provisions of the contracts affecting the
wages and working rules of said employees were in violation of De-
cision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the employees referred to were under the jurisdiction.
of the Labor Board and subject to the transportation act, 1920, and
decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested em
ployee or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1257.-DOCKET 2237.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad.
Question.-Alleged violations of working agreement, decisions of
the Labor Board, and the transportation act, 1920, when the carrier
DECISIONS.
751
contracted its car shops at Houlton, Me., November 1, 1921, to A. E.
Astle, contractor, who reduced wages and installed piecework.
Statement. The representatives of the employees contend this
shop was contracted and the employees were not given any legal
notice of any change in working conditions, as provided for in their
agreement, and as provided for in the rules issued by the Labor
Board; further that the arguments with reference to the legal points.
connected with this dispute were presented by counsel in Dockets
850, 1204, 1205, and 1206, and after the issuance and receipt of deci-
sion on Docket 850, the employees wrote the carrier in part:
Will you advise in line with this practice if you are willing to grant the
request made in February, namely, that the management reinstate its former
employees at Houlton and allow them compensation for any wage loss suffered?
Under date of May 17, 1922, reply was received from the carrier
which reads, in part, as follows:
In replying to the last paragraph thereof, I beg to state that this company is
not willing to reinstate on its pay roll the men formerly employed in the
Houlton car shops or to allow them compensation for any wage loss they may
have sustained since the company closed its shop at Houlton. The closing of
the shop by the company was bona fide, and it is not our intention to reopen
the shops under any circumstances.
The representatives of the carrier state that the conditions with
respect to the character of car-repair work to be carried on made it
inefficient and uneconomical to operate the shops at Houlton, so it
was determined that the carrier would close the shops, when a
member of the board of directors living at Houlton asked the
management if some arrangement could not be made to keep the
shops open, at least during the winter, so as to provide employment
for men at that point. The situation was looked over and Mr. Astle,
who had at previous times done car-repair work, building work, and
various other work for the carrier, was selected to take over the
shops so that the railroad company would pay only for what work
was put out.
Further, that Mr. Astle entered into a contract with the company
as an entirely independent contractor, he being paid on the piece-
work basis entirely and paying his men, as he saw fit, on either piece-
work or an hourly basis, hiring as many men as he needed and
having full authority over the shops; therefore, the only reason the
shops were kept open was so that employment might be provided,
they being unnecessary in the operation of the property, yet every
man who was working prior to the closing of the shops by the
carrier was offered employment by the contractor, and the situation
was handled entirely in accordance with the rules and working con-
ditions established by the Labor Board and agreed upon with the
carrier.
Opinion. Under date of August 12, 1922, the Labor Board re-
ceived a letter from the carrier reading, in part, as follows:
Since writing you on the 5th it has now been arranged to take back under
railroad operation the car-repair shop at Houlton, Me., on August 16, instead
of September 1.
However, the question presented in this dispute is similar to other
cases involving the question of contracts, many of which have re-
cently been decided by the Labor Board. The position of the board
with respect to the general question of contracting work, such as
752
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
that complained of in this case, is clearly set forth in decisions pre-
viously promulgated; therefore it is not felt necessary to elaborate
on this case other than to restate its position in the decision to follow:
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into with A. E. Astle for the opera-
tion of car shops at Houlton, Me., involving employees of the me-
chanical department is in violation of the transportation act, 1920,
in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove said
employees from the application of said act, and that the provisions
of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of said em-
ployees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the
Labor Board.
(b) The employees of said contractor are under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board and subject to the application of the transportation
act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative, giving consideration to any question that affects
the right of employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1258.—DOCKET 2238.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Question.-Alleged violation of decisions of the Labor Board and
the transportation act, 1920, by the carrier named above, account of
contracting car cleaning Exeter Street yard, Boston, Mass., March
17, 1922, to the American Railway Car Cleaning Corporation.
Decision. At the hearing held on this case under date of June 30,
1922, it was stated that satisfactory adjustment had been made be-
tween the interested parties. The case is therefore dismissed and
the docket closed.
DECISION NO. 1259.-DOCKET 2239.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Question.-Are the contracts which the Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. has entered into with the Railway
Service & Supply Corporation for the operation of its locomotive
and car shops, Beech Grove, Ind., in violation of the transportation
act, 1920, and of the rule and wage decisions of the Labor Board;
and do said contracts remove from under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board employees who, under such contracts, are performing
service for the carrier?
Statement.-The evidence submitted in connection with this case
shows that on February 28, 1922, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago
& St. Louis Railway Co. entered into a contract with the Railway
DECISIONS.
753
Service & Supply Corporation covering the operation of the freight-
car-repair shops at Beech Grove. On March 20, 1922, a contract
was entered into between the same parties covering the operation of
the locomotive-repair shops at Beech Grove.
At the oral hearing conducted in connection with this case the
representative of the employees took the position that the carrier
violated the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, and the rule
and wage decisions of the Labor Board in entering into the above
contracts. The representative of the employees did not present de-
tailed argument as to the employees' position, but referred the Labor
Board to evidence introduced and argument advanced in connection
with certain previous cases heard by the board, namely, Dockets 850,
1204, 1205, and 1206, which, it is claimed, was equally applicable to
this case and requested the board that it be so considered.
The representative of the carrier at the oral hearing moved that
the case be dismissed on the general ground that the board was with-
out jurisdiction in the premises and assigned the following reasons:
1. There is no relation of employer and employee within the purview of the
transportation act, 1920, or otherwise, between the carrier and the persons in
the employ of the contractor under the contract or contracts involved, or persons
who were or had been in the employ of the contractor at the repair shops
covered by said contract or contracts prior to the contracting out of said
repair shops.
2. The contract involved herein is made and executed by the carrier in due
exercise of its lawful right, and this board is without jurisdiction or authority
either (a) to impair, modify, or abrogate the contract; (b) to require that it
be so impaired, modified, or abrogated; (c) to require or direct the carrier to
take any action or position whatever in derogation of the terms thereof; or
(d) to make or enter in this proceeding or otherwise any direction or order in
anywise restricting or qualifying the right of the carrier thereunder or
intended to work such restriction or qualification.
3. The issue or purported issue involved in this situation or proceedings is
not such a one as this board is authorized to hear and determine under the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
4. No dispute within the purview of the transportation act, 1920, is here
presented or shown to exist, and this board is without jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter of the pending proceeding.
5. There is no showing by evidence or otherwise that the subject matter of
this proceeding involves any dispute likely substantially to interrupt commerce.
Opinion. The principle of contracting work involved in this dis-
pute is similar to that contained in Decision No. 982, in which de-
cision the Labor Board clearly sets forth its opinion with respect to
this question. The board will not reiterate the opinion therein con-
tained, but will refer the parties to this dispute to said Decision
No. 982.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contracts entered into between the Cleveland, Cin-
cinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. and the Railway Service
& Supply Corporation for the operation_of its freight-car-repair
shops at Brightwood and Beech Grove, Ind., and its locomotive-
repair shops at Beech Grove, Ind., are in violation of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are construed by the car-
rier to remove said employees from the application of said act, and
that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages and working
rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and
147 of the Labor Board.
754
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(b) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and are subject to the application
of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1260.-DOCKET 2240.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), V.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.; Fort Street Union Depot Co.
Question. Is the contract entered into between the Pere Mar-
quette Railway Co. and Dave Marion for the operation of the power
plant and facilities pertaining thereto at Baldwin, Mich., in viola-
tion of the transportation act, 1920, and does said contract remove
from under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board employees who,
under said contract, perform service for the carrier?
Statement.—The evidence in this case shows that on June 14, 1921,
the Pere Marquette Railway Co. entered into a contract with Dave
Marion for the operation of its power plant and facilities at Bald-
win, Mich.
The contract so entered into reads in part as follows:
1. Said first party, in consideration of the sum of $1 and covenants herein
specified to be performed by second party, does hereby let and lease to second
party the following described premises and property situated and being in Lake
County, State of Michigan, to wit:
All the land of first party situated south of the south line of its right of
way and lying in the east half of the northeast quarter of section 3, town. 17,
N. R. 13 W., together with all flowage and riparian rights belonging to first
party in the north half of the northwest quarter of section 2, all as shown in
blue print attached hereto; together with the power plant of first party con-
sisting of a dam, two water-power wheels, a pump for pumping water, two
water mains, dynamo for generating electric currents, pole and water lines,
meters, and such other accessories as are now connected with or forming a
part of said plant.
2. Second party agrees that during the life of this lease he will operate the
said power plant for such part of the 24-hour period of each day as shall be
necessary to provide sufficient water and electric current to meet the require-
ments at all times of first party, and of all other patrons or users of water
or current supplied or provided by this plant.
3. Second party agrees that, except as provided in paragraph 8, he will pro-
vide at his own expense all labor necessary to efficiently operate said plant,
and at his own expense furnish all oil and waste required in the operation of
said plant, and at his own expense make all minor running repairs and ad-
justments.
4. Second party agrees that at the termination of this lease he will deliver
back the properties covered by this lease in the same condition as when re-
ceived, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
The representative of the carrier, at oral hearing before the Labor
Board, made the following statement:
Before offering any evidence in this case, I desire to make a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the board is without jurisdiction, for the follow-
ing reasons:
First. There is no relation of employer and employee between the carrier
and the individual contractor now operating the Baldwin plant. Inasmuch
as the transportation act gives this board, in certain cases, jurisdiction only to
DECISIONS.
755
determine disputes between carriers and their employees, there is no issue
before the board that it is to hear and decide.
Second. That the entering into and the performance of the contract for the
operation of the Baldwin power plant on the part of the railroad is not pro-
hibited by law and that the contract involved was made by the carrier in the
exercise of its full legal rights.
This board has no jurisdiction or authority to impair, set it aside, or
modify it.
Third. That the issue in this case is not of such a character under the pro-
visions of the transportation act as the board is authorized to hear and de-
termine, and the board is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case.
Fourth. That the evidence fails to establish that there is any threatened sub-
stantial interruption of commerce on the lines of the carrier by reason of the
operation of the Baldwin power plant under contract.
*
Baldwin is a village of about 600 population in Lake County, Mich., some
distance north of Grand Rapids. The population is largely made up of railroad
men and their families. At that point there is no public utility which furnishes
fighting and water facilities to the public.
Some years ago the Pere Marquette, after they had installed a plant which
is operated by water power, at the request of the public, began to form con-
nections for the selling of water to the public. That also applies as to the
lighting, so that in effect they were what might be regarded as subscribers,
as if they were obtaining light and water from a public utility.
The Pere Marquette also furnished the water for the fire protection of the
village. The maximum number of men that have ever been employed in that
plant is there.
On June 14, 1921, the Pere Marquette made a lease with one of the former
employees at that point for the operation of the Baldwin plant. The plant is
not on the railroad right of way but is adjacent to it. It would be possible
for the Pere Marquette to continue operation for some little time without any
interruption of commerce if the operations of the plant at Baldwin were dis-
continued.
The Pere Marquette and the Fort Street Union Depot Co. were brought into
this proceeding by the board taking jurisdiction on its own motion, and I now
make a motion to dismiss on the ground that there is no threatened interrup-
tion of commerce at Baldwin and that the other issues have been closed.
*
*
It is quite evident that this is a one-man operated plant; the plant is now
being operated, as I understand it, by one man and his son. It is not necessary
to operate it all day and all night. There are some certain hours in which the
plant may be shut down, and as far as commerce is concerned, it would not be
any more than a grain of sand to a mountain.
The following is quoted from the statement of representative of
the employees made at oral hearing conducted in connection with
this case:
Louis L. Duffing and Stephen Duffing, prior to March 20, 1921, were em-
ployed in said power plant, the former as a first-class electrical worker under
rule 140, and the latter under rule 141, of the shopmen's national agreement, as
continued by Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board.
On or about February 1, 1921, representatives of the carrier called upon said
employees with a view to inducing them to agree upon a reduction in their
rates of pay, the carrier proposing a monthly rate of $155 as a substitute for
the hourly rate of 85 cents as established under Decision No. 2 in the case of
Louis L. Duffing, and a monthly rate of $145 as a substitute for the hourly rate
of 81 cents, as established under Decision No. 2 in the case of Stephen Duffing.
Subsequently, the employees in question advised the carrier that further dis-
cussion covering the carrier's proposal should be taken up with their duly
authorized representative, the president of the system federation.
On February 21, 1921, a conference was held between the duly authorized
representatives of said employees and the assistant general manager of the
carrier, concerning the dispute. A disagreement developed at this conference
and the carrier advised the representatives of the employees in question that
it would promptly proceed to dispose of said power plant in such a manner as
756
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
would produce the desired results. Thus the conference, which had been
called by the carrier, ended and the representatives of the system federation
left.
On March 14, 1921, the carrier served a separate notice upon each of the
employees herein involved as follows:
“The Pere Marquette Railway Co. have leased the power plant, and therefore
will not have use for your services after March 20, 1921.
"Please accept this as a formal notice in accordance with the agreement."
The above-quoted notice was signed by Mr. G. W. Trout, the carrier's signal
engineer and superintendent of telegraph.
On or about March 21, 1921, the carrier did lease said power plant to one
Dave Marion, prior thereto employed as a generator attendant on one of the
three shifts maintained therein.
The carrier's failure to grant a conference requested by the system federa-
tion in a letter dated May 15, 1922, for the purpose of taking up the question
of reinstatement of these two men, with pay for all time lost growing out of
said contract, does, in our opinion, constitute a refusal on the part of the
carrier to join with the duly authorized representatives of these employees in
a submission of the dispute to the Railroad Labor Board in the manner pre-
scribed in the transportation act, 1920. The dispute therefore is hereby sub-
mitted to the Railroad Labor Board, ex parte, for consideration and decision.
Opinion. The Labor Board has analyzed the submissions of the
respective parties to this controversy and finds that while the details
in connection with this case are somewhat different from other cases
relative to the railway companies contracting their shop facilities,
etc., which have been previously heard and decided, the principle
involved herein is the same.
The attention of the parties to this dispute is directed to Decision.
No. 982, wherein the Labor Board clearly outlines its position with
respect to the principle of contracting work as therein outlined.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Pere Marquette
Railway Co. and Dave Marion for the operation of its power plant.
and facilities at Baldwin, Mich., is in violation of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier
to remove said employees from the application of said act, and that
those provisions of the contract affecting the wages and working
rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119,
and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of
the transportation act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1261.-DOCKET 2241.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Alleged violation of decisions of the Labor Board and
the transportation act, 1920, by the carrier named above, in contract-
ing its Houston car shops on June 1, 1921, to Walter Letts; its Al-
giers, La., shops on September 12, 1921, to M. S. Kerr; and its
DECISIONS.
757-
Orange, Tex., shops on April 26, 1921, to the Southern Dry Dock
& Shipbuilding Co.
Statement. At the hearing held on this case June 26, 1922, a rep-
resentative of the carrier informed the Labor Board that the con-
tracting of plants for the repairs to cars had been discontinued on
June 15, 1922. After discussion by representatives of the respective
parties to the dispute, it was indicated to the board by representative
of the employees that they would be willing to withdraw the case.
Decision. This docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1262.-DOCKET 2359.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the contracting of work performed
by certain employees in clerical and station service.
Statement.—On April 15, 1922, certain clerical employees in the
mechanical department of the carrier at Indianapolis, Ind., were
relieved from the carrier's service and placed under contract. No
change was made in the rates of pay or working conditions of the
employees involved except to discontinue the granting of free trans-
portation and the application of rules governing their seniority.
On April 18, 1922, certain employees in the oil house of the store
department at Indianapolis, Ind., were notified to sign applications
to work under contract with the Kellogg-Greggo Railway Service
Co., of Chicago, Ill. The rates of pay of the employees affected
were reduced from 483 cents to 41 cents per hour.
On or about April 18, 1922, a portion of the employees in the
warehouse of the carrier at Indianapolis were placed on a contract
basis. In this case there are 16 men involved. Some time prior to
April 18 they were approached by the agent and asked to accept a
reduction in wages from 48 cents to 50 cents an hour for truckers and
callers, respectively, to 39 cents and 41 cents an hour for truckers and
callers, respectively. Nine of the men accepted the reduction and
continued in the carrier's service at the reduced rates proposed by the
carrier. Seven men declined to accept the reduction and made appli-
cation for employment with the contractor. One of the seven men
afterwards declined to accept the contractor's proposition, and two
men were informed that their services were not required. Subse-
quently the men who went to work for the contractor applied to
the carrier for reinstatement in its service at the reduced rates of
pay named above, whereupon the contractor agreed to withdraw and
the men were restored to the carrier's service.
The employees contend that the contracts above referred to are
not bona fide and were awarded for the express purpose of evading
the application of the transportation act, 1920, and the orders and
decisions of the Labor Board; and request that the board issue an
order directing the discontinuance of the practice above outlined
and restore the employees affected to their positions and rates of pay
thereof in the carrier's service.
758
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier contends that the organization party to this dispute
has no authority to represent the clerks in whose behalf this claim
is presented, and that an agreement has been made with a committee
which has shown that it represents a majority of this class of em-
ployees. This contention is disputed by the clerks' organization,
and the case is now before the board for decision in another docket.
The carrier requests that the case be dismissed, as the Labor Board
is without jurisdiction in the matter alleged to be in dispute, and
for the further reason that this is not a dispute which has been sub-
mitted by the parties thereto under section 301 of the transportation
act, 1920, nor is it a dispute over which the Labor Board has juris-
diction under section 307 of the transportation act, 1920.
Opinion. While the contract covering the warehouse employees
has been discontinued, the Labor Board understands that the rates
of pay in effect prior to said contract have not been restored. The
carrier contends that the reduced rates have been agreed to by the
employees, but it is admitted that the employees accepted the re-
duction as an alternative to working for a contractor. The board
therefore considers the method used in securing the employees'
consent to the reduction as coercive and not in accordance with the
spirit and intent of the transportation act, 1920.
The Labor Board feels that its position with respect to the general
question of contracting work such as herein referred to is clearly
set forth in Decision No. 982 and other decisions recently issued on
this subject, and for that reason will refrain from entering into
extensive detail in this opinion. The board, however, believes that
its position with respect to this general question should be reenunci-
ated in connection with this particular case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) The contracts entered into between the Cincinnati, Indian-
apolis & Western Railroad and the contractors referred to herein
covering work performed by clerical and station employees in the
mechanical and stores department and the warehouse at Indianapolis,
Ind., are in violation of the transportation act, 1920, in so far as
they purport or are construed by the carrier to remove said employees
from the application of said act, and that those provisions of the
contracts affecting the wages and working rules of said employees
are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) The employees who were placed on a contract basis as referred
to herein are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject
to the application of the transportation act, 1920, and the decisions
of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
DECISION NO. 1263.-DOCKET 2360.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Is the contract entered into between the management
of the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co. and the
DECISIONS.
759
Kellogg-Greggo Railway Service Co. for the operation of its shop
facilities in violation of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage
and rule decisions of the Labor Board, and does said contract remove
from under the jurisdiction of the Labor Board employees who, un-
der said contract, are performing service for the carrier?
Statement. The evidence in this case shows that on April 11,
1922, the management of the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western
Railroad Co. entered into a contract with the Kellogg-Greggo Rail-
way Service Co., of Chicago, Ill., which contract embodied, among
other provisions, the following:
The contractor agrees that on the effective date of this agreement, herein-
after provided, it will take possession of the premises shown inclosed in red
lines upon the blue print attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof and
identified as Exhibit A (exhibit referred to on file with Labor Board), to-
gether with all shops, roundhouses, buildings, machinery, stationary boilers
and engines, tracks, switches and fixtures, and appurtenances thereto of every
kind and nature situated thereon or contained therein, except that such work
may be done on said premises or in said buildings by the railroad or by other
parties designated by it as shall not interfere with the operation of the con-
tractor hereunder or be inconsistent with the terms of this agreement.
+
2. That in the shops and buildings located within the area shown on the at-
tached blue print, the contractor will make such repairs to locomotives, cars,
and other rolling stock, belonging to or in the possession of the railroad, and
perform such other analogous work as the railroad may from time to time
require. Such repairs shall be made by the contractor in accordance with the
plans, specifications, and instructions of the duly authorized representatives
of the railroad, to be transmitted to the contractor from time to time as
hereinafter specified.
*
**
*
*
*
*
14. The contractor shall fix the hours of work and the rates of pay of all its
servants, agents, and employees, and establish the piecework schedules accord-
ing to which employees working on a piecework basis shall be paid; but such
rates of pay, hours of work, and piecework schedules shall be subject to the
approval of the superintendent of motive power of the railroad, or the master
car builder, depending upon the nature of the work involved. The railroad
reserves the right at all times to determine the number of employees that the
contractor shall employ in the work done for the railroad and covered by this
agreement, and the volume of work to be done by the contractor. The rail-
road shall at its own expense furnish a timekeeper or timekeepers and piece-
work inspectors who shall make up the pay rolls on which payments of the
contractor's employees by check for services are based.
A protest against the action on the part of the carrier was filed
with the Labor Board by the chief executive of the Railway Em-
ployees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), which or-
ganization claims the right to represent a majority of the men af-
fected. It is the claim of the representatives of the Railway Em-
ployees' Department that they have been unable to secure recogni-
tion from this carrier, and were therefore unable to handle the dis-
pute in conference; hence, it was necessary that they file an ex parte
submission. The representatives of the Railway Employees' Depart-
ment charge that the action on the part of the carrier in contracting
its facilities and work is in violation of the transportation act, 1920.
The following is quoted from a statement of the representative of
the Railway Employees' Department at oral hearing conducted in
connection with this case:
The information that we have on this case is that the shops closed on April
8, 1922, and opened up under contract April 17, 1922. No reason was given for
contracting the work, except to avoid paying standard rates of pay as estab-
lished by the Railroad Labor Board.
760
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The contractors are named as the "Kellogg-Greggo Railway Service Co.," as
indicated by a letter from General Manager M. V. Hines, dated June 9, 1922,
written to William Huddleson.
No record of incorporation of this company is to be found in the secretary
of state's office, neither can any record of a lease be found in the recorder of
deeds' office in Indianapolis.
We have been unable to get a copy of the contract between the company and
the contractors.
The contractors are a company, but are not incorporated in the State of
Indiana.
The same officers, checkers, inspectors, foremen, et cetera, are working for
the contractor as were working for the railroad before contracting the work.
The shops, yards, tools, material, and equipment are used by the contractor
as were formerly used by the company. We do not know what charges are
made as between the contractor and the company.
We do not know of any profit sharing between them. The contractor pays
the pay roll, signing checks as "Kellogg-Grego Railway Service Co." The
checks are dated from Grand Rapids, Mich.
The contractor is paying on an hourly basis, except the freight car men that
were working piece work prior to his taking over the work.
The forces will run about the same as before the contractor took over the
work, with practically the same employees.
The contractor does not recognize committees, seniority, decisions of the
Labor Board, and runs an open shop." We can not give details of violations.
as the data is hard to gather.
The contractor exercises authority over inspection, but the same supervisory
forces are used as were used by the company before contracting. The con-
tractor uses the same blanks as were used by the company.
Nine hours is the day's work, but if men work 10 hours or more they are
not paid at overtime rates; just at straight-time rates or the regular hourly
rates for all time worked. The contractor does not pay any time and a half
for work at any time.
No committee is received when men are discharged. The contractor sends
men out on the road in emergency work and wrecking service, but the rail-
road company furnishes the transportation when necessary, the contractor
paying the men.
We agreed here yesterday that the evidence submitted in all these cases was
somewhat similar, and we would confine ourselves to a brief statement of facts
in the case. Therefore, I would call your attention to the legal phases of this
question which were discussed at other hearings before the board in Dockets
850, 1204, and 1205, as presented by Attorney Walsh, which, we feel, cover all
the legal phases that might be involved in this dispute.
The carrier's position follows:
The first and only intimation that The Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western
Railroad Co. has had that a dispute exists between said company and its shop-
craft employees, growing out of the alleged contracting by said company of its
work in certain shops, was the receipt of a telegram dated June 23, 1922, and
received after the close of business on that day, reading as follows:
"Credible information having come to the board that a dispute exists be-
tween The Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co. and its shop-craft
employees, growing out of the alleged contracting by said carrier of its work
in certain shops, the discharge of a large number of its employees, and the
placing of certain of its shop work on a piecework basis, which action of the
carrier the employees contend is a violation of the law and the decisions of
the Railroad Labor Board, but which the carrier contends is legal and not in
violation of the rights of the employees, and it appearing to the board that
said dispute is likely substantially to interrupt commerce, and it further ap-
pearing that disputes involving this same question are now pending before the
board and will be decided at an early date, the Railroad Labor Board therefore
assumes jurisdiction of said dispute and sets same for hearing Monday, June
26, 1922, at 10 a. m. This action must not be construed as indicative of the
board's position on the merits of this or similar controversies now pending
before it."
DECISIONS.
761
There has been no submission of the matter as provided under section 301
of the transportation act, 1920, nor has there been any ex parte submission of
the matter under section 307 of the transportation act, 1920, and therefore the
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co. has had no opportunity to
ascertain what are the exact issues of the alleged dispute. The railroad com-
pany knows of no source from which the United States Labor Board could have
received credible information that a dispute exists between the railroad company
and its shop-craft employees growing out of the alleged contracting by said
carrier of its work in certain shops for the reason that there has been no such
dispute; no committees of employees either of the railroad company or any
contracting company have taken this matter up in any way with the railroad
company. With reference to the statement in the foregoing telegram that the
employees contend the action of the railroad company in discharging a large
number of its employees and the placing of certain shop work on a piecework
basis is a violation of the law and the decisions of the United States Railroad
Labor Board, the railroad company, without in any way waiving its legal right
to a dismissal of this matter as asked for in the foregoing motion, wishes to
state that on or about the 23d day of July, 1921, a large number of the railroad
company's shop employees, but not all of them, went out on an unauthorized
strike and that thereafter, upon the reemployment of certain employees who
went out on such unauthorized strike and upon the employment of new men to
take the place of the unlawful strikers who did not return, after due negotiation,
new agreements were negotiated with the shop employees covering rules and
regulations as to working conditions, and there has been no complaint in regard
to the establishment of piecework nor in regard to the discharge of any em-
ployees, nor has the railroad company been notified in any manner that any of
its employees working under such agreements are dissatisfied therewith.
With reference to the statement in the telegram that it appears to the board
that said dispute is likely to substantially interrupt commerce, the railroad
company wishes to advise that there is absolutely no basis for this assumption,
as in the first place there are no facts upon which any assumption can be based
that there is a likelihood of any strike, and in the second place there is no
basis for the assumption that in the event there should be a strike it would
be likely to substantially interrupt commerce, and this is evidenced by the fact
that during this unauthorized strike in July, 1921, there was no interruption
whatever in the operation of the railroad company's property.
The United States Railroad Labor Board can have no jurisdiction of this
alleged dispute under section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, for the reason
that said section provides for the hearing of disputes by the United States
Railroad Labor Board in the event both parties to the dispute should agree
to a joint submission of the dispute to the Labor Board, and there has been no
joint submission in this matter.
The United States Railroad Labor Board can have no jurisdiction in this
matter under section 307 of the transportation act, 1920, for the reason that
there has been no ex parte submission of this matter as provided in said sec-
tion and since there is no dispute and no facts which would warrant the Labor
Board in assuming that a substantial interruption in commerce, as provided in
the law, might occur, it is apparent that the United States Railroad Labor
Board can have no jurisdiction. It should be a matter of judicial knowledge
that on a railroad, such as the railroad of this company, no dispute, whether
alleged or otherwise, could substantially interrupt commerce. This has been
fully demonstrated in the strike of July 23, 1921.
Since the United States Railroad Labor Board, under existing conditions,
can only acquire jurisdiction over disputes or alleged disputes under section
301 or section 307 of the transportation act, 1920, and, as has been pointed out,
no such facts exist to give said Board jurisdiction by virtue of said sections, the
foregoing motion should be sustained.
This motion should be sustained for the further reason that there is no rela-
tion of employer and employees between this railroad company and the indi-
viduals employed by the contractor and inasmuch as the transportation act
gives the Labor Board, in certain cases, jurisdiction only to determine disputes
between carriers and their employees, there is no issue before this Labor Board
that it is authorized to hear and determine in this matter.
This motion should be sustained for the further reason that the United States
Railroad Labor Board has no jurisdiction or authority to impair, modify, or set
aside any contract entered into by a railroad company, such as the contract
referred to in this matter, and the law is well established in the United States
762
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
that Congress has no right to grant any governmental agency such jurisdiction
or authority.
This motion should be sustained for the further reason that no showing has
been made either in a joint submission, an ex parte submission, or in any other
manner that any organization of employees representing the employees who
might be directly interested in such dispute have ever given the Labor Board
any information upon which it could base an assumption that a dispute exists
on the line of this railroad company as set out in the subject matter of this case.
This motion should be sustained for the further reason that the railroad
company has not had due notice as provided by law of the assumption of
jurisdiction of the subject matter of this case.
Opinion. The evidence before the Labor Board indicates that
the representatives of the Railway Employees' Department are the
duly authorized representatives of certain of the employees affected
by the aforementioned contract. The board has given consideration
to the positions taken by the respective parties to this controversy
and decides that in conformity with the provisions of the transporta-
tion act, 1920, it is required to render a decision upon the question as
submitted.
The principle of the contracting work involved in this dispute is
similar to that covered by Decision No. 982, and other decisions that
the Labor Board has rendered with respect to this question. The
board will not reiterate the opinion therein contained, but will refer
the parties to this dispute to Decision No. 982.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the contract entered into between the Cincinnati, In-
dianapolis & Western Railroad Co. and the Kellogg-Grego Railway
Service Co. for the operation of its shop facilities is in violation of
the transportation act, 1920, in so far as it purports or is construed
by the carrier to remove said employees from the application of said
act, and that those provisions of the contract affecting the wages
and working rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions
Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of the Labor Board.
(b) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board, and subject to the application of the
transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative, giving consideration to any question that
affects the right of employee to reinstatement.
DECISION NO. 1264.-DOCKET 2362.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Question. Alleged violation on the part of the carrier of the
transportation act, 1920, in contracting certain locomotive and car-
repair work.
Statement. The Ann Arbor Railroad Co., among others, was
listed by the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Feder-
ated Shop Crafts), in a protest filed with the Labor Board, relative
to alleged violations of the transportation act, 1920, in contracting
DECISIONS.
763
certain locomotive and car-repair work. This carrier, together with
a number of others, was cited to appear before the Labor Board in
connection with the complaints that had been filed by the above-
referred-to organization.
The following paragraph appears in the carrier's submission:
The last contract above referred to for repair of steel gondolas is to be com-
pleted this week and no further contracts are to be made. The employees have
been informed in writing that beginning July 10, 1922, all car work will be
done at our shops. There are no other contracts in force or contemplated.
Decision. The Labor Board would understand from the evidence
submitted and from the above-quoted statement of the carrier that
the question in dispute has been amicably adjusted and that no fur-
ther action on the part of the Labor Board is necessary or desired.
This docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1265.-DOCKET 1839.
Chicago, Ill., October 6, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Shall L. W. Bonawitz, agent, Stanley, N. Dak., be paid
additional compensation under section (e), Article X of the teleg-
raphers' agreement for any work performed outside of established
hours?
Statement.-Section (e), Article X of the agreement between the
carrier and employees in telegraph service reads as follows:
(e) When notified or called to work outside of established hours, employees
will be paid a minimum allowance of two hours at overtime rate.
Mr. Bonawitz is agent at Stanley, at which point the Stanley
branch joins the main line. During the period May 1 to September
5, 1920, his regular assigned hours were from 8.30 a. m. to 4.30 p. m.
In addition to the agent, there were three operators working 8-hour
shifts within the 24-hour period, and a station helper worked during
the daytime.
The employees state that during the period, May 1 to September 5,
1920, the agent was required to meet train No. 322, which is due to
depart from Stanley at 7.30 a. m., for the purpose of transferring
mail, baggage, and express; and that in order for the agent to load
train No. 322 in time to depart at 7.30 a. m., it was necessary for him
to commence work at 6.30 a. m.
The employees further state that on or about May 8, 1920, Mr.
Bonawitz received the following letter from the trainmaster:
I have some papers again regarding loading express transfer on the branch-
line train out of there mornings. We will not make any change in the hours
of service, or put any additional help on to take care of this work, and it looks
very much to me at the present time as though it would be greatly to your
personal interest to arrange to have either yourself or warehouseman look
after the loading of this train on the strength of the transfer fee, which is
allowed you by the express company.
Let me know promptly what you intend to do in this matter.
Mr. Bonawitz replied under date of May 12, 1920, as follows:
Will arrange to have helper meet and handle branch train out of here each
morning, allowing him the express transfer salary of $10 per month for so
doing.
20036°-23- 49
764
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
On May 13, 1920, Mr. Bonawitz addressed another letter to the
trainmaster, reading as follows:
Please refer to mine of the 12th. Helper will not meet this train and handle
mail, baggage, and express for the salary allowed by the express company. I
will meet this train personally and do this work pending an adjustment.
The employees contend that the transfer fee referred to in the
letter of May 8 is a fee of $10 per month allowed the agent for
meeting train 221, which is due to arrive at Stanley at 5 p. m. or 30
minutes after the agent goes off duty. The agent does not handle
any mail or baggage for train 221; whereas the transfer for train 332
at 7.30 a. m. includes mail and baggage in addition to express.
The employees further state that if the carrier had changed the
hours of service when the claim was first presented, the cause for
filing the complaint would have been eliminated, but the carrier
refused to do this until claim was filed in the latter part of August,
when instructions were issued changing the hours of service of the
agent to be 10 a. m. to 6 p. m., and the hours of the warehouseman
to be 6.30 a. m. to 10.30 a. m. and 11.30 a. m. to 3.30 p. m. The em-
ployees contend that the fact that the hours of service were changed
as soon as a claim was filed substantiates their contention that the
former position of the carrier was wrong. The employees therefore
request that the agent at the station named be paid for the service
performed outside of his regular assigned hours in accordance with
Article X, section (e).
The carrier states that the agent in question received, in addition
to his compensation from the railroad and commission on express
shipped from and destined to his station, a transfer allowance of $10
per month for handling the transfer of all express matter which was
shipped to and from main-line points and points on the Stanley
branch. This allowance was later increased to $25 per month. The
carrier states that when complaints were received from the express
company about the manner in which their business at Stanley was
being handled the letter of May 7, above quoted, was addressed to the
agent by the trainmaster, and the letters of May 12 and 13, also
quoted above, received in response.
The carrier contends that the trainmaster did not talk to the
agent about mail and baggage or give him verbal instructions to load
the mail and baggage for the branch train, nor was it mentioned in
the letter of May 7; but, on the contrary, it was injected by the agent
in his letter of May 13. The carrier states that from that time the
express transfer was presumably handled to the satisfaction of the
express company, as no further complaints were received, and con-
tends that no claim was filed by Mr. Bonawitz until the latter part
of August, when he sent in one time card covering the four-month
period. The carrier further contends that no instructions were given
to the agent to load baggage and mail on the branch train, and that
the special allowance paid by the express company compensated him
for handling the express transfer.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISIONS.
765
DECISION NO. 1266.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., October 13, 1922.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co. et al. v. Railroad Yard-
masters of America.
Subject of the dispute.-This decision is upon a controversy or dis-
pute between the carriers named below and the classes of employees
named herein represented by the above-named organization. The
subject matter of the dispute is what shall constitute just and rea-
sonable rules and working conditions.
Parties to the dispute. The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Jacksonville Terminal Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
New York Central Railroad Co. (West of Buffalo).
New York Central Railroad Co. (Buffalo and East).
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Wabash Railway Co.
The organization party hereto, which has a dispute with each of
the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, is:
Railroad Yardmasters of America.
Nature of the proceedings.-Pursuant to Decision No. 119 and in
conformity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, the
carriers or employees named herein have held or attempted to hold
conferences on rules and working conditions.
Each of these carriers or the representatives of its employees.
either negotiated or attempted to negotiate rules, and they made
either joint or ex parte certifications to the Labor Board containing
the rules upon which they agreed and those upon which they dis-
agreed, with the respective proposals of the parties as to the latter;
therefore each of the carriers party to this decision has a dispute with
its employees on one or more of the rules.
Decision. The United States Railroad Labor Board, acting under
authority of the transportation act, 1920, and in furtherance of the
purpose of said act, has decided that the rules hereinafter set out
are just and reasonable.
The rules approved by the Labor Board hereby made effective
October 16, 1922, on the roads upon which they are applicable, are
as follows:
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
ARTICLE I.-SCOPE.
The term "yardmaster" as herein used shall be understood to
include general yardmaster, assistant general yardmaster, yard-
master, assistant yardmaster, except general yardmasters referred
to in Ex parte No. 72, Interstate Commerce Commission.
766
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ARTICLE II.- -HOURS OF SERVICE AND OVERTIME.
(a) Eight hours, exclusive of the agreed meal period, shall con-
stitute a day's work.
(b) All time in excess of eight hours shall be paid for at pro
rata rate. Time consumed in making transfer shall not be counted
as overtime.
(c) Where three shifts are worked covering the 24-hour period,
the starting time of the first shift shall not be earlier than 6 a. m.
nor later than 8 a. m.
ARTICLE III.-REST DAYS.
(a) Yardmasters regularly assigned seven days per week will be
granted two rest days per month without loss of pay.
ARTICLE IV.-MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) When a regularly assigned yardmaster is required to perform
service other than regular duties, the rate of pay will be not less than
their regular pay for days so used. When an assistant yardmaster
is required to substitute for a yardmaster, or when a yardmaster or
assistant yardmaster is required to substitute for a general yard-
master or assistant general yardmaster, the yardmaster or assistant
yardmaster will assume the rate of pay and the hours applicable to
the position to which assigned.
(6) No change in the title of yardmasters of any grade shall be
made for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay of position unless
there is a change in their duties and responsibilities.
(c) Remanded.
ARTICLE V.-DATE EFFECTIVE AND CHANGES.
(a) This agreement shall be effective as of October 16, 1922, and
shall continue in effect until it is changed as provided herein or
under the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
(b) Should either of the parties to this agreement desire to revise
or modify these rules, 30 days' written notice containing the proposed
changes shall be given and conferences shall be held immediately
on the expiration of said notice, unless another date is mutually
agreed upon.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION 1.-Scope of rules.-The transportation act, 1920, pro-
vides in subsection (5) of section 300 that—
The term "subordinate official" includes officials of carriers of such class
or rank as the commission shall designate by regulations formulated and issued
after such notice and hearing as the commission may prescribe, to the carriers,
and employees and subordinate officials of carriers, and organizations thereof,
directly to be affected by such regulations.
In compliance with this provision of the act, the Interstate Com-
merce Commission accordingly issued a regulation, Ex parte No. 72,
November 24, 1920, containing the following provision with respect
to yardmasters:
This class shall include yardmasters and assistant yardmasters, excepting
general yardmasters at large and important switching centers where of necessity
such general yardmasters are vested with responsibilities and authority that
stamp them as officials.
1
DECISIONS.
767
In its consideration of Article I defining the scope of the rules for
yardmasters, the Labor Board has recognized the above regulation.
Under the rule as decided by the board, each carrier and its em-
ployees in disagreement on this article will consider each position of
general yardmaster in the light of the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission's regulation and of the board's decision on Article I, and
shall decide which general yardmasters will come within the juris-
diction of these rules.
SEC. 2.-Application of adopted rules. The rules approved by
the Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers party to the dis-
pute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such instances
as any particular carrier may have agreed with its employees upon
any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule or rules agreed
upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on said road.
SEC. 3.-Proposed rules not herein decided. The evidence indi-
cates that a majority of the carriers before the board in this case
and their employees have agreed upon seniority and discipline_rules,
and these subjects are remanded in their entirety. The Labor Board
believes that certain other subject matters may not be covered in
all localities by rules of general application, and require further con-
sideration by the parties directly concerned. All such rules which
involve a dispute between a particular carrier and its employees are
hereby remanded to said carrier and its employees for the purpose
of adjustment under the provisions of section 301 of the transporta-
tion act, 1920.
In further negotiations attention is again directed to the principles
announced in Exhibit B of Decision No. 119.
The action of the Labor Board in declining to adopt a rule re-
quiring carriers to grant annual vacations with pay to this class of
employees must not be construed to mean that the board disapproves
the granting of such vacations by the carriers. The board is ex-
pressing neither approval nor disapproval, but is of the opinion that
this question should be disposed of by mutual agreement of the
interested parties.
SEC. 4.-Interpretation of this decision. Should a dispute arise
between the management and the employees of any of the carriers as
to the meaning or intent of this decision, or the rules contained
herein, which can not be decided in conference between the parties
directly interested, such dispute shall be handled in the manner pro-
vided by the transportation act, 1920.
·DECISION NO. 1267.-DOCKET 2500.
Chicago, Ill., October 21, 1922.-Effective October 16, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers et al. v. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al.
Subject of the dispute. This decision is upon a series of contro-
versies or disputes between the carriers and the classes of employees
represented by the organizations, named below. The subject matter
of this dispute is what shall constitute just and reasonable wages.
768
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Parties to the dispute.—(1) The carriers parties hereto, each of
which has a dispute with one or more of the organizations herein-
after named, are:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.,
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.,
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.,
Grand Canyon Railway Co.,
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.,
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.,
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.,
Sunset Railway Co.,
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.,
Boston & Albany Railroad,
Boston & Maine Railroad and its subsidiaries,
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.,
Central Indiana Railway Co.
Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
El Paso & Southwestern System.
Erie Railroad Co.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in U. S.).
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Houston Belt & Terminal Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railway Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
International & Great Northern Railway.
DECISIONS.
769
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Lorain, Ashland & Southern Railroad Co.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Minneapolis.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines East and West).
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co. and its subsidiaries.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway System.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Southern Railway Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
Tennessee Central Railroad Co.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and its subsidiaries.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
770
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Union Pacific System-Continued.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
(2) The organizations parties hereto, each of which has a dispute
with one or more of the above-named carriers, are:
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers,
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
Nature of the proceedings.—In conformity with the provisions of
the transportation act, 1920, the carriers or employees named herein
have held or attempted to hold conferences on the subject matter of
this dispute, and all controversies not having been decided in such
conferences were referred to the United States Railroad Labor Board
for decision.
Both parties made a full presentation to the Labor Board of their
respective contentions by testimony and argument, oral and written.
History of the controversy.-In the month of March, 1922, there
was presented to the Labor Board the evidence upon which was sub-
sequently based Decision No. 1028, establishing the wages of the
classes of employees represented by the United Brotherhood of Main-
tanance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers. Decision
No. 1028 was protested by the employees and they have petitioned the
board for an increase in wages, based, first, upon a reconsideration
of the evidence presented in said decision and secondly, upon the
contention that changes in industrial conditions since March justify
an increase.
In so far as the petition of the employees seeks a revision of Deci-
sion No. 1028, it is denied, a majority of the board being of the opin-
ion that said decision was just and reasonable.
That portion of the petition which asks for a wage increase on the
ground that industrial conditions have undergone changes since the
evidence was submitted, upon which Decision No. 1028 was pre-
dicated, is granted to the extent herein below set out. It has not
heretofore occured that the board has handed down a decision either
increasing or decreasing wages after the lapse of such a short period
as three and one-half months since the effective date of a former
decision, but the evidence in this case is so clear and satisfactory as
to justify promptness of action.
Perhaps, the sudden and unexpected fluctuations to which industry
has been subjected since the war have not been more strikingly ex-
emplified than by the sharp upturn of wages which began in April
of this year in various industries affecting particularly common
labor. When the evidence was submitted in March, upon which Deci-
sion No. 1028 was based, this upward wage-trend had not set in and
could not with any certainty be anticipated.
The employees, in their Exhibit No. 2 herein, quote from the
monthly wage bulletins of the National Industrial Conference Board
the wage increases and decreases for certain months. Supplement-
ing the figures there quoted by the corresponding figures taken from
the bulletins of the same authority for other months, we have the fol-
DECISIONS.
771
lowing record of the number of wage increases and reductions re-
ported for the respective months:

Monthly period.
In-
creases.
Reduc-
tions.
•
•
Feb. 15 to Mar. 15.
Mar. 15 to Apr. 15.
Apr. 15 to May 15.
May 15 to June 15.
June 15 to July 15…….
July 15 to Aug. 15..
Aug. 15 to Sept. 15.
•
0
35
0
81
9
54
26
23
21
25
8
7
119
4
While the foregoing is not all the evidence before the Labor Board
on this point, it is typical.
Employees' Exhibit No. 2 also quotes from the June report of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York City in support of the proposi-
tion that there is a marked upward trend in wages. An excerpt
from said quoted report reads as follows:
The continued increase in the volume of business activity has been reflected
in a marked change in the employment situation. Evidences of this change
are found in a number of instances of wage increases which have resulted from
shortages of workers, and in reports from employment agencies.
Wage increases have been taking place, particularly in the case of common
labor, which has been difficult to secure at the low wage rates which many
firms adopted in the last few months.
Following this upward wage movement, the United States Steel
Corporation increased its wages for unskilled labor on August 22 to
36 cents an hour. For more than a year previously it had been
paying only 30 cents an hour. Many other steel companies followed
with increases for common labor to rates of 35 cents and 36 cents an
hour. Under this decision the minimum for common labor on a few
roads will be 25 cents an hour and the minimum on others will be
37 cents an hour. The minimum of 25 cents will prevail in a very
restricted territory and apply comparatively to a very small number
of men. As a matter of fact, this 25-cent minimum is a higher wage
than the 37-cent minimum, when considered in relation to the living
conditions of the respective territories. This is evidenced in part by
the fact that certain carriers in the territory where the high mini-
mum prevails have been paying to common labor a wage slightly in
excess-and a few have been paying a rate considerably in excess-
of said minimum; for example, the New York, New Haven & Hart-
ford Railroad Co. is paying 40 cents an hour to trackmen. On the
other hand, certain roads in the southeastern territory had been pay-
ing for some months prior to the issuance of Decision No. 1028 and
are still paying a rate to common labor considerably lower than the
lowest minimum fixed by the Labor Board for other carriers in the
same territory, but this has been by agreement with the employees.
Examples of this are the contracts on the following roads at the
rates indicated for section men and other common labor:
Charleston & Western Carolina Ry.
Central of Georgia Railway Co
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co..__
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co___.
$0.175
.18
. 18
.20
.20
21
22
772
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The territorial differentials established in 1918 have not yet been
disturbed by any of the decisions of the Labor Board and are not
changed by the present decision.
The Labor Board in its present decision considers all the seven
elements or factors set out in the transportation act, 1920, for its
guidance in fixing just and reasonable wages, but lays special stress
upon the first, which reads as follows: "The scales of wages paid
for similar kinds of work in other industries."
As to the cost of living, the reports of the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics show that there has been no pronounced change since March,
1922. The June report shows a slight decrease in the cost of living
for the previous quarter-namely, two-tenths of 1 per cent. The
September quarterly report again shows a decrease of two-tenths of
1 per cent.
In view of these facts and circumstances and all the evidence
adduced in this case, the Labor Board is of the opinion that a con-
servative increase of wages is clearly due to the three groups of un-
skilled labor and to the section foremen.
Certain carriers have raised the question in this case that a portion.
of the employees embraced in the class herein involved are on strike
on their respective properties and are therefore not entitled to be
heard before the board at this time. The fact that some of these
employees are on strike does not preclude the organization from pre-
senting a dispute in behalf of those employees who are actually in
the service of the carrier. The employees in the service can not
equitably be deprived of their right to appear before the Labor Board
because others are out on strike.
In the case of certain carriers there are submissions before the
board from two rival organizations, in which both ask for wage in-
creases. In such cases, it is not now necessary to pass upon the
jurisdictional question involved.
Decision. The Railroad Labor Board therefore decides:
1. That each of the carriers party to this dispute shall make in-
creases in the rates of wages heretofore established by the authority
of the United States Railroad Labor Board in Decision No. 1028 for
the specific classes of its employees named or referred to in Article
II in amounts hereinafter specified for the classes named in the
schedule of increases.
2. That the scope of this decision is limited to the carriers named
under Article II, to such carriers as may be included hereafter by
addenda, and to the specific classes of employees named or referred
to under each particular carrier.
3. That the increases in wages hereby authorized shall be effective
as of October 16, 1922, and shall be made in accordance with the fol-
lowing articles, which establish the schedule of increases, designate
the carriers and employees affected, and prescribe the method of
general application.
ARTICLE I.-SCHEDULE OF INCREASES.
For the specific classes of employees listed herein and named or re-
ferred to in connection with a carrier affected by this decision, use
the following schedule of increases per hour:
NOTE.-For the specific classes of employees listed herein, for which no in-
creases have been provided, reference to section numbers has been omitted.
DECISIONS.
773
MAINTENANCE OF WAY AND STRUCTURES, AND UNSKILLED FORCES SPECIFIED.
Section 1. Bridge, building, painter, construction, mason and
concrete, water-supply, and plumber foreman (except water-supply
and plumber foremen coming under the provisions of section 1
of Article IV, Decision No. 147)__
Section 2. Assistant bridge, building, painter, construction,
mason and concrete, water-supply, and plumber foremen, and for
coal-wharf, coal-chute, and fence-gang foremen, pile-driver, ditch-
ing and hoisting engineers and bridge inspectors (except assistant
water-supply and plumber foremen coming under the provisions of
section 1 of Article IV, Decision No. 147)
Section 3. Section, track and maintenance foremen, and as-
sistant section, track and maintenance foremen
Section 4. Mechanics in the maintenance of way and bridge
and building departments (except those that come within the
scope of agreements with the Federated Shop Crafts)
Section 5. Mechanics' helpers in the maintenance of way and
bridge and building departments (except those that come within
the scope of agreements with the Federated Shop Crafts) -
Section 6. Track laborers, and all common laborers in the man-
tenance of way department and in and around shops and round-
houses not otherwise provided for herein__
Section 7. Drawbridge tenders and assistants, pile-driver, ditch-
ing and hoisting firemen, pumper engineers and pumpers, crossing
watchmen or flagmen, and lamp lighters and tenders.-
Section 8. Laborers employed in and around shops and round-
houses, such as engine watchmen and wipers, fire builders, ash-
pit men, flue borers, coal passers (except those coming under
the provisions of section 3 of Article VIII, Decision No. 147),
coal-chute men, etc.
Section 9. For miscellaneous classes of foremen and other em-
ployees named in connection with a carrier affected by this deci-
sion, but not specifically listed under any section in the classified
schedules of increases, add an amount equal to the increases
specified for the respective classes to which the miscellaneous
classes herein referred to are analogous.
ARTICLE II.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
No increase.
No increase.
2 cents.
No increase.
No increase.
2 cents.
2 cents.
2 cents.
Each of the following carriers shall make increases in the rates of
wages heretofore established by the authority of the United States
Railroad Labor Board in Decision No. 1028, for the specific groups
of its employees named or referred to in this article, in amounts here-
inbefore specified for such groups in the schedule of increases.
The section numbers used in connection with a carrier refer to the
corresponding section numbers in the schedule of increases, and in
determining the groups of employees affected on each carrier the fol-
lowing rules shall govern:
(a) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
without naming the classes, all classes of employees named in the
corresponding section numbers of the schedule of increases are.
affected.
(b) When section numbers are used in connection with a carrier
and specific classes of employees are named, only the same classes of
employees named in the corresponding section numbers of the sched-
ule of increases are affected.
(c) Where section numbers are omitted in connection with a
carrier, the classes of employees named in the corresponding section
numbers of the schedule of increases have been granted no increases.
774
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific
Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway
Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe
Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Section 3.
Section 7. Pile-driver,
ditching
and hoisting firemen, crossing
watchmen, lamp lighters, and
tenders.
Section 8.
Section 9. Trackmen.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Section 3.
Section 6. Track laborers.
Section 9. Trackmen, crossing, and
draw tenders.
Boston & Maine Railroad and its sub-
sidiaries.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Rail-
way Co.
Sections 6, 7, and 8.
Central Indiana Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Section 3. Section foremen.
Section 7. Drawbridge tenders and
pumpers.
Section 9. Trackmen, and bridge
and building laborers.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad
Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail-
road Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville
Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-
way Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail-
way Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Rail-
way Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western
Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St.
Louis Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroad Co.
Section 3. Assistant section, track,
and maintenance foremen.
Section 6. Track laborers.
Section 7.
Section S.
Section 9. Crossing gatemen, yard
cleaners, caretakers, watchmen,
station cleaners, boarding-car
help, trackmen, and all common
laborers in the maintenance of
way and bridge and building
departments and in and around
shops and roundhouses and
outside of storehouses not
otherwise provided for.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail-
road Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Section 6.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Rail-
way Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
El Paso & Southwestern System.
Section 3. Section
foremen and
assistant section foremen.
Section 7. Pumpers.
Section 8.
Section 9. Wiper foremen, yard
foremen, assistant yard fore-
men, apprentice foremen, and
section, concrete gang, and
pumper laborers.
Erie Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway
Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines
in U. S.).
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
+
DECISIONS.
775
Great Northern Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Houston Belt & Terminal Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railway
Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad
Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
International & Great Northern Rail-
way.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway
Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Rail-
way Co. of Texas.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway
Co.
Sections 6, 7, and 8.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Sections 6, 7, and 8.
Section 9. Locomotive crane fire-
men employed in maintenance
of way department, steam-shovel
firemen employed in maintenance
of way department, and steam
shovel cranemen employed in the
maintenance of way depart-
ment; signal department, tele-
graph and telephone, bridge
and building, and coal-dump
laborers; camp watchmen and
attendants; track, slope, mine,
and cave watchmen; cooks in
boarding cars and camps; and
ice-house and ice-plant em-
ployees.
Lorain, Ashland & Southern Rail-
road Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis
Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Section 3.
Section 6. Track laborers.
Sections 7 and 8.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Co. of the City
of Minneapolis.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste.
Marie Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Minnesota & International Railway
Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Rail-
way Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and S.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis
Railway.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and S.
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines
East and West).
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Sections 6, 7, and 8.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Pere Marquette Railway Co. and its
subsidiaries.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Sys-
tem.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway
Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Rutland Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Sys-
tem.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway
Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Southern Railway Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7. and S.
Tennessee Central Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Terminal Railroad Association of St.
Louis and its subsidiaries.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and S.
776
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad
Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway
Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad
Co.
Union Pacific System-Continued.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad &
Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway
Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and S.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
Wabash Railway Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and S.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8.
ARTICLE III.—GENERAL APPLICATION.
The general regulations governing the application of this de-
cision are as follows:
SECTION 1. The provisions of this decision will not apply in cases
where amounts less than $30 per month are paid to individuals for
special service which takes only a part of their time from outside
employment or business.
SEC. 2. Increases specified in this decision are to be increased on
the following basis:
(a) For employees paid by the hour, add the hourly increase to
the hourly rate.
(b) For employees paid by the day, add eight times the hourly
increase to the daily rate.
(c) For employees paid by the month, add 204 times the hourly
increase to the monthly rate.
SEC. 3. The increases in wages and the rates hereby established
shall be incorporated in and become a part of existing agreements
or schedules, or future negotiated agreements or schedules, and shall
remain in effect until or unless changed in the manner provided by
the transporation act, 1920.
SEC. 4. It is not intended in this decision to include or make in-
creases in wages for any officials of the carriers affected except that
class designated in the transportation act, 1920, as "subordinate
officials," and who are included in the act as within the jurisdiction
of the Labor Board. The act provides that the term "subordinate.
officials" includes officials of carriers of such class or rank as the
Interstate Commerce Commission shall designate by regulation duly
formulated and issued. Hence whenever in this decision words are
used such as" foremen," etc., which may apply to officials, such words
are intended to apply to only such classes of subordinate officials ast
are now or may hereafter be defined and classified by the Interstate
Commerce Commission as "subordinate officials" within the meaning
of the transportation act, 1920.
ARTICLE IV.-INTERPRETATION OF THIS DECISION.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employees
of any of the carriers as to the meaning or intent of this decision
which can not be decided in conference between the parties directly
DECISIONS.
777
interested, such dispute shall be referred to the United States Rail-
road Labor Board in the manner provided by the transportation act,
1920.
SEC. 1. All such disputes shall be presented in a concrete and
joint-signed statement setting forth:
(a) The specific question involved;
(b) The facts in the case;
(c) The position of the employees; and
(d) The position of the management thereon.
Where supporting documentary evidence is used it shall be at-
tached to the application for decision in the form of exhibits.
SEC. 2. Such presentations shall be transmitted to the secretary of
the United States Railroad Labor Board, who shall place same be-
fore the Labor Board for final disposition.
DISSENTING OPINION.
In dissenting from the decision of the majority, the undersigned
refers to the dissenting opinions of the minority in Decisions Nos.
1028, 1036, and 1074, all of which are reaffirmed and to be considered
as if reproduced herein.
The submissions filed by the employees in this dispute quite uni-
formly requested the restoration of the rates of pay established by
Decision No. 2, and on August 28, 1922, this request was supple-
mented by the representative of the employees by the filing of a
formal motion reading:
We wish formally to request that the living-wage principle be accepted by
the board and made the basis of its action in the present case. We make this
request as a formal motion and ask the board to take it under consideration
and give us a formal ruling before we proceed further with the case:
1. That the board recognize the living wage as the basis of its decision in
this case.
2. That in applying this principle a minimum rate of not less than 48 cents
an hour be awarded to all of our members, who under your last wage Decision
No. 1028 (Docket 1300) are receiving 28 cents an hour or less.
3. That for those who are now receiving more than 28 cents an hour, their
differential in cents above 28 cents be added to the new minimum rate of 13
cents an hour. This will mean a minimum rate for our people of 48 cents an
hour.
In deciding this request, two resolutions were offered, the first by
the chairman, and the second by Mr. Wharton, reading as follows:
(1) By the chairman:
It is superfluous for the board to announce in advance the principle or theory
upon which it will fix wages in the pending dispute. It may be assumed by
the parties in this case that the board will give full consideration to every cir-
cumstance set out in the statute for its guidance, but it will not go beyond that.
The transportation act, 1920, requires the board to establish wages that are just
and reasonable." It is within the province of the parties herein to make such
contentions as they may respectively see fit as to what will contitute a just
and reasonable" wage. If the wage which the motion defines as the "living
wage" should be demonstrated to be a "just and reasonable wage, the board
would adopt it; otherwise, it would not. The board will neither limit nor en-
large the right of either party to present to the board his conception of what
constitutes a just and reasonable wage within the meaning of the law.
(2) By Mr. Wharton:
"
The right of all workers, including common laborers, to a living wage is
hereby affirmed.
In fixing wages, minimum rates of pay shall be established which will insure
the subsistence of the worker and his family in health and reasonable comfort.
778
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The resolution offered by the chairman was adopted by a vote
of five to two, seven members present.
The decision of the majority in this case is fundamentally unsound
and unacceptable on the same grounds which were set forth in the
dissenting opinion of the minority in Decision No. 1028. At that
time the views of the minority were developed in great detail, and
are applicable to the case under discussion. They may be briefly
summarized by the following excerpt from the dissenting opinion to
Decision No. 1028:
1. The rates of pay established under this decision as the basic minimum
rates of the transportation industry will merely perpetuate the low level of
purchasing power possessed by this large class of workers in pre-war
years
*
*.
2. The rates of pay established under this decision will mean annual earnings
far below any minimum standard of subsistence which has been formulated,
even below those of most conservative employer groups.
3. The rates of pay established under this decision are not based upon the
human needs of the hundreds of thousands of families involved. They are
insufficient to provide these families with the absolute essentials. The earnings
of this large group of railroad employees will not provide the father of a
family with as much food as is allowed convicts in the Cook County (Ill.) jail.
4. The pre-war standard perpetuated by this decision was the product of
inequitable wage bargains. It is considerably below the level recognized at that
time as necessary for the maintenance of health and energy.
AN INADEQUATE WAGE IS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE.
The fundamental error of the majority rests upon their refusal to
inquire into the adequacy of the rates of pay established for section
men and unskilled laborers. Although these rates may be placed
on a higher level than those paid by private industries, this does not
meet the requirements imposed on the Labor Board by the trans-
portation act, 1920. The specific and fundamental mandate of the
law is that wages shall be just and reasonable. The relation of rates
of pay to those established in private industry, or the relation of
rates of pay to the cost of living, is a secondary consideration which
does not come into play until the primary requirement of a "just
and reasonable" or an adequate or living wage has been satisfied.
Under these duties of the board it is manifest that the rates of pay
of unskilled workers, or those at the bottom of the wage structure,
must first be established on an adequate basis-a basis sufficient to
maintain and perpetuate in a reasonably comfortable and decent way
the unskilled worker and his family-and after this has been done
just and reasonable differentials above this basic wage for unskilled
labor must be established in accordance with skill, experience, pro-
ductiveness, hazard, training, etc., or, in other words, in accord-
ance with the seven relevant circumstances specifically mentioned in
section 307, as well as others unenumerated but covered by section
301 of the transportation act, 1920.
THE LIVING WAGE IS LEGALLY SOUND.
Under any proper interpretation of the transportation act, there-
fore, I hold that an adequate or living wage for unskilled railroad em-
ployees is a legal right of such employees, and that the Labor Board
is not meeting the mandates imposed upon it by the law in its failure
DECISIONS.
779
to accept the living-wage principle. The principle should, of course,
be applied with discretion and with due caution; nevertheless it is
the duty of the board to accept and apply it. No better proof of the
propriety of such action can be had than the statements of Senator
Albert B. Cummins, chairman of the Senate Committee on Inter-
state Commerce and one of the authors of the transportation act,
1920. On April 17, 1922, when a hearing was in progress before his
committee relative to whether the transportation act, 1920, contem-
plated the sanction of the living-wage principle to unskilled railway
employees, Senator Cummins publicly said:
The CHAIRMAN. My view of it is that here are two men, and one man may
agree to work for the other at any wage that he would be willing to accept,
whether it is just and reasonable or not, but when organized society comes to
fixing the wage, it is no more right to fix a wage below the point of living and
comfortable living than it is to fix a return on capital below a reasonable point.
WITNESS. That is our contention exactly, Mr. Chairman,
The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right about it.
Senator Cummins' attitude was further elaborated in a statement
submitted by the representatives of the employees during the hear-
ings in the present case. In presenting their motion for a ruling on
the living-wage principle, in this connection, they said:
Recently, after the shopmen's strike had been in progress about three weeks,
or about July 19 last, Senator Cummins was quoted in a newspaper interview
as declaring it to be his early intention to sponsor legislation which would
empower the Railroad Labor Board to pay a living wage,
"Some way must be found," he said, "to enable the Government to deter-
mine what is a 'living wage,' just as the Government is enabled to determine
what is a fair return on capital invested. I believe if the Railroad Labor Board
had at least attempted to fix a 'living wage' in seeking to reduce the earnings
of railroad workers, most of the present difficulty could have been avoided."
(Transcript of proceedings, pp. 127 and 128.)
THE LAW HAS SET ASIDE THE FORCES OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
The board must accept some fundamental principle as the basis of
wage fixing; otherwise, it can follow no guide but the relentless, in-
human, fluctuating forces of supply and demand. It can not be de-
nied that in private industries the wages of unorganized and un-
skilled workers are very largely fixed by these forces. As industrial
development progresses, however, supply and demand enters less and
less into the wage question, until a condition of affairs is oftentimes
reached where employees and employers are organized and are of
about equal economic strength, and where both parties agree to meet
together and bargain collectively, referring such matters as can not
be settled in conference to an impartial tribunal for final adjudica-
tion. When this is done, as is the case in many private industries,
there can be no place for the invocation of the law of supply and
demand. An arbitration board selected must ignore these factors,
and in its deliberations and decisions attempt to establish rates of
pay which are adequate and equitable, or, in other words, just and
reasonable.
Likewise, the transportation act, 1920, under which the Labor
Board functions, by establishing a tribunal for determining wages, to
which all wage controversies must be referred, sets aside the law of
supply and demand. It also prohibited the acceptance, as a basis of
action by the Labor Board, of the rates in private industries deter-
20936°-23—50
780
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
mined by the law of supply and demand. The duty of the board in
this respect can not be better expressed than by quoting in part from
the decision of the neutral arbitrator in the arbitration case in 1920
of the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co. and its employees.
On this point he said:
So far as my examination of the authorities goes, no employer has before a
board of arbitration ever disputed the proposition that the workingman in
America is entitled to a minimum fair living wage. * *
Nor does the company dispute this proposition now. It says that the men are
receiving a fair living wage, as is proved by the law of supply and demand. I
do not believe that the law of supply and demand, however applicable to the
purchase and sale of merchandise or to industry in general, should have much,
if any, weight in fixing the wage scale in public utilities. The only way in
which the applicability of the law can be tested in any case is by the men going
on strike and fighting it out to the bitter end. If they are to test it by fighting,
then a fair fight requires that they be allowed to strike all at once and use
every means legally possible to win their fight. Such a struggle, with its in-
evitable concomitants of public inconvenience and distress, interruption of busi-
ness, dislocation of all transportation facilities, and possible disorder, is em-
phatically not to the public interest, and therefore the whole economic progress
of the last 50 years has been away from the strike as a means of testing
whether under the law of supply and demand any wage scale in force is
adequate.
The conclusion is irresistible, from the pronouncements of other ar-
bitration tribunals as well as from the statements of Senator Cum-
mins, that "wages in outside industries," or in other words, the
supply of and demand for labor, can not be used as a guide for the
Labor Board in fixing adequate basic rates for unskilled railroad
employees.
The law establishing the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations is
framed in similar terms to the transportation act, 1920. The Kansas
court is required (secs. 8 and 9 of the law) to establish wages which
shall be " reasonable" and "fair." The Court of Industrial Rela-
tions has not hesitated to interpret these requirements of the law to
mean a living wage to unskilled workers with higher differentials to
the more skilled and experienced wage earners. In the case of State
of Kansas v. Topeka Edison Co., it said:
""
CC
A living wage may be defined as a wage which enables the worker to supply
himself and those absolutely dependent upon him with sufficient food to main-
tain life and health; with a shelter from the inclemencies of the weather; and
with sufficient clothing to preserve the body from cold and to enable persons
to mingle among their fellows in such ways as may be necessary in the preser-
vation of life. But it is not a living wage only which this court is commanded
by the people of this State to assure workers engaged in these essential indus-
tries. The statute uses the word fair and commands us to assure to these
workers a fair wage. What is a "fair" wage? Upon this subject, of
course, there may be a great variety of opinions expressed. It seems safe to
say, however, that the circumstances above enumerated should be considered
in arriving at a conclusion as to what constitutes a fair wage. The skilled
worker, in fairness, should have a higher wage than the unskilled worker. The
worker who has spent years of time and effort in preparing himself for a
peculiarly technical line of work is entitled to greater consideration from the
public than the more unskilled worker. The hazards of the employment should
also be noted, and the worker engaged in such an employment as that under
consideration should receive a higher wage than his fellow worker who may
be engaged in a safe occupation. The degree of responsibility placed upon the
worker is a matter of importance. The continuity and regularity of employ-
ment should be considered, for it is apparent that an employment which is
seasonal in its nature must have a higher wage than one in which regular,
steady work is offered, because, after all, it is the annual earnings that are
to govern rather than the daily wage in many instances.
DECISIONS.
781
THE LIVING-WAGE PRINCIPLE.
The Labor Board should give expression to its acceptance of the
living-wage principle and then give it a practical application. This
principle has been nowhere better expressed than in the code or series
of principles which made up the constitution, so to speak, of the for-
mer National War Labor Board. It was as follows:
1. The right of all workers, including common laborers, to a living wage is
hereby declared.
2. In fixing wages, minimum rates of pay shall be established which will
insure the subsistence of the worker and his family in health and reasonable
comfort.
During the period of the war emergency, labor gave up the right
to strike. In order that its status might be protected, a national
conference of representatives of employers and employees agreed to
accept the above principle and a series of others as a guide for the
purpose of adjusting wage disputes during the war period. The
principles were proclaimed by the President and made mandatory
upon industrial relations and conditions. The present chief justice
of the United States Supreme Court was a member of the conference
which agreed upon the principles to be established, and later, as one
of the chairmen of the National War Labor Board, interpreted and
practically applied these principles.
THE BUDGETARY METHOD IS NECESSARY AND PRACTICABLE.
The use of a family budget is essential to any attempt at ascertain-
ing practically what a "living wage" should be. Our basic indus-
tries do not offer rates of pay which, under normal working condi-
tions, enable an unskilled worker to earn an amount sufficient to
support himself and his family in health and modest comfort. His
wages must be supplemented by the earnings of his wife and chil-
dren, or by the taking of boarders and lodgers into the home. Other-
wise, the family income is inadequate. The prevailing wage in
American industry, in other words, is a family wage. The energies
of all the members of the family capable of working are required in
order to secure an income sufficient for average needs. That this
condition of affairs is also true of the families of maintenance of
way employees of the railroads has been demonstrated by the per-
sonal testimony of section men and their wives who have appeared
before the Labor Board.
Existing rates of pay in private industries can not, therefore, be
used as precedents in determining what a living wage should be. A
tribunal such as the Railroad Labor Board in attempting to give
practical application to the living-wage principle, can not rely on
what is, but must find out what should be. A budget must be con-
structed to cover the quantities of foodstuffs and clothing which an
average family requires in order to be properly nourished and de-
cently clothed, necessarily housing facilities and fuel, and sundries
or miscellaneous articles essential to modest and frugal comfort.
When the quantities of the different classes of articles necessary to
the healthful consumption of an average family have been deter-
mined, the different articles can then be priced, and the sum of these
prices indicates what annual income should be had. If the aggre-
782
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
gate cost of the articles required to maintain a conservative stand-
ard of healthful and decent living is then divided for a given period
by the normal working time, the average rate per hour or day may
be ascertained which should be paid to the average unskilled worker in
order that he may support his family in reasonable health and com-
fort. It is not claimed, of course, that a living wage rate can thus
be determined with mathematical precision, but the approximate.
amount which is necessary to support an average workingman's family
in health and decency can be found out, and on this basis the board
could proceed conservatively and with due discretion to fix a rate of
pay which would be reasonably adequate.
The practicability of the budgetary method has already been dem-
onstrated by experience. It has been used in many states by wage
boards and commissions to establish minimum rates of pay for
women in mercantile and manufacturing establishments. It has
also been adopted by the former National War Labor Board, the
Kansas Court of Industrial Relations, and by the Commonwealth
and other arbitration boards in Australia.
Many objections, both from the standpoint of equity and of a
practical statistical character, have been submitted against the
budgetary method by the representatives of the railroads. Some of
these objections are merely technical; others involve more serious
considerations. None are insurmountable, and all can be overcome
by the exericse of sound judgment and discretion by the board.
It has also been claimed that the practical application of the living
wage principle by the budgetary method would be financially impos-
sible, or would involve such a financial outlay as would constitute a
grievous burden to the shipper and to the consumer. If established
on the railroads, it is also declared that it would have to be met by
private industries, and the resultant cost would mean a general in-
crease in prices or an industrial breakdown.
Similar arguments and prophecies have been developed in the past
against the establishment of the eight-hour work day and other
measures of industrial equity or amelioration. The dire results
which have been predicted have never materialized. Likewise, a
conservative, practical application of the living-wage principle would
undoubtedly be attended by better and more advantageous conditions
of railway operation. Added labor costs would be absorbed com-
pletely or to a large extent by increased labor efficiency and by
managerial ability. The practical experience in Australia where
this same argument was used against the adoption of the living-wage
principle as the basis for wage-fixing is of much value, and shows
the unsoundness of the position of those who have taken an attitude
of extreme opposition. That this experience in that country has been
most favorable is indicated by the following quotations from opinions
of the president of the Industrial Court of South Australia:
The president is bound by law to award not less than a living wage. If
that wage is higher than has been previously fixed, the excess may come out
of the profits of the employer. But if it should so happen that the excess can
not be paid out of profits there are other sources to be drawn on. There is
the possibility of increased economy or increased efficiency in the conduct of
the business concerned. There is the possibility that an increased output on
the part of employees may enable the employers to avoid shutting down.
great deal of evidence might be adduced to show that in Australia the sources
to which I have referred as available for paying higher wages-increased
DECISIONS.
783
I
economy or efficiency of business organizations and an increased output on
the part of the worker-are sources from which, under the stimulus of neces-
sity, much more might be drawn than at present. I do not speak of all in-
dustries, but my remark is fairly applicable to a large number *
dwell upon these things because I wish to show that if this court, in declaring
a living wage, declares a wage which apparently can not be paid by the industry
concerned, the court is not necessarily shutting down the industry.
In a
number of cases which have come before Australian industrial tribunals, the
argument has been brought forward that a particular business or industry
would have to be closed down if the wages were raised, and yet the industry
or business has continued despite increased wages, and is to-day paying rea-
sonable dividends. Whether the result be due to the potential economy of
high wages, or to the fact that employers have discovered that necessity is
the mother of invention, or to other circumstances, I need not pause to consider.
The fact is indisputable.
Nor is it sound business to underpay the worker. It is true that particular
employers may make profits by the award of a wage lower than the true living
wage. But the interests of the employers as a whole are not to be promoted
by sweating wages, or even by a bare subsistence wage. *
* I can not
too strongly emphasize the fact that it is for the interests of the employers
themselves, as well as for the employees, that the living wage awarded by this
court should be such as to insure to every workman a wage sufficient to main-
tain him in a high state of industrial efficiency, and to provide his family with
the necessaries for health and well-being. When economists speak of the
potential economy of high wages, they are not talking in the air. They are
talking of something which has been demonstrated in the industrial develop-
ment of modern communities.
The mistake that is often made by private employers is the mistake so com-
monly, and I fear justly, attributed to Governments-the mistake of seeking
efficiency through economies rather than economy through efficiency.
Sound national economy embraces the recognition of the need for securing
such a return for work, whether mental or physical, as will maintain the
worker in health and efficiency and stimulate his or her ambition. The realiza-
tion of the fact, in its bearing upon maximum production at lowest cost of
production, leads to the conclusion that lowest cost of production should be
sought for less in low rates of wages than in increased skill in the management,
and in increased efficiency of the worker.
It may be conceded that an increase in the price of a commodity produced
has sometimes been inevitable where wages have been increased. But I do
not hesitate to express the opinion that, in a majority of cases, the increase
of prices, aside from fluctuations in the world's markets, and omitting for the
moment the possibility of some diversion of profits to wages, might have been
avoided by a greater efficiency on the part of employers and employees by
eliminating, as far as possible, the waste of disorganized industry by the
installation of up-to-date plants, and the adoption of the most effective methods
of business organization. (South Australian Industrial Reports, vol. 2, 1918–19,
pp. 3-4, 45-46, 80-81, and 235.)
·
The experience of Australia in establishing adequate basic wages
without industrial dislocation is also further corroborated by the
experience of Great Britain under the trade boards act of 1909, and
of the various states in this country which have established minimum
wages for women engaged in trade and industry.
As a matter of fact, there is no sound reason why the budgetary
method can not be employed to determine what the minimum income
essential to the reasonable living requirements of an unskilled
laborer, wife, and three dependent children should be; furthermore,
there is no sound reason why such a standard can not be ascertained
and applied to the transportation industry without impairment of
its economical and efficient operation. Under a proper application,
it would undoubtedly reduce, rather than increase, labor costs. The
only criticism, indeed, which has been made has not been against the
budgetary method but against its application. It has been twofold:
(1) The standard of living which should be allowed as the basis of
784
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
a living wage; and (2) the size of the family unit. But the request
of the employees in this case for a recognition of the living-wage
principle, and its application to the extent only of an opportunity
for laborers and section men to earn a maximum of $1,175 a year,
has been so reasonable, conservative, and so financially practicable
that it has seemed to me that it should have been granted by the
Labor Board pending a more exhaustive inquiry as to what a living
wage should actually be. The requests of the employees, in other
words, have impressed me not only as being reasonable and con-
servative, but clearly within the range of practical application.
NEGRO AND MEXICAN LABOR AWARDED FAVORABLE WAGES.
Reference is made by the majority to rates of pay established for
section men and common labor by certain carriers in the Southeast
and that these rates are below the minimum of 25 cents per hour
established by this decision, but nothing is said to indicate how
these rates were put into effect. It is my information that a com-
mittee composed of section foremen conducted these negotiations,
and that the negro laborers whom they assumed to represent and for
whom they agreed to accept these reductions had no proper oppor-
tunity of expressing their wishes. It is significant that the section
foremen on the same roads quite generally received increases in
their rates of pay. The Labor Board had information as to the
rates of pay established by certain of the southeastern roads prior
to the issuance of its Decision No. 1028, and none of these roads were,
so far as this class of employees are concerned, parties to the dispute
resulting in the issuance of Decision No. 1028.
In the case of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
Co. which has, since the issuance of Decision No. 1028, established a
minimum rate of 40 cents an hour for trackmen, this carrier, named
in Decision No. 1028, after receiving the board's decision granting
their request to the extent of reducing the rates of pay of trackmen
5 cents an hour, arranged to negotiate with a committee other than
the duly authorized committee members of the organization party
to this dispute, and granted trackmen an increase establishing a
minimum of 40 cents an hour.
In this case the carrier dealt with the organizations parties to
this dispute regarding a reduction in wages, but for obvious reasons.
it did not do so when it proposed to increase wages. The carrier is
now contending that the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers does not now represent
a majority of this class of employees, and is therefore protesting the
right of this organization to represent these employees in the present
dispute arising from the request for a wage increase, and because of
this protest the New Haven has not been included in the present
decision.
The minimum rate of 25 cents an hour established by this decision
represents an annual full-time wage of $612 or $51 per month.
This is the definition of a just and reasonable wage as decided by
the majority of the board. The majority state:
As a matter of fact, this 25-cent minimum is a higher wage than the 37-cent
minimum, when considered in relation to the living conditions of the respective
territories.
DECISIONS.
785
As this rate applies in the territory where negro and Mexican
labor predominate, then it is a fair assumption to say that the ma-
jority has established a more favorable standard of living for these
nationalities than for others.
We ask that you visualize a typical family and habitation of a
negro laborer in any of the Southeastern or Southern States, and
judge whether or not a decision that establishes a standard of living
on that basis is justifiable in the eyes of God or man.
EFFECT OF WAGE REDUCTIONS ON COUNTRY.
Mr. William Randolph Hearst recently published an article which
I herewith reproduce:
The great injury inflicted upon the business of the country by the coal and
railroad complications and upon the people of the country and upon the Nation
itself, is due primarily to the fundamental economic error that wages should
be reduced and that any benefit can come to a country by reduction of wages.
If the late great war has anything at all to its credit, anything at all that
we can look to as a general advantage to humanity, it is the fact that the war
and the conditions which it created tended to raise the wage scale.
The effort of all intelligent people, as well as humanitarian people, the effort
of all people familiar with social and economic principles and objectives should
have been to maintain this wage scale and the standard of living made possible
by a high wage scale, even though the cost of living should be somewhat
reduced,
We know perfectly well that the supremacy of American products is not due
and never has been due and never will be due to the cheapness of American
labor.
It is due to the skill of American labor, the intelligence and education of
American labor, the contentment, energy, and enthusiasm of American labor,
and, of course, in addition to this superiority of American labor, the superiority
of American machinery.
The superior skill, education, contentment, energy, enthusiasm of American
labor are due primarily to the superior American standard of living and the
opportunities, ambitions, and interest which that high standard of living
creates.
To strike at that standard of living of the American laborer is to strike at
the very base of all his superiority, to kill his superior skill and intelligence,
his contentment, enthusiasm, and interest at the very root.
It is the extreme of false economy; it is the utmost of bad management-to
say nothing of the social and ethical questions involved.
It may be taken as an elemental proposition that no saving from wage reduc-
tion compensates for the loss of production from discontented labor, or labor
rendered less efficient through a reduction of the standard of living and a
consequent limitation of those opportunities for education and individual im-
provement which make American labor the most efficient in the world.
In addition to the injury which a reduction of wages inflicts upon labor and
through labor upon production, there is the general injury upon all business
which a reduction in purchasing power of the mass of the community inevitably
involves.
It is possible that we business men do not realize that a great part of the
general prosperity of the war period and the immediate post-war period was
due to high wages and the general distribution of those wages in purchases-
for the workingman generally spends nearly all that he earns.
When wages were high the workingman and his family bought freely, the
shops prospered, store stocks were exhausted, the factories were overwhelmed
with orders, and the fullest market prevailed for raw material furnished by
the farm and the mine.
Do you, fellow business man, who owns a store, fail to realize that the
hand which reduces wages dips into your till to deprive you of a proportionate
part of your patronage and your profits?
Do you, fellow business man, who runs a factory, fail to realize that your
orders come from those shops, and are dependent in turn upon the patronage
and prosperity of those shops?
786
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Do you, fellow farmers and fellow miners, fail to realize that the demand for
your products depends upon the demands from the factories, and that these
factories depend upon the orders from the shops, and the orders from the shops
depend upon the prosperity and the patronage of those shops, which are in
turn dependent upon the prosperity of the wage earners, the greatest individual
element in the whole nation?
The conditions of prosperity are a very economic "house that Jack built,"
and the foundation of the house is the welfare of the worker, based on good
wages and consequent high purchasing power.
Therefore when the mine owners and railroad owners demanded a reduction
of wages without absolute necessity they committed a fundamental economic
error. When the Railroad Labor Board authorized a reduction, they sanc-
tioned a blow not only at the welfare of the workers, but at the general welfare
of all business and at the prosperity of the country.
Of course, the workers would not tolerate this reduction in wages wholly
unnecessary and unjustifiable at this time; and, whether moved by selfish
consideration or not, they were performing a patriotic service in not toler-
ating it.
The plain truth of the matter is that any management of any business which
can not succeed, and still pay good wages is not only inefficient but un-
American, because good wages for good work not only is but is recognized to
be a fundamental American proposition.
Most of our American business men are able to conduct their businesses suc-
cessfully and pay high wages; and they conduct their businesses successfully
not in spite of the high wages but on account of the high wages, because
success is a combination of efficient management and efficient labor.
The proof that reduction in wages was in no way necessary at this time in
the coal mines and on the railroads is shown in the fact that great industries
like the Steel Trust, under the skillful management of Elbert H. Gary, were
raising their wages 20 per cent at the time these mining and railroad industries
were attempting to reduce wages and is further shown in the fact that the
coal operators have finally put their men back to work at the old wage, and
can, and will, not only conduct their business successfully with wages at that
standard but profiteer very handsomely in addition.
The railroads must not only eventually pay the previously established wage,
which they attempted to reduce, but will probably soon have to pay an added
wage.
The demand for labor is increasing throughout the nation. Wages will in-
crease in proportion and the opportunity to take advantage of the necessities
of the workingman will not exist, even for those who shortsightedly desire
to take such advantage.
The fundamental mistake, therefore, which has precipitated all the injury
of these strikes and these interruptions of the business of the country and
these burdens upon business and upon individual citizens, which will endure
as long as the limitations on fuel and transportation endure, was made by the
coal operators and the railroad managers when they unjustifiably demanded
lower wages, and by the Railroad Labor Board which sanctioned these un-
justifiable demands.
Perhaps these mistakes may not be made so often when it is thoroughly
realized how important high wages and a high standard of living and a high
purchasing power are not only to the general prosperity of the nation but to
the prosperity of every individual business, to my business and to your business
and to every business and profession and occupation throughout the whole
country.
STATEMENT.
A. O. WHARTON.
For the reasons set out in the decision, I believe that an increase
for employees in maintenance of way service is justified, but I do not
feel that the increase contemplated by this decision is sufficient.
However, I felt obliged to vote for the proposition when it appeared
that the long delay in reaching a decision was working to the detri-
ment of the men affected. The Labor Board took up the question of
establishing just and reasonable wages for this class of employees.
DECISIONS.
787
on October 2, 1922, and after a period of 19 days no decision had
been reached.
The increase of 2 cents per hour is equivalent to nearly $23,000,000
per annum, or approximately $70,000 a day. This delay in the
board's action therefore meant a loss to the employees of about
$1,000,000 in earnings, and failure to reach a decision would not only
have further augmented this loss in earnings, but might have resulted
in this class of employees receiving no increase.
W. L. McMENIMEN.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The fundamental difference between the decision herein and the
dissenting opinion is that the former is based upon the transporta-
tion act, 1920, and the latter upon a fantastic theory, the very essence
of which its own proponents expressly characterized in the hearing
before the Labor Board as a 66 guess and a makeshift.”
The theory of the dissenting opinion, if carried to its legitimate
conclusion, would wreck every railroad in the United States and, if
extended to other industries, would carry them into communistic
ruin.
The law directs the Labor Board to establish "just and reason-
able" wages for this class of railway employees, and it sets out seven
factors or elements which the board shall consider, among other
relevant circumstances, in reaching a conclusion as to what is a just
and reasonable wage.
The factors so named in the statute are as follows:
(1) The scales of wages paid for similar kinds of work in other industries;
(2) The relation between wages and the cost of living;
(3) The hazards of the employment;
(4) The training and skill required;
(5) The degree of responsibility;
(6) The character and regularity of the employment; and
(7) Inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the result of previous
wage orders or adjustments.
The board is impressed with the idea that Congress has thus
enumerated the considerations which any intelligent business man
of just social conceptions would naturally adopt in fixing a just and
reasonable wage.
It is the view of the majority that it is its duty to give due weight
to all seven of these factors, but the dissenting opinion summarily
excludes the first and argues that it should receive no consideration.
The contention of the expert economists in their presentation of
this case for the employees was that the board should fix for common
labor "the living wage." This is likewise the basis of the dissenting
opinion.
If the contentions were that the board should establish "a living
wage," the majority would readily accede to the proposition, and, as
a matter of fact, the board in this instance, as in all others, has
granted a living wage.
But the abstract, elusive thing called "the living wage," con-
fessedly based upon a makeshift and a guess, can not receive the
sanction of the board, because it would be utterly impractical and
788
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
would not be "just and reasonable" as the law commands. The liv-
ing wage is defined by its proponents before this board as follows:
A wage which will support a family of five in health and reason-
able comfort, such family being assumed to consist of a husband and
wife and three dependent children under 16 years of age.
This constitutes a bit of mellifluous phraseology, well calculated to
deceive the unthinking. It has frequently been demonstrated that
a melodious slogan contains more possibilities of danger and destruc-
tion than a dynamite bomb.
To ascertain what is reasonable comfort, it is proposed that experts
shall prescribe a standard of living for a family of five, setting out
in minute detail what the experts think such a family should have in
food, clothing, furniture, housing, and all the other necessaries of
life. The fallacy of this proposal is inherent and fundamental.
That it would be wise and practical to undertake to establish an
arbitrary standard of living for several millions of people is not
apparent. That the desires and requirements of all men are equal
and alike is not correct, and that any committee of experts could set
up an average living standard upon which a wage scale could be prac-
tically based has not been demonstrated anywhere. If theorists
should evolve such a standard of living, it would not be possible to
obtain any general conformance to it by those for whom it was de-
signed. Standards of living have never been theorized into men.
A man can not be picked up by the scruff of the neck and hoisted into
a new standard of living. Such a change in the individual man is
a matter of growth and development. When brought about by nat-
ural processes, it is socially and economically beneficial, but, if at-
tempted by legislation, it is a wasteful absurdity. To provide a
somewhat expensive standard of living for a man who by habits,
training, and ambition is not prepared for it, wastes money and con-
fers no real benefit on the individual.
It may well be observed that this theory of standardization neces-
sarily fails to take into account many of the economies that are prac-
ticed by thrifty people who desire to get ahead in the game of life.
That standards of living are gradually improving in this country is
undoubtedly true, and this is as it should be. There is no member of
the Labor Board who does not profoundly desire improved living
conditions for common labor, but it is our belief that this movement
must be continued along the lines indicated by human experience
and that it can not be consummated in the twinkling of an eye by
artificial expedients.
As a matter of fact the expert representative of the employees in
this case admitted that the immediate establishment of "the living
wage "would, to adopt his language, "throw a monkey wrench into
the industrial machinery." He therefore suggested that the board.
only make a start in that direction at this time. Such a proposition
is entirely illogical. If the living wage is the just and reasonable
wage authorized by the statute, it is the duty of the Labor Board to
establish it now. If it is not the just and reasonable wage com-
manded by the law, then it is not the duty of the board to adopt it
now or hereafter, unless the law be changed.
If it would now be equivalent to a monkey wrench thrown into the
machinery, as its advocate says, it might amount to the same thing
DECISIONS.
789
later on, and the Railroad Labor Board made no mistake in declining
to commit itself to this theory.
The adoption of the family of five as the typical family is arbitrary
and questionable. According to the United States census of 1920
there were 24,351,676 families in a population of 105,710,620, an
average of 4.4 persons to a family, and not 5. This includes all
members, regardless of age. The census also shows that there were
about 35,000,000 dependent children under 16 years of age, an aver-
age of 1.4 dependent children to a family, and not 3, as assumed in
the living-wage theory.
Furthermore, the 1920 census also shows that for each family there
are 1.36 male workers. According to the living-wage theory, each
family of five would be supported by one worker, while, as a matter
of fact, each family would have the support of 1.36 workers.
It is interesting and instructive to take note of the undoubted
results that would follow the adoption of the theory of "the living
wage." The representative of the employees states that according to
the lowest living budget now available the living wage for common
labor should be 72 to 75 cents an hour.
To bring the rates of common labor on the railroads to 72 cents
an hour would necessitate an increase of 125.7 per cent. To main-
tain existing differentials between the rates of common labor and
skilled labor—and the representatives of the employees insist that
proper differentials must be maintained-would necessitate an in-
crease by the same percentage of the rates of all classes of railroad
workers.
This would add approximately $3,112,952,387 to the annual pay roll,
bringing it up to $5,589,445,993. Total expenses would then be ap-
proximately $7,804,871,733, and total revenues (1921) $5,563,232,215,
and the carriers would face an annual deficit of $2,241,639,518.
But, the representatives of the employees say, it would be imprac-
ticable to establish the living wage all at once, but that as a starter
48 cents an hour should be made the minimum wage for common
labor for the present. Assuming the retention of the existing dif-
ferentials for common labor on the railways and for all other classes
of labor, this would mean an increase of 50.45 per cent, which would
add to the annual wage bill $1,249,390,994, bringing it up to
$3,725,884,540.
The total annual expenses of the railways would be $5,941,310,340
and total revenues (1921) $5,563,232,215, and the carriers would be
up against an annual deficit of $378,078,125.
In either instance there would not be a cent of returns for stock-
holders. Of course, for those who desire Government ownership
this would be a quick method of getting it, for it is a sure thing that
the public would not stand for the imposition of higher rates to pay
such a deficit.
It must be remembered, in the last analysis of the matter, that the
public would have to pay this wage bill, and when we say the public,
everybody, rich and poor, is included. A vast percentage of the
burden would be passed on to laboring men and women in other
lines of industry in the form of increased living expenses. From
the effort to meet such increased expenses there would necessarily
result a wide extension of the struggle to raise wages in all other
790
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
lines of industry, and the disturbance and disorganization of busi-
ness in general.
It is our belief that the people of this country are perfectly willing
that railway labor, with its hazard, skill, and responsibility, should
be well compensated, even to the point of liberality. In view of this
friendly public sentiment, it is not wise for labor organizations to
seek to impose upon the farmers and producers of the country a
crushing burden at a time when the losses of readjustment are so
keenly remembered.
The argument that this theory of the living wage has been suc-
cessfully tried out in Australia is not sustained by the record in this
case, nor by the general information accessible to the Labor Board.
Most of the evidence on this point is out of date. It is admitted by
the representative of the employees that Premier Hughes, of Aus-
tralia, rejected the living-wage recommendation of the commission,
reporting it as an impossible burden to industry.
Neither is it believed that the Australian countries can be pointed
to as examples of industrial prosperity and happiness. Men are
prone to believe that ideal conditions exist in distant lands, and we
have even heard Soviet Russia extolled as the land of superlative
prosperity for labor. Those who have been privileged to view con-
ditions in such countries at short range have usually returned to the
United States quite convinced that it is better to strive for the im-
provement of what we have than to supplant it by the visionary ex-
periments of wild-eyed agitators.
The lengthy newspaper article of William R. Hearst incorpo-
rated in the dissenting opinion is not evidence in this case. Mr.
Hearst was not sworn nor cross-examined, nor is it shown that he
is an expert on questions of the sort here involved. In so far as
the article in question is adopted as the views of the signer of the
dissenting opinion, it is pertinent and important, but a discussion
of its many fallacies and misstatements need not now be entered
upon in detail.
It is worthy of note, however, that this article thus approvingly
quoted contains the statement that the unjustifiable lowering of the
shopmen's wages caused the strike. Such a statement adopted and
indorsed in an official document by a member of this board deserves,
at least, brief comment.
In the judgment of a majority of the Labor Board, and, we believe,
of a great majority of the people, the shopmen's strike was an egre-
gious blunder without any real justification, and this is said with the
kindliest feeling for the employees who have suffered most from its
effects. It has wrought harm to all and good to none. It has bur-
dened the railways with an unjust expense, has inflicted great losses
upon the public, especially the food producers, and has resulted in
approximately $177,535,524 loss to the strikers. For all this, the men
on strike have won nothing. They have gained no concession as to
any matter upon which they struck. For months the strike has been
merely a struggle upon the part of the men to regain their positions.
In vivid contrast stands the course of the maintenance of way em-
ployees, whose officials wisely prevented a strike. Since July 1 this
class of employees has received wages approximately $147,656,866,
which would have been lost on strike, and now, by orderly and legal
DECISIONS.
791
processes, they are receiving under the present decision an increase
in wages approximating $20,000,000 per year.
Perhaps there is no better time and place to emphasize the belief of
a majority of the Labor Board that railway strikes are utterly use-
less and wasteful, and that the employees will always gain better
results at the hands of any tribunals fairly constituted and representa-
tive of the people than they will by making war on the carriers and
the public.
The most disturbing influence prevalent in railway operation to-
day is the continuous preachment that the laboring man can not
trust the courts and tribunals of his country, and must therefore
resort to force for the attainment of justice.
Nothing here said should be construed as an effort to discourage
the legitimate activities of organized labor. It serves an essential
purpose in the body politic. The conduct of the maintenance of way
organization in connection with this wage controversy exemplifies
the exalted service that may be rendered to labor and to our Republic
by statesmanlike leadership of the railway employees.
DECISION NO. 1268.-DOCKET 353–273-A.
Chicago, Ill., October 20, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Savannah Union Station Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding alleged improper application of
decrease prescribed in Decision No. 147 for employees in telegraph
service.
Statement. The carrier party hereto is named in Addendum No.
1 to Decision No. 147 and is authorized thereby to apply to the classes
of employees named in section 1, Article V thereof, a decrease of 6
cents per hour. The classes named in section 1 of Article V are as
follows:
SEC. 1. Telegraphers, telephone operators (except switchboard operators),
agents (except agents at small nontelegraph stations, as referred to in Supple-
ment No. 13 to General Order No. 27, Article IV, section c), agent-telegraphers,
agent-telephoners, towerman, levermen, tower and train directors, block opera-
tors and staffmen.
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, which organization was a
party to the dispute upon which Decision No. 147 and addenda there-
to was rendered, has filed with the Labor Board a protest against the
authorization of the decrease prescribed for the classes of employees
named above in the service of the carrier party hereto. This pro-
test is based on the ground that an agreement existed between the
carrier and said organization governing wages and working condi-
tions of employees in station, tower and telegraph service, and that
the carrier failed to confer with the duly accredited committee of
the employees covered by said agreement prior to the presentation
of its application for decreases in wages of these classes. It is, there-
fore, contended that the provisions of the transportation act, 1920,
and the orders of the Labor Board were not complied with, and that
the carrier should not have been authorized to apply the decreases
set out in Decision No. 147 for the employees herein referred to.
792
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier does not deny that conference was not held with the
committee representing the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, but
states that an effort was made to secure the concurrence of all em-
ployees in its service to an acceptance of the decision of the Labor
Board as of the same date and on the same basis as in the case pre-
sented by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.; and that to accom-
plish this each employee was requested to signify acceptance or
nonacceptance, and this fact was clearly stated in its application
for decision.
The carrier contends that the action taken by the organization is
based solely on method of procedure, and there is no indication
that any other result would have obtained in conference with a
committee representing the telegraphers' organization. In fact,
there is every reason to believe that the same result would have
followed, and under the circumstances it is felt there was a proper
observance of all requirements necessary to the purpose in view.
The carrier further contends that the issue raised by the teleg-
raphers' organization is technical and without merit, and that the
reduction authorized under date of July 1, 1921, should stand.
Opinion. In this case the carrier did not impose any injustice
on the employees or attempt to do so. It did not arbitrarily reduce
their wages, but brought the matter to the attention of the Labor
Board, which rendered a decision granting to this carrier the same
reduction for these employees that was made by the board for the
same class on all other carriers. The carrier, in good faith, put into
effect the board's decision and the employees involved have been
receiving thereunder the same compensation as similar employees
on other roads. It is, however, correctly contended by the em-
ployees that the carrier did not proceed regularly in the preliminary
steps leading up to the submission of the matter to the board, in
that it failed to hold a conference with the representatives of the
employees and, instead thereof, took the matter up directly with
the individual employees, 14 in number. This course was not the
proper one, but inasmuch as no actual injury was wrought to the
employees in this case, the board does not feel that it would be equi-
table to inflict on the carrier the heavy penalty sought by the em-
ployees. The board is not disposed to stretch a technicality against
justice. When technicalities are strained, it should be for the attain-
ment of justice.
This holding of the board, however, must not be construed as an
invitation to this or other carriers to relax the requirements of
orderly procedure.
Decision. Addendum No. 1 to Decision No. 147 is properly ap-
plicable to the Savannah Union Station Co.
DISSENTING OPINION.
Although there have been many decisions issued by the Labor
Board with which I have not been in accord, I have generally re-
frained from dissenting opinions. However, the above decision is so
inconsistent with previous orders and decisions of the board with
respect to the manner in which reductions in wages or changes in
working conditions shall be made that I am obliged to record my
exceptions to it.
DECISIONS.
793
The Labor Board has stated that when any changes of wages,
contracts, or rules previously in effect are contemplated or proposed
by either party, conference must be had as directed by the trans-
portation act and by rules or decisions of procedure promulgated by
the board. These rules and decisions provide that the letter and spirit
of section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, have not been complied
with until the carrier shall have met in conference or endeavored to
meet in conference the duly designated representatives of the em-
ployees directly interested in the dispute, and, in case of disagree-
ment, shall have properly certified the dispute to the Labor Board.
In this case the carrier had an agreement with the Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers covering wages and working conditions of em-
ployees in telegraph service, and wholly ignored the committee of
that organization because it elected to confer with the employees
direct. In the presentation to this board requesting authority to
establish reduced rates of pay, the carrier indicated that conferences
had been held with the employees in the manner provided in section
301 of the transportation act, 1920, and was fully aware of the
board's rules and orders governing the manner in which such con-
ferences should be held. It was on the assumption that the carrier
had conducted conferences as required by the board's orders that it
was authorized in Addendum No. 1 to Decision No. 147 to apply the
decreases specified for the classes of employees named therein, and
I can not subscribe to any decision which provides that decreases
authorized by a misrepresentation of facts by a carrier should stand.
W. L. McMENIMEN.
Excluding the references to the personal attitude of Board Mem-
ber McMenimen, I concur in the dissent for the reason above set forth.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1269.-DOCKET 2600.
Chicago, Ill., October 20, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Question. Protest of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance-of-
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers against the method
adopted by the carrier to establish authority for representation of
section foremen.
Statement. Under date of July 24, 1922, the vice president and
general manager of the carrier sent a letter to the general chairman
of the organization reading as follows:
Referring to conference held in office of chief engineer, Mr. G. J. Ray, this
morning, at which time you were apprised of petitions received from a majority
of track foremen indicating their desire to form an organization separate from
other maintenance-of-way employees and requesting that they be permitted to
deal direct with the company in regard to wages and working conditions.
As advised, before taking action in this matter it is our desire to determine
through a secret vote of the employees as prescribed in principle 15 of Decision
No. 119, whether a majority of them wish to be represented as indicated in
that petition or whether they desire to continue to be represented by the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance-of-Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
In view, however, of your declination to join in submitting this matter to
the employees to vote upon, according to the rules prescribed by the United
States Railroad Labor Board, this is to advise you that we will arrange to
794
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
take a vote of the employees between July 26 and 31, inclusive, and arrange-
ments have been made accordingly.
We wish, however, to again extend to you the privilege of having two repre-
sentatives of your organization assist us in counting the vote of the track fore-
men; and if you desire to do so, will you kindly advise me by Saturday, July
29, the names of the employees whom you delegate for this work?
Under date of July 28, 1922, the general chairman replied to the
letter in a communication reading:
I am in receipt of your communication under date of July 24 in which you
advise of the preparation to take a ballot of section foremen on the D., L. & W.
System, with the ultimate intention of negotiating a separate agreement to cover
this class of employees.
Since the effective date of Supplement No. 8 to General Order No. 27 issued
by the United States Railroad Administration and signed by the then Director
General of Railroads, W. G. McAdoo, the United Brotherhood of Maintenance-
of-Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, through its authorized repre-
sentatives on the D., L. & W. System legislated for and covered these employees
by their jurisdiction, and whether or not a petition or ballot indicates a desire
on their part to make a separate and distinct agreement, I can not concede
that such is right and proper in accordance with the Transportation Act, 1920,
and Decision No. 501 handed down by the United States Railroad Labor Board,
until after this tribunal has had an opportunity to survey the entire question
after oral hearing and then renders a decision.
This represents the feelings of the authorized representatives of the men
involved, and I request that all action to commence negotiations for separate
rules and regulations governing section foremen be deferred.
After further exchange of correspondence and telegrams, includ-
ing a letter from the vice president and general manager of the
carrier dated July 31, 1922, in which he advised the general chair-
man of the organization that in accordance with requests contained
in telegram of July 13 to reopen the question of wages and rules
governing working conditions, reading as follows:
There is an insistent demand by employees represented by our organization
that they be granted a wage increase effective July 1, 1922, equal to that estab-
lished by Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3), and that they be granted time
and one-half time for all hours worked in excess of eight consecutive hours and
for time worked on Sundays and holidays. They further demand that other
beneficial changes be made in the present working rules and that pending
grievances be immediately adjusted. I therefore herewith respectfully request
that you please waive all technicalities and meet our committee in conference
the early part of next week for the purpose of negotiating an adequate wage
increase and more favorable working conditions,
which telegram was confirmed in letter of July 22. A meeting was
arranged for August 3, 1922, to discuss and attempt to reach an
agreement upon such rules as were in dispute as a result of confer-
ences conducted in accordance with Decision No. 119, and which were
not decided by the Labor Board in Decision No. 501.
The vice president and general manager of the carrier wrote to the
general chairman of the organization on August 2, 1922, as follows:
Referring to conference in Chief Engineer Ray's office, July 24, concerning
representation of track foremen, at which time you were requested to join
with us in conducting a vote according to principle 15 of United States Rail-
road Labor Board Decision No. 119.
In view of your refusal to do so, and failure to accept our invitation to
delegate representatives of your organization to assist in tabulating the ballots,
we necessarily had to proceed accordingly. The result of the vote conducted
was as follows:
Two hundred and thirty-four votes for proposition No. 1-employees desiring
to be represented by an organization of D., L. & W. track foremen with no
affiliations, either with other employees or organizations.
DECISIONS.
795
Fifty-four votes for proposition No. 2-employees desiring to be represented
by the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Eight not voting; one rejected ballot; and three blank.
This vote proving conclusively that a majority of the employees of this class
do not desire to be represented by your organization, you are hereby advised
that no further negotiations will be entered into with you, and negotiations
pending, affecting this class of employees, are hereby terminated.
The representatives of the employees contend that they are the
properly authorized representatives of the employees concerned in
this dispute, so recognized by established authority in accordance
with and by the scope provision of Decision No. 501; therefore if
the carrier desires to make any changes in that provision of Decision
No. 501 negotiations should be had with them; also that the carrier
is not within its rights in taking such vote of the foremen as was
taken, as the foremen are in the group outlined in the scope of their
agreement, and Decision No. 501 provides that the rules contained
therein should be made applicable to track and section foremen as
well as others in the maintenance of way group.
The representatives of the employees further contend that no
changes should be made in the existing agreement until the pro-
visions of said agreement and Decision No. 501 are complied with,
and then, in case dispute exists, no change should be made until the
Labor Board has had an opportunity to hear and decide the case.
In view of the foregoing it is contended that the carrier has violated
the agreement and Decision No. 501 (1) by refusing to fully apply
the rules and provisions thereof; (2) by taking a vote of the fore-
men; (3) by not complying with rules governing changes therein;
(4) by terminating pending negotiations with the committee; and
(5) by refusing to further negotiate. It is therefore requested that
the Labor Board order the carrier to apply the provisions of the
agreement entered into by its representatives and the committee rep-
resenting the employees affiliated with the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, to-
gether with Decision No. 501 and other orders of the Labor Board.
The representatives of the carrier contend that the real question
at issue in this dispute is whether or not the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers is the
proper representative of the foremen involved in this dispute, and
state that the Labor Board has already provided ways and means for
ascertaining who are the proper representatives of the employees,
and that in conformity with the board's rulings and a petition signed
by approximately 90 per cent of the section foremen in the service,
an election was conducted among the section foremen. The main-
tenance of way organization was invited to participate in the elec-
tion, but declined to do so.
•
The representatives of the carrier state that the election demon-
strated that out of 300 ballots distributed, only 54 were cast in
favor of the maintenance of way organization-the majority of the
foremen desiring to deal direct with the management on the question
of wages and working conditions. Therefore the carrier is agreeable
to applying Decision No. 501 in so far as it affects the classes of
employees whom the organization represents, but not to the track
or section foremen who do not want to be represented by the main-
tenance of way organization.
20936°-23- -51
796
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion. The Labor Board has considered the charges of intimi-
dation and coercion as made in this case, but the result of the hear-
ing does not substantiate the charges. It finds that the ballot dated
July 25, 1922, and later distributed among the foremen concerned,
was prepared in conformity with former ballots used in other in-
stances at the board's instructions; that the representatives of the
complaining organization were accorded every opportunity to par-
ticipate in the handling of same; and that prior to the casting of a
vote the foremen were advised by General Chairman E. E. Milli-
man that "Two or more of the representatives (maintenance of way
organization) would be there when the votes are counted
in a
notice reading as follows:
""
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES AND RAILWAY SHOP
LABORERS DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN JOINT PROTECTIVE BOARD.
All Foremen on D., L. & W. Railroad, Greeting:
I have been advised by Mr. Rine in to-day's mail that the management
intends to take a vote of the foremen to determine whether or not a majority
of the foremen want to be represented by the United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
Mr. Rine advises that the vote will be taken between July 26 and July 31.
He extends to me the privilege of having two representatives of our organi-
zation assist in counting the votes.
Two or more of our representatives will be there when the votes are counted.
We are now in an awful hurry to take this vote. I have protested this
action of the company to Grand President Grable, and he immediately took it up
with the Labor Board. However, the board may not act until the vote is taken.
We have done our best to give you the facts in this matter of representa-
tion. Your signature to any paper did not or does not bind you in any way.
It is now up to you to decide the question by voting for the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers if you still
want to be represented by your present organization, by your present repre-
sentatives, and by your present agreement.
Sincerely and fraternally yours,
E. E. MILLIMAN, General Chairman,
No evidence was presented which would indicate that the results
of the election would be different under other circumstances, and the
representatives of the organization have not furnished the board
with any authority of representation which would discredit that fur-
nished by the representatives of the carrier.
Decision. The method adopted by the carrier in establishing
authority for representation of section foremen was proper and
proves beyond doubt that a majority of the section foremen employed
by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. do not desire
to be represented by the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
The position of the carrier is sustained.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissents from the majority decision for the fol-
lowing reasons:
In its Decision No. 119 the board said:
The right of railway employees to organize for lawful objects shall not be
denied, interfered with, or obstructed.
The right of such lawful organization to act toward lawful objects through
representatives of its own choice, whether employees of a particular carrier
or otherwise, shall be agreed to by management.
DECISIONS.
797
No discrimination shall be practiced by management as between members and
nonmembers of organizations or as between members of different organizations,
nor shall members discriminate against nonmembers or use other methods than
lawful persuasion to secure their membership. Espionage by carriers on the
legitimate activities of labor organizations or by labor organizations on the
legitimate activities of carriers should not be practiced.
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft or class.
Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall apply
to all employees in such craft or class. No such agreement shall infringe,
however, upon the right of employees not members of the organization
representing the majority to present grievances either in person or by repre-
sentatives of their own choice. (II, R. L. B. 87.)
Subsequent to the issuance of Decision No. 119, negotiations were
conducted between the duly authorized system representatives of the
employees members of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and the representatives
of substantially all of the class I carriers. Disputes arising out of
these negotiations resulted in the issuance of Decision No. 501,
effective December 16, 1921, and with very complete information in
its possession as to the contentions of both parties to the dispute, the
Board promulgated the following scope rule:
ARTICLE I.-Scope.-These rules govern the hours of service and working
conditions of all employees in the maintenance of way department (not includ-
ing supervisory forces above the rank of foreman), shop and roundhouse
laborers (including their gang leaders), transfer and turntable operators,
engine watchmen, pumpers, highway-crossing watchmen, and all other em-
ployees performing work properly recognized as work belonging to and coming
under the jurisdiction of the maintenance of way department, except as
provided in decisions of the United States Railroad Labor Board on disputes
submitted under Decisions No. 119 for other crafts or classes.
They supersede all rules, practices, and working conditions in conflict there-
with. (II, R. L. B. 469.)
Subsequent to the issuance of Decision No. 501, two disputes were
submitted to the Labor Board for hearing and decision. In both of
these disputes the carrier and the employees were unable to agree as
to who would be entitled to vote in order to determine whether or
not the organization represented a majority. In each case the car-
rier contended that the maintenance of way employees should be
divided into various classes and that a majority of each of the
respective classes should have the right to negotiate an agreement
for that particular class. Both written and oral evidence was
presented, and with full and complete information before it the
board rendered the following decisions:
Decision No. 998 (Docket 1611).—The Labor Board further decides that
separate ballots shall be taken to ascertain definitely the wishes of the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers,
this ballot to be in line with the procedure outlined in Decision No. 218, and
its addendum, specifying thereon the following:
Those who desire to be represented by the United Brotherhood of Mainte-
nance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers mark an X in this
square..

Those who desire to be represented by the American Federation of Rail-
road Workers mark an X in this square.
Those who desire to be represented by individuals or by any other organi-
zation, write the name of such individual or organization here.
and mark an X in this square…………
798
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(1) Employees in the maintenance of way department (not including super-
visory forces above the rank of foremen), shop and roundhouse laborers (in-
cluding their gang leaders), transfer and turntable operators, engine watch-
men, pumpers, highway-crossing watchmen, and all other employees performing
work properly recognized as work belonging to and coming under the jurisdic-
tion of the maintenance of way department, except as provided in decisions of
the United States Railroad Labor Board on disputes submitted under Decision
No. 119 for other crafts or classes.
(2) Stationary and hoisting engineers, stationary firemen, boiler-room water
tenders, engine-room oilers or grease-cup fillers, flue blowers and borers, fire
knockers and cinder-pit men, and fire builders and coal passers.
Decision No. 1082 (Docket 1687) is identical with that of De-
cision No. 998.
In both of these decisions the Labor Board clearly stated and
decided that all of the group of employees embraced in Article I,
above quoted, constituted one class of employees in voting to deter-
mine what would constitute a majority for the purpose of negotiat-
ing the rules of the agreement governing working conditions.
In the present case the organization and the carrier, conducting
negotiations under the board's Decision No. 119, agreed to the fol-
lowing scope rule, effective December 16, 1921:
Agreement between the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. and
the classes of employees in the maintenance of way, bridge and building,
motive power and equipment, stores and signal departments represented by
the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers.
These rules govern the hours of service and working conditions of em-
ployees above specified in the maintenance of way, bridge and building, motive
power equipment, stores and signal departments, except the following:
(b) Supervisory forces above the rank of foremen in the track department,
including supervisors of tamping machines, and their assistants.
The employees contend that during the latter part of June, 1922,
various officials, including the principal assistant engineer, general
roadmaster, roadmasters, and supervisors, canvassed the system,
making certain offers to the foremen-namely, an increase in pay,
annual vacations with pay, annual pass over the system, and other
emoluments-provided they withdrew from the organization and
joined a so-called supervisory organization; that the foremen were
intimidated and coerced into subscribing to the petitions; that certain
foremen on each roadmaster's division were instructed or requested
by the roadmaster, supervisor, or some other superior to go over
the road on their section motor cars and request the foremen to
sign this petition; and that in some cases the roadmasters and gen-
eral roadmaster covered the divisions in an effort to induce the fore-
men to agree to join the supervisory organization in consideration
of the inducements offered in the petition.
It is claimed that many foremen refused to sign the petition; that
other foremen signed unwillingly or because they were informed
that other foremen had signed; and that others signed because they
were told that certain increases in salary, passes over the system,
annual vacations, pay for time lost while ill, and reduced insurance
policies would be granted them if they agreed to join a so-called
supervisory organization and discontinue membership in the main-
tenance of way organization. These petitions, it is alleged, were
circulated by foremen who were provided with transportation for
DECISIONS.
799
the purpose and paid for their services by the carrier, and they pro-
ceeded under instructions from officials of the carrier.
The employees further contend that the organization party to this
dispute is the properly authorized representative of the employees
classed as section foremen, so established by majority vote of that
class of employees and by Decision No. 501 of the Labor Board; that
if the carrier desires to make any changes in the scope of the agree-
ment or any part thereof, negotiations should be conducted with
that organization which is ready and willing at all times to negotiate
proposed changes in working conditions affecting that class of em-
ployees; and that the carrier party hereto violated Decision No. 501
in refusing to fully apply the rules and provisions thereof, in taking
a vote of section foremen, in not complying with rules governing
changes in the decision, in terminating pending negotiations with
the committee, and in failing to comply with the board's order of
August 4 directing that status quo be maintained pending decision
of the board.
At hearing conducted by the Labor Board on August 23 all parties
interested were represented. It developed at this hearing that the
carrier party hereto has promoted an organization of its section
foremen by offering to that class of employees substantial increases
in wages, pass privileges, insurance, annual vacations with pay, and
other emoluments as an inducement to join this organization.
The principal assistant engineer testified that he received a peti-
tion from the section foremen on one of the western divisions, and
that complying with the request of the roadmaster, he met a com-
mittee of the foremen at Scranton. Following this meeting a peti-
tion was circulated and placed before him requesting that he secure
certain conditions of employment for them as follows:
1. To have an organization of our own and deal direct with company officials.
2. To be placed in a supervisory capacity and be given a sufficient amount of
money to compensate us for acting in such capacity.
3. To be given a reasonable length of time for a vacation with compensa-
tion-the amount of time to be subject to the discretion of the management.
4. To be given the insurance privilege such as given to all other supervisory
employees.
5. We would like to have either semiannual or annual passes furnished to us
according to years of service.
6. In case of a few days' sickness or death in family, time lost account of
such conditions not to be deducted from our wages.
Following the receipt of the petitions above referred to a general
meeting of the foremen or their representatives was held at Dover
on July 14. There were present at this meeting two foremen from
each division except the Utica division. The principal assistant engi-
neer attended this meeting and discussed with the men in a tentative
way what he would be willing to recommend to the management in the
way of rules and rates of pay if the section foremen were on a super-
visory basis. Following the meeting, there was circulated among all
the section foremen on the railroad a petition headed as follows:
We, the track foremen of the Lackawanna Railroad have petitioned the man-
agement of said railroad for certain working conditions:
First. Supervisory basis.
Second. Increased compensation on a monthly basis.
Third. Pass privileges.
Fourth. Insurance.
Fifth. Annual vacations with pay.
800
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Sixth. To outline and organize a track foremen's organization covering rules,
regulations, etc., and deal directly with the company officials, and not be affili-
ated with outside organizations.
Seventh. The petitions as presented to the officers of the Lackawanna Rail-
road carry 90 per cent of the signatures of the track foremen of said railroad,
and on the strength of these petitions a committee was selected representing each
of the divisions over the system. This committee met at Dover, N. J., on Fri-
day, July 14, and unanimously approved of the rates of wages indicated on the
attached exhibit and also unanimously approved the following articles:
Article 1. Supervisory capacity.
Article 2. Two thousand dollars of insurance at rate of $12 per annum.
Article 3. Annual transportation the same as given to all supervisory forces
of the Lackawanna System.
Article 4. At least one week's vacation will be given each of the foremen
annually with pay.
Article 5. In consideration of the increased rate of wage and the other factors
as indicated in this petition, we agree to form an organization of Delaware,
Lackawanna & Western track foremen to deal directly with the management
of said railroad.
To this petition was attached a statement showing substantial in-
creases in wages for section foremen. This statement reads as
follows:
THE DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD Co.,
OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
Hoboken, N. J., July 15, 1922.
Supervisory rates agreed to by track foremen's committee at Dover shops
July 14, 1922.


Item
No.
Classification of foremen.
Approxi-
mate
number
of fore-
Monthly
rate.
men.
1234 LO
Extra-gang foremen, Hoboken to Buffalo, and others in the same class.
...do.
1
$170
23
165
..do....
1
160
4 Section foremen, Hoboken to Buffalo, and others in the same class...
1
175
5
Section foremen, main line, Hoboken to Buffalo, and others in the same class.
6 Section foremen, Morristown line, and others in the same class.
2
167
41
162
7
Section foremen, Hoboken to Buffalo, and others in the same class.
121
160
8 Section foremen, branch line...
2
151
9 Section foremen, branch line, and others in the same class.
51
147
10
.do....
21
144
11
.do..
10
140
This is a very clear statement. It represents an agreement with
the track foremen's committee upon certain increases in wages, in
consideration of which an organization of track foremen was to be
formed to deal direct with the management.
The carrier admits that all of the foremen involved in the circu-
lation of the petitions and those who attended the several meetings
were compensated during the period they were thus engaged. The
committee representing the foremen attending the hearing conducted
by the board on August 23, 1922, were all paid for time lost and
expenses incurred.
The evidence clearly shows that roadmasters and other officials of
the carrier devoted considerable time and personal influence to get
the section foremen to form an independent organization, going over
the road and personally conducting the committee of section foremen
over the division, and being present when the ballot was being taken.
In its "Order in re Docket 404, relating to petition of the Pennsyl-
vania System requesting the Labor Board to vacate and set aside
decision No. 218," the board said:

DECISIONS.
801
Neither this board nor the management of the Pennsylvania System has the
right by any kind of plan or movement to dictate as to who shall be their rep-
resentatives (referring to the employees). Any attempt to do so is an unau-
thorized assumption of power. (II, R. L. B. 755.)
In its Decision No. 220 the board said:
The transportation act places the carrier and the employees in a contractual
relationship as to the negotiation of rules and working conditions, and neither
of the parties has the right, either directly, or indirectly, to dominate or
dictate the other party's selection of its representatives. (II, R. L. B. 216.)
It is not deemed necessary to quote further from the numerous de-
cisions of the board relating to this subject. The evidence in this
case indisputably establishes the fact that:
(1) This carrier deliberately planned and executed its plans to
dominate and dictate the form of organization and representation
for section foremen;
(2) The selection of representatives of the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers was
directly" and "indirectly" interfered with and "obstructed" by
this carrier; and
66
(3) This carrier discriminated against the membership of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers by offering the increased wage rates, vacations,
sick leave with pay, etc., to section foremen conditional upon their
withdrawal from the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and the formation of an
organization that would be under the domination and dictation of
the representatives of the carrier.
The records of the Labor Board show that this carrier sought and
secured through Decision No. 147 a reduction in the wage rates of
section foremen and other classes of employees, the reduction in the
fulltime monthly compensation of section formen being not less than
$20.40 per month.
The records of the board also show that this carrier sought and
secured through Decision No. 1028 a reduction in the wage rates of
section foremen and other classes of employees, the reduction in the
fulltime monthly compensation of section foremen being not less than
than $6.12 per month.
The reduction in wage rates of railroad employees were sought
on the grounds that wages were so high that they could not be justi-
fied, and that a reduction was absolutely necessary if the railroads.
were to meet their obligations and pay a fair return to the owners.
The United States Railroad Administration established a mini-
mum rate of $100 per month for section foremen. The United
States Railroad Labor Board in its wage increase, Decision No. 2, es-
tablished a minimum rate of $130.60 for section foremen and subse-
quently by its Decisions Nos. 147 and 1028 established a minimum
rate of $104.08. This minimum rate will be increased $4.08 by the
board's decision effective October 16, 1922.
In plain terms, this carrier has frankly admitted its purpose; it
has proposed by bribery in the form of large increases in wages, sick
leave and vacations with pay, numerous other emoluments, and other
questionable methods, to promote an organization composed of sec-
tion foremen only, creating a subdivision in this group of em-
802
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ployees not heretofore recognized except possibly in isolated cases.
And the astounding outstanding feature is in the concurrence of this
procedure under the conditions set forth by the majority of the
Railroad Labor Board.
It is not the purpose of this dissenting opinion to discuss the
equity of the wage rates and other emoluments offered by the carrier,
but to direct attention to the purpose sought by this carrier and the
methods invoked to gain that purpose, and more particularly to the
fact that a majority of the Labor Board has placed its stamp of
approval on this procedure.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
A. O. WHARTON.
It is the opinion of the majority of the Railroad Labor Board
that no good would result, nor would any public interests be served
or promoted, by a detailed argument in reply to the dissenting opin-
ion filed in this case. It is sufficient to say that the majority does not
agree with the extreme construction outlined in the dissenting opinion
of the previous rules, orders, and decisions of the board, nor does
the majority at all agree with the conclusions of the dissenting
opinion as to the facts in this case.
Aside from what has already been stated in the opinion and de-
cision of the majority, it may be said the evidence does not establish
the following alleged facts:
(1) That the carrier dominated or dictated the form of organiza-
tion and representation for section foremen.
(2) That the selection of representatives was interfered with and
obstructed by the carrier.
(3) That there was any corruption or undue influence used to
obtain the results, or that there was bribery used to have the men
act to betray any trust or duty.
The Railroad Labor Board is satisfied that the method pursued
was entirely fair; that the decision reached by the men affected or
to be affected was reached by them without coercion or dictation;
that it was of their own free will and choice and with a full knowl-
edge of all facts and conditions; and that it was one which they as
free American citizens had a right to make.
Aside from this, the majority of the board is of the opinion that
from the standpoint of the class involved (the foremen), and from
that of the carrier and of the public, in the interest of discipline and
fidelity, and therefore of economy and efficiency, the decision reached
by these foremen was wise.
It is clearly in the interest of all, and especially of the public, that
foremen and supervisors of other employees should not be embar-
rassed by a membership in the same organization with the men over
whom it is their duty to exercise authority. These men having
fairly and without domination or dictation exercised their right to
form a separate organization and negotiate for their own conditions,
have only done what they had a clear right to do under the law, and
in the opinion of the majority of the Railroad Labor Board they
have acted in the public interest, and their action is approved and
sustained by a majority of the board.
DECISIONS.
803 -
DECISION NO. 1270.-DOCKET 335.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper compensation for Sunday
service performed by certain employees in the office of the superin-
tendent, Pasco, Wash.
Statement. This dispute was filed with the Labor Board on
March 11, 1921, but was removed from the docket on October 31, 1921,
when it appeared to cover a controversy which would be given con-
sideration at conferences conducted in connection with the revision
of the agreement between the carrier and the clerical and station em-
ployees. It also appeared that no claims for compensation in ac-
cordance with the employees' contentions were pending for adjust-
ment. However, investigation and hearing since conducted develops
that there were claims for compensation pending for adjustment, the
merits of which should be decided under the rules in effect at the
time they were presented.
Prior to January 1, 1920, the effective date of the national agree-
ment of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, certain clerks in the
superintendent's office at Pasco were required to perform service on
certain Sundays when necessary, the hours of service of such em-
ployees on Sunday being regulated by the amount of work to be per-
formed. The service was usually less than eight hours for which
eight hours' pay at pro rata rate was allowed.
On January 1, 1918, rules and regulations for clerks and station
employees became effective through an agreement between the car-
rier and representatives of those classes. This agreement continued.
in effect, subject to the provisions of Supplement 7 to General Order
No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administration (except as modi-
fied or changed by tentative rules covering certain agreed-to rules,
effective June 1, 1919), until January 1, 1920, when rules and regu-
lations effective January 1, 1918, and tentative rules effective June
1, 1919, were superseded by the clerks' national agreement and ad-
denda thereto, also effective January 1, 1920. The provisions of
the clerks' national agreement and addenda thereto were continued.
in effect after the expiration of Federal control by letter from the
general manager, dated March 8, 1920, subject to cancellation on 30
days' notice by either party.
The employees state that the clerical forces in the superintendent's
office at Pasco have in the past been allowed an additional day's pay
at their regular rate for less than eight hours, not to exceed six
hours' service on Sunday; and that after January 1, 1920, these em-
ployees when called for service on Sundays were allowed less than
eight hours' pay at the regular rate of the position for which they
were called.
The employees contend that this practice was improper under the
last paragraphs of rules 64 and 65 of the clerks' national agreement,
which provided that on roads where an agreement or practice more
favorable to the employees is in effect, such agreement or practice
may be retained.
804
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees further state that the following rules were included
in the agreement, effective January 1, 1918, and applied to employees
in the superintendent's office at Pasco:
RULE 2 (a). Eight hours or less shall constitute a day's work.
RULE 5. Employees when called for service shall be paid not less than one
day's pay at regular rate of position called for.
RULE 28. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed so as to reduce pay of
any positions or increase the present established hours of service.
The employees further state that the agreement of January 1,
1918, contained no call rule and that at no time prior to the promul-
gation of the supplements and interpretations of the railroad admin-
istration were the employees carried on the pay rolls for less than a
day on any day they were required to work.
Rule 2 of the clerks" national agreement reads as follows:
The rules of this agreement shall supersede and be substituted for all rules
of existing agreements, practices, and working conditions in conflict therewith;
provided that rules of existing agreements dealing with conditions of employ-
ment not specifically provided for herein shall remain in effect and be recog-
nized as addenda to this agreement by the several railroads which negotiated
such rules.
The second paragraph of the addendum to the clerks' national
agreement reads as follows:
These addenda shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of
the employees covered by the above-mentioned agreement in the service of the
Northern Pacific Railroad, and under the conditions named in rule 2 cf
Article I of said agreement, when not in conflict with the national agreement
above referred to.
The carrier states that at the time of the negotiation of the
addendum all rules of the agreement of January 1, 1918, and of the
tentative rules effective June 1, 1919, together with Supplement 7 to
General Order No. 27, were carefully checked, and those that were
not in conflict with the national agreement were accepted by the
carrier and the clerks' committee and embodied therein.
The carrier contends that it was clearly understood by the clerks'
committee that the clerks' national agreement and addendum above
referred to superseded rules and regulations for clerks and station
employees effective January 1, 1918, Supplement 7 to General Order
No. 27, and the tentative rules effective June 1, 1919, and that it was
for the purpose of combining in one addendum all the rules in effect
prior to January 1, 1920, not in conflict with the clerks' national
agreement that the addendum was written.
The carrier further contends that any practices which the clerks'
committee desired to retain should have been negotiated prior to the
execution of the addendum, and that any practices in effect prior
thereto were superseded at the time of its execution.
It is the contention of the carrier that the first paragraphs of rules
64, 65, and 66 of the clerks' national agreement supersede the rules
and regulations for clerical and station employees, effective January
1, 1918, from the effective date of the clerks' national agreement and
the addendum thereto signed by the clerks' committee, and that the
carrier was correct in disregarding any practices alleged to have
been established as the result of the application of any rule or rules
superseded by the said agreement and addendum; that prior to the
adoption of the clerks' national agreement and addenda thereto, the
DECISIONS.
805
only rule in effect that provided for extra pay for Sunday service
to monthly rated clerks was rule 10 of the agreement of January 1,
1918, and that an erroneous payment-under a misinterpretation of
this rule unauthorized by the general manager who signed the agree-
ment or his successor in office-would not establish a past practice
to be continued after the adoption of the clerks' national agreement
and addenda thereto.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1271.-DOCKET 336.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding payment for service performed on
Sundays and holidays by certain hourly-paid employees at Helena,
Mont., when less than eight hours' actual service is performed.
Statement. This dispute was filed with the Labor Board on
March 11, 1921, but was removed from the docket on October 31,
1921, when it appeared to cover a controversy which would be given
consideration at conference conducted in connection with the revi-
sion of the agreement between the carrier and the clerical and sta-
tion employees. It also appeared that no claims for compensation
in accordance with the employees' contentions were pending for adjust-
ment. However, investigation and hearing since conducted develops
that there were claims for compensation pending for adjustment, the
merits of which should be decided on a basis of the rules in effect.
At Helena, on Sundays and holidays, certain hourly-paid em-
ployees were called for service and when the full eight hours' service.
was not required, they were released and paid in accordance with
the first paragraph of rule 65 of the national agreement of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express, and Station Employees. It is the contention of the em-
ployees that these hourly paid employees, when called for service
on Sundays and holidays, should have been paid for eight hours'
service at their regular hourly rate for eight hours or less and with
overtime after eight hours if more than eight hours' service is ren-
dered. The carrier has declined to pay for eight hours' service at the
regular hourly rate for less than eight hours' service on the ground
that the correct payment of these employees is in accordance with
rule 65 of the agreement referred to.
On January 1, 1918, rules and regulations for clerks and station
employees became effective through an agreement between the carrier
and the representatives of those classes. This agreement continued
in effect, subject to the provisions of Supplement 7 to General Order
No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administration, except as modi-
fied or changed by tentative rules covering certain agreed-to rules,
effective June 1, 1919, and was superseded by the clerks' national
agreement, dated January 1, 1920, and addendum thereto, adopted by
agreement between the carrier and the employees, effective the same
date. The provisions of the clerks' national agreement and addenda
thereto were continued in effect after the expiration of Federal con-
3.
806
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
trol by letter from the general manager dated March 8, 1920, subject
to cancellation on 30 days' notice by either party.
The employees state that the warehouse employees at Helena were
called for service on Sundays and holidays for the purpose of trans-
ferring mail at passenger station and were allowed less than a regular
day's pay for the service performed; and that the duties performed
on those days are the same as on the week days, except that it is con-
fined to the transferring of mail and no freight is handled, and for
this reason a lesser number of hours are usually worked. The em-
ployees also state that the agreement of January 1, 1918, contained
the following rules:
RULE 2. (a) Eight hours or less shall constitute a day's work.
RULE 5. Employees when called for service shall be paid not less than one
day's pay at regular rate of position called for.
RULE 12. The minimum service consistent with the company's business will
be required on January 1, February 22, May 30, July 4, Labor Day, Thanks-
giving Day, and Christinas. Employees required by the proper officers or
agents of the company to perform service on these days will be paid additional
therefor at their regular rate. When holidays fall on Sunday, the succeeding
Monday shall be observed.
RULE 28. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed so as to reduce pay
of any positions or increase present established hours of service.
The employees further state that with the exception of the rules.
above quoted, there were no rules in the 1918 agreement referring
to calls for service; that it was generally understood and applied
that employees should receive not less than one day's pay at their
regular rate when responding for service on any day; and that the
employees have no record of a point on the line where less than a
day was allowed for the initial call until several months after the
promulgation of Supplement 7 to General Order No. 27, and that at
the time the dispute was presented it was only applied to a few points.
The last paragraphs of rules 64 and 65 of the clerks' national
agreement read as follows:
On roads where an agreement or practice more favorable to the employee is
in effect such agreement or practice, in so far as it relates to this rule, may
be retained.
The employees contend that rules 2 (a) and 5, together with rules.
12 and 28 of the agreement of January 1, 1918, above quoted, pro-
vided for more favorable conditions, and that the employees should
be_compensated in accordance therewith.
Rule 2 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
The rules of this agreement shall supersede and be substituted for all rules
of existing agreements, practices, and working conditions in conflict herewith:
Provided, That rules of existing agreements dealing with conditions of em-
ployment not specifically provided for herein shall remain in effect and be
recognized as addenda to this agreement by the several railroads which nego-
tiated such rules.
The second paragraph of the addendum to the clerks' national
agreement reads as follows:
These addenda shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of
the employees covered by the above-mentioned agreement in the service of the
Northern Pacific Railroad, and under the conditions named in rule 2 of Article
I of said agreement, when not in conflict with the national agreement, above
referred to.
The carrier states that at the time of the negotiation of the ad-
dendum all rules of the agreement of January 1, 1918, and of the
L
DECISIONS.
807
tentative rules, effective June 1, 1919, together with Supplement 7 to
General Order No. 27, were carefully checked and those that were
not in conflict with the national agreement were accepted by the
carrier and the clerks' committee and embodied therein.
The carrier contends that it was clearly understood by the clerks'
committee that the clerks' national agreement and addendum above
referred to superseded rules and regulations for clerks and station
employees, effective January 1, 1918, Supplement 7 to General Or-
der No. 27, and the tentative rules effective June 1, 1919, and, that
it was for the purpose of combining in one addendum all the rules in
effect prior to January 1, 1920, not in conflict with the clerks' national
agreement that the addendum was written.
The carrier further contends that any practices which the clerks'
committee desired to retain should have been negotiated prior to
the execution of the addendum and that any practices in effect prior
thereto not embodied in the addendum were superseded at the time
of its execution.
The carrier further contends that rule 2 (a) referred to by the
employees has no bearing on this case, as it applied only to class A
clerks, whereas the employees herein referred to are classified as
class B station employees and were covered by rule 4 (a), reading as
follows:
Ten hours service assigned within a period of 11 hours, with 1 hour off for
meals, will constitute a day's work.
Q
The carrier contends that at the time of the negotiations between
the clerks' committee and the carrier's representative for the adden-
dum to the clerks' national agreement, the clerks' committee waived
the insertion therein of rule 5 in the rules and regulations effec-
tive January 1, 1918, and that had they insisted upon this rule
being inserted, the addendum would not have been agreed to by
the carrier. It is therefore claimed that the employees are now
estopped from claiming that this rule is effective as a past practice;
that this rule applied only to those employees called to service on a
regular workday and was not intended to apply to Sunday and
holiday service; and that rule 50 of the clerks' national agreement
makes provision for the hourly rated employees under circumstances
similar to the provisions of rule 5 and superseded the said rule 5
from the effective date of the clerks' national agreement. It is
further claimed by the carrier that rule 12 referred to by the em-
ployees applies only to monthly-rated employees, and that rule 28.
referred to conditions at the time of the adoption of the agreement
of January 1, 1918, and that neither of these rules have any bearing
on this case.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1272.-DOCKET 865.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of O. T. Alexander, train
dispatcher, to exercise his seniority rights in dispatching office,
Bakersfield, Calif.
808
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised that the parties to this
dispute have reached an amicable settlement of the question in con-
troversy and have advised the board that no further action on its
part is necessary. The case is therefore removed from the docket
and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1273.-DOCKET 1116.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper rate of pay for Sunday
work performed by H. Q. Ten Eyck.
Statement.-Mr. Ten Eyck was employed as telegrapher in the
telegraph office at Bethlehem, Pa., from July 25, 1919, to April 7,
1921. His week-day assignment during that period was from 2 p. m.
until 10 p. m., and on Sundays from 3 p. m. until 11 p. m. A dis-
pute has arisen as to the proper compensation for the service per-
formed on Sundays; the employees contending that he should be
paid for the time worked on Sundays in accordance with Interpreta-
tion No. 3 to Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, and the
carrier claiming that he was properly paid for the service performed.
Question No. 1 of Interpretation No. 3 to Supplement 13 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27 and decision thereon reads as follows:
Question.-Section (b) of Article I, Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27,
provides that in determining the hourly basis for positions held by monthly paid
employees, 306 days per year should be divided into the yearly compensation.
Under this provision and the provisions of Articles II and V, at what rate
shall the hours worked on Sundays and holidays be paid?
Decision.—Time worked on Sundays and the following holidays: New Year's
Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas shall be paid for at the pro rata hourly
rate when the entire number of hours constituting the regular week-day assign-
ment are worked.
The employees state that the hours worked by the employee in
question are not the entire number of hours constituting the week-
day assignment, and contend that under the provisions of the above-
quoted interpretation he should have been compensated as follows:
3 p. m. to 5 p. m. (call), 2 hours at overtime rates.
5 p. m. to 10 p. m., 5 hours at pro rata rates.
10 p. m. to 11 p. m., 1 hour at overtime rates_
Total.
Hours.
3
5
13
9/
The employees further state that this claim is supported by the
examples given in the interpretation and the practice in effect on
various railroads; also by the fact that the carrier paid for the
hour worked between 10 p. m. and 11 p. m. at the overtime rate
of time and one-half in accordance with the telegraphers' agreement
and the provisions of Interpretation No. 3, which left seven hours, a
less number of hours than constituted the regular week-day assignment.
The carrier states that the same number of hours having been
worked by Mr. Ten Eyck on Sundays as on week days, he is not
entitled to pay under Interpretation No. 3; that all of the examples
shown under Interpretation No. 3 are under the notified and call
rule, which indicates that its provisions are meant to apply only
DECISIONS.
809
in cases where employees are notified or called to work on Sundays,
which is not the case with Mr. Ten Eyck, as he is regularly assigned
to the same number of hours on Sundays as on week days.
The car-
rier further contends that the only occasion for allowing three hours'
pay for two hours' work on Sunday, under Interpretation No. 3 to
Supplement No. 13, is where an employee is notified or called to
work on Sunday a less number of hours than constitutes a day's
work during the week, whereas this employee worked regularly on
Sundays the same number of hours as during the week.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1274.-DOCKET 1629.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Request for a readjustment in the rate of pay of the
agent's position at Millett, Tex.
Statement.-Under date of July 30, 1921, the representative of
employees in telegraph service served notice on the carrier of desire
for readjustment in the rate of pay of agent at Millett. The read-
justment requested was denied.
The employees state that Millett is a small place about half-way
between San Antonio and Laredo, that prior to the establishment.
of a local freight terminal at that point, the business handled there.
was only such as is usually transacted at small offices, and that rate
of pay applying to the position was fixed accordingly. The em-
ployees further state that when the local terminals were established
at Millett a decided change took place in the duties of the agent; that
the agent was thereafter required (1) to make a personal check of
the coal on hand in cars and make a telegraphic report thereon to the
management each day; (2) to make daily report of all coal issued to
engines, each engine being reported separately; (3) to make daily
report of freight on coal received and monthly report of coal
handled; (4) to approve the time of employees in the mechanical
department and mail time cards showing same; (5) to check cars in
local trains; which terminate at the station; (6) to make switch list;
(7) to transfer freight; and (8) to load and unload the local.
The employees further state that in November, 1921, the position
of mechanical foreman was abolished and all of the mechanical em-
ployees were placed under the direct jurisdiction of the agent; that
the agent was required to handle correspondence and perform other
duties formerly assigned to the mechanical foreman; and that many
other duties have been added to the agent's position for which he
has not received a commensurate increase in compensation. The em-
ployees claim that when the freight terminal was established two addi-
tional positions of second and third trick operators were created at the
same rate of pay per hour as the agent, namely, 57 cents per hour.
The employees contend that the greatly increased duties and re-
sponsibilities placed upon the agent at Millett warrant an increase
in the rate of pay of 15 cents an hour, retroactive to the date the
local terminals were moved to that point, and request is made that
readjustment be ordered accordingly.
The carrier states that the rate now in effect is one established by
the application of the orders of the United States Railroad Admin-
810
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
istration and the decisions of the Labor Board to the rate in effect
prior to Federal control, and the carrier does not consider that there
has been any change in the duties of the agent to justify an increase
in the rate of pay now in effect.
The carrier further states that the moving of the local freight
terminal to Millett did not increase the duties of the agent at that
point to such an extent as would justify an increase in pay, as it is
merely the terminal for local trains; and that this has not produced
noticeable additional work on the part of the agent nor would it
justify granting the request of the employees for an increase in pay.
Decision. The evidence before the Labor Board indicates that
the duties of the agent at Millett were increased to some extent by
changing the terminal from Cotulla to Millett and that some read-
justment of rate of pay of the agent at Millett is warranted. How-
ever, the evidence is not sufficient to enable the board to determine
the measure of adjustment that should be made, and this question is
therefore remanded to the employees and the carrier for conference
and effort to reach an agreement, with the understanding that if
agreement can not be reached the matter may be resubmitted to the
Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1275.-DOCKET 1835.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Question.-Dispute regarding application of clerks' national
agreement to general foremen, terminal division, Boston, Mass.
Statement. This dispute was originally submitted to the Labor.
Board on April 12, 1921, but owing to the absence of any specific
claims for compensation and the fact that negotiations were in
progress between the carrier and the employees with reference to
rules and working conditions, the board did not consider it necessary
to render a decision on the application of the clerks' national agree-
ment to the positions in dispute. However, the carrier and em-.
ployees were unable to agree in the negotiations referred to as to the
inclusion in the agreement with the clerks' organization of the posi-
tions of general foremen referred to herein, and have presented
specific claims for overtime for the tenth hour and for Sunday and
holiday work performed by the general foremen in question under the
rules of the clerks' national agreement from January 1, 1920, to Novem-
ber 28, 1920, on which date they were placed on an eight-hour basis.
It is the contention of the employees that the general foremen in
question were included in an agreement between the carrier and a
general foremen's association, dated December 4, 1907, and that the
said agreement became a part of the clerks' national agreement under
the provisions of rule 2 thereof.
The carrier contends that the so-called agreement of December 4,
1907, was not an agreement, but a letter from the general superin-
tendent to one of the foremen, in which it was clearly stated that
"These need not be considered ironclad rules, but as a guide to the
policy of dealing with our foremen"; in another part the letter
stated that "We wish to continue to feel that the foremen are a
DECISIONS.
811
part of our official family and working for our best interest at all
times." The carrier further contends that these general foremen
supervise subforemen and that they therefore do not come within the
scope of the clerks' national agreement.
Opinion. The evidence shows that the general foremen in ques-
tion supervise a number of other foremen and through them a large
number of employees. It further appears that the instructions of
December 4, 1907, referred to by the employees as an agreement, was
not the result of negotiations between the carrier and the clerks'
committee, but that it was written in response to a certain request.
made by a local association of foremen in charge of freight houses
in the Boston district, and that foremen were not covered by an
agreement entered into between representatives of the carrier and
the clerks' organization under date of September 1, 1918, or by any
previous clerks' agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the general foremen,
Boston terminal division, were not subject to the national agree-
ment of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1276.-DOCKET 1851.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Boston & Maine Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
Question. Request of carrier for elimination of inequalities in rates
of pay of certain clerical and station employees paid on a daily basis.
Štatement.—Supplement 7 to General Order No. 27 of the United
States Railroad Administration, effective September 1, 1918, granted
an increase of $25 per month to clerical employees.
The carrier states that as its clerks generally were paid on a daily
basis, the monthly increase provided for in the supplement was re-
duced to a daily equivalent by multiplying by 12 to obtain the
yearly increase and dividing by the days assigned, 313 or 365, thus.
producing an increase of 82 cents a day for those assigned to work
seven days a week and 96 cents a day for those assigned to work six
days a week. To insure the increase granted by the supplement, it
was also arranged that where positions were changed from seven to
six day assignments the rate would be automatically increased 14
cents per day.
The carrier further states that in 1919, owing to falling off in
business, many positions which had been seven-day assignments for
various periods were changed to six-day assignments and the em-
ployees being on a daily basis this resulted in less earnings for the
employees whose assignments were changed. The employees took the
position that Supplement 7 guaranteed $300 per year increase to
clerical positions over the rates in effect January 1, 1918, and that by
reducing the number of days in the assignment the purpose of the
supplement was defeated. A controversy arose which was submitted
to Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3, and it was decided by that
board in Dockets 577, 653, and 830 that these employees could not
20936°—23—52
812
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
be laid off on Sundays, thereby reducing their monthly earnings and
defeating the intent of Supplement 7. The carrier was thereupon
required to pay the employees for Sundays not worked, and in carry-
ing out these decisions the daily rates were multiplied by 365 and
divided by 313.
The carrier contends that the decisions of Railway Board of Ad-
justment No. 3, above referred to, created unjustifiable inequalities,
which should be eliminated; for illustration, where two yard clerks at
a station which paid the same rate per day prior to Supplement 7,
and one worked six days per week and the other seven days per
week, the decisions of Board No. 3, referred to, resulted in an in-
crease of 66 cents a day for the seven-day employees who were
changed to a six-day basis, and this differential has continued since
that time.
The carrier requests authority to restore the uniformity or rela-
tion of rates previously existing by eliminating the inequality pro-
duced by the application of the decisions herein referred to.
The employees state that Supplement 7 to General Order No. 27
provided for an increase of $300 per annum to be added to the earn-
ings as of January 1, 1918, that a later interpretation to the supple-
ment provided that employees' days of assignment could not be re-
duced in order to defeat the intent of the order in granting $300 in-
crease based on the earnings as of January 1, 1918. The employees
further state that in 1919 a considerable number of yard clerks who
were on a 365-day assignment, and had been for a great many years,
were reduced to a six-day assignment, and therefore did not benefit
to the extent of $300 per year based on the earnings as of January 1,
1918, as provided for by the supplement.
Opinion. It appears that prior to the effective date of Supple-
ment No. 7, the employees in question assigned to six- and seven-day
positions received the same daily rate of pay. It further appears
that the increases granted by the wage orders of the Railroad Ad-
ministration and decisions of the Labor Board were properly ap-
plied and that where assignments were changed from seven to six
days per week the rate was automatically increased 14 cents per day
in order to give the full measure of increase provided by Supple-
ment No. 7. The evidence shows that the decisions herein referred
to had the effect of creating inequalities in the rates of pay of em-
ployees performing the same work in the same office who had previ-
ously received the same rate of pay per day regardless of whether
they worked six or seven days a week.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that effective November 1,
1922, the inequalities existing in the rates of pay of the positions
listed in Exhibit B of the carrier's application for decision in this
dispute, resulting from the application of the decisions of the United
States Railroad Administration, shall be eliminated by reducing the
daily rates of the said positions an amount sufficient to restore the
uniformity or relation of rates existing in said positions prior to the
application of the decisions of the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration which produced the inequalities.
DECISIONS.
813
}
DECISION NO. 1277.-DOCKET 2349.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the right of F. M. Kruzan to exercise
his seniority to the position of roundhouse clerk at Danville, Ill.
Decision. The parties to this dispute have advised the Labor
Board that it has been mutually agreed to drop this case, and they
request that it be withdrawn from further consideration by the
Board.
The dispute is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1278.-DOCKET 2471.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Thomas McGrath, station
accountant, East St. Louis, Ill.
Decision. The Labor Board having been advised by the parties
to this dispute that a mutually satisfactory settlement has been
reached, the case has been removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1279.-DOCKET 2043.
Chicago, Ill., October 23, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Question. This decision is upon a dispute with respect to con-
tracting the work of handling freight at Hoboken, N. J.; Jersey City,
N. J.; East Buffalo, N. Y.; and Scranton, Pa.
Statement.—On January 30, 1922, the Delaware, Lackawanna &
Western Railroad Co. entered into a written contract with the New
York Marine Co., a corporation of the State of New York, whereby
the latter contracted to perform for the carrier for an agreed com-
pensation at Hoboken and Jersey City the handling of lighterage
and other freight on piers and storage grounds in said cities.
On January 31, 1922, the following notice, signed by the superin-
tendent of the carrier, was posted at the piers in Hoboken and Jersey
City:
To all Concerned:
Effective February 1, 1922, this company will permanently discontinue the
handling of freight at its piers in Hoboken and Jersey City. All foremen,
assistant foremen, engineers, winchmen, car cleaners, checkers, coopers, sweep-
ers, laborers, and other forces heretofore employed in such work (except dock
cleaners, sealers, ice-trestle force, and terminal-office force) will be perma-
nently released from the company's service at that time.
On March 1, 1922, the carrier entered into a written contract with
the Buffalo Freight Terminal & Warehouse Co., a corporation of the
State of New York, whereby the latter contracted to perform for
the carrier, for an agreed compensation, the handling of all freight
814
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
for the carrier at its East Buffalo transfer. The following notice
was subsequently posted in the freight house at that point:
Effective March 1, 1922, this company will permanently discontinue the
handling of freight at its East Buffalo transfer. Assistant foremen and all
checkers, stowers, loaders, coopers, sealers, tractor operators, and truckers
now employed in such work on the transfer platform will be permanently
released from the company's service with the close of business on February
28, 1922.
On March 8, 1922, a contract was entered into with Downey Bros.,
whereby the latter contracted to perform for the carrier for an
agreed compensation at Scranton, the handling of all freight of the
carrier at its freight transfer, shipping platform, and freight house
at that point and the following notice was posted:
Effective March 8, 1922, this company will permanently discontinue the
handling of freight at Scranton platform and Scranton transfer. All checkers,
stowers, loaders, coopers, and truckers now employed in such work at the
above points will be permanently released from the company's service with
the close of business on March 7, 1922.
At the time submission was made to the board the employees
stated that the Hoboken and Jersey City contractor was paying
freight handlers 423 cents an hour and checkers 52 cents an hour;
at East Buffalo, truckers 35 cents an hour; coopers, loaders, and
stowers 37 cents an hour; and checkers 52 cents an hour; and at
Scranton the rates paid by the contractor are, truckers, 35 cents
an hour; coopers, loaders, and stowers, 37 cents an hour; checkers, 54
cents an hour; and receiving clerks, 49 cents and 54 cents an hour.
The employees contend that the contracting of the work of han-
dling freight at the stations in question is a violation of the trans-
portation act, 1920, the decisions of the Labor Board, and the agree-
ments with the carrier, and they request that the employees who were
released from the company's service be reinstated pending decision
of the Labor Board; that the rates of pay of these employees be
restored to those in effect at the time the contracts were entered into,
and that all of the employees who have been discharged by the con-
tractors be reinstated to the carrier's service.
The carrier states that the contractor named in each of the con-
tracts above referred to is, and at all times since the date thereof
has been, an independent contractor, and as such is and has been
carrying out the provisions of such contract and performing for the
carrier the work provided therein; that the various persons employed
by each of the said contractors in the performance of the work pro-
vided for in the contract are the sole employees of such contractors
and in no sense legally or actually employees of the carrier; and
that each of the said contracts was made in the exercise of its legal
right and in the interest of economical and efficient management,
and is in all respects a legal and valid contract.
The carrier contends that it has no power of selection or dismissal
of the various persons who are employed by the respective contrac-
tors in the performance of the work covered by said contracts, has
nothing to do with the payment of wages to such persons, and has no
control over their actions in the performance of the work.
rier further contends that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction to
modify these contracts or set them aside, nor jurisdiction over said
contractors or their employees or the wages and working conditions
The car-
DECISIONS.
815
of said employees; that there is no dispute between the carrier and
its employees within the terms of Title III of the transportation act,
1920, pending before the Labor Board in this proceeding; and that
the board has no jurisdiction over the matter submitted to it ex parte
by the organization party hereto, which are matters exclusively be-
tween said contractors and their respective employees.
The carrier further claims that each of the contracts was made in
the interest of economical and efficient management and without in-
tention or purpose to evade or violate any of the provisions of the
transportation act, 1920, or the decisions of the Labor Board, and
that for many years past it has been the practice, whenever it was
considered in the interest of efficient and economical operation of the
railroad to do so, to contract with independent contractors for the
performance of various services in connection with the operation
thereof. The carrier has given reference to a number of contracts
entered into with various corporations and contractors covering the
transferring of freight and certain other work.
It is claimed that it was not intended by the transportation act,
1920, to invalidate or prohibit such contracts, or to bring the inde-
pendent contractors with whom they are made, or their employees,
within the jurisdiction of the Labor Board; that such contracts had
been common with many railroad companies for a long time prior to
the passage of the transportation act, and had covered various kinds.
of services; and if it had been the intention of Congress in passing
that act to prohibit the railroad companies from continuing or mak-
ing such contracts it would seem clear that it would have provided
in express terms that such contracts are invalid, or that the con-
tractors and their employees are subject to the provisions of the act.
Since Congress did not do so, but provided only for the settlement
of disputes as to rules, working conditions, and wages between car-
riers and their "employees," it is alleged that the carriers still have
the same right that they had before the passage of the transporta-
tion act-a right which was frequently exercised-to contract with
independent contractors for the performance of various services when
in their judgment it is in the interest of economical and efficient
management of their properties to do so. A contrary view, if car-
ried to its logical conclusion, would, it is claimed, make it impossible
for the carriers to secure the performance of any work by contract.
With respect to the persons employed by the New York Marine
Co. at Hoboken and Jersey City, for the performance of the work
covered by contract of January 30, 1922, the carrier contends that
the majority of them are not members of or represented by the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees; that they were specifically excepted
from the national agreement made with that organization by the
Director General of Railroads during Federal control; therefore the
brotherhood has no authority to represent said persons in this pro-
ceeding or to present to the Labor Board any dispute between them
and the carrier with respect to rules, working conditions, or wages;
and that for this reason, among others, the Labor Board has no juris-
diction over the questions submitted to it ex parte by said brother-
hood in respect to said persons.
With respect to the persons employed by Downey Bros. at Scran-
ton, for the performance of the work covered by contract of March
816
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
8, 1922, the carrier alleges that on March 22, 1922, all of the employees
of the contractor left the service of said contractor and have not re-
turned thereto, and that their places have been filled by other em-
ployees who have since March 22, 1922, been and are now working
for said contractor in the performance of said work, and who have
no dispute with said contractor or the railroad company in respect
to rules, working conditions, or wages. Said former employees, on
whose behalf this proceeding is brought, not being at the present time
or at the time this proceeding was started employees of said con-
tractor or of the carrier, and there being, therefore, no matter in dis-
pute between the railroad company and said persons as employees of
said contractor or the carrier, it is claimed that the Labor Board has
no jurisdiction over the questions submitted to it on their behalf.
Opinion. Summarized, the contentions of the employees are
that the carrier has contracted the work of handling freight at
the points named for the purpose of evading the labor provisions
of the transportation act, 1920, the decisions of the Labor Board,
and the agreements with the employees governing wages and work-
ing conditions, and that there is a direct or indirect control over the
contractors by the carrier. The contentions of the carrier are that
each of the contracts involved in this proceeding is a legal and valid
contract which it was competent for the carrier to make, that the
contractors in their relationship to the carrier are independent con-
tractors, and the individuals in whose behalf this proceeding is
alleged to have been brought are employees of the contractors and
not of the carrier; therefore, the Labor Board has no jurisdiction
over such contractors or their employees or over the wages and
working conditions of such employees and there is no dispute be-
tween the carrier and its employees before the board which, under
the terms of the transportation act, 1920, the board is authorized to
hear and decide.
It appears that the employees herein referred to at Hoboken and
Jersey City were not included in the proceedings upon which Deci-
sions Nos. 2 and 147 or other decisions affecting their class were
rendered and were specifically excepted from the provisions of the
clerks' national agreement by that part of Article I, rule 1, excep-
tion (a), reading as follows:
This agreement shall not apply to employees
on elevators, piers,
wharves, or other water-front facilities covered by special wage authority of
the Railroad Administration.
The action of the carrier in contråeting the work performed by
these employees is not therefore an evasion of decisions of the Labor
Board, and the claim presented in their behalf is therefore dismissed.
However, the work placed under contract at Scranton and Buffalo
is that heretofore performed by employees coming under the pro-
visions of Decision No. 2 and other decisions of the Labor Board
affecting the wages and working conditions of employees in clerical
and station service.
The Labor Board feels that its position with respect to the general
question of contracting work such as herein described at Buffalo and
Scranton is clearly set forth in Decision No. 982 and others recently
issued on the subject, and for that reason will refrain from entering
into extensive detail in this opinion. The Labor Board, however,
DECISIONS.
817
feels that its position with respect to this general question should be
reenunciated in connection with this particular case.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) The contract entered into between the Delaware, Lackawanna
& Western Railroad Co. and Downey Bros. for the handling of
freight at Scranton, Pa., and the contract between said carrier and
the Buffalo Freight Terminal and Warehouse Co. for the handling
of freight at Buffalo, N. Y., is in violation of the transportation act,
1920, in so far as it purports or is construed by the carrier to remove
said employees from the application of said act, and that those
provisions of the contract affecting the wages and working rules of
said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and 147 of
the Labor Board.
(b) The freight-house employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of
the transportation act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned regret that they are not able to concur in the deci-
sion rendered by the majority vote of the Labor Board in this case:
First. Because in their opinion the statement of the case as set
out in the decision does not fully and clearly nor sufficiently show
all the material facts of the case;
Second. Because the decision does not meet and decide the issues
and questions really presented, but leaves the real matters of dispute
in such shape as in our opinion will produce confusion and further
trouble for all the parties interested; and
Third. Because we think this case on all the contracts complained
of should have been dismissed and the claims of the employees
denied for the reasons stated in the suggested decision offered by the
minority, which is as follows:
The question in dispute.-This dispute is in regard to several con-
tracts made by the carrier for handling freight: One at Hoboken,
N. J., and Jersey City, N. J., with the New York Marine Company,
dated January 30, 1922; one at Buffalo, N. Y., with the Buffalo
Freight Terminal Co., dated March 1, 1922; one at Scranton, Pa.,
with Downey Bros., dated March 8, 1922—all of which contracts are
claimed on behalf of employees to be illegal, and in violation of the
transportation act, 1920, and the decisions of the board, and the
board is asked to so declare and restore the employees affected to
the service.
The facts in the case.-As the facts in reference to these several
contracts differ in some respects; a clear understanding requires sepa-
rate statements as to each of them.
First. As to the contracts made with the New York Marine Co.
for handling freight at Hoboken and Jersey City, dated January 30,
1922, we find this was a contract for handling east and west bound
lighterage and other freight on piers and storage grounds in said
cities as follows: From car to boat, car to platform, car to car, car
to ground, platform to boat, platform to car, platform to platform,
boat to platform, boat to car, boat to boat, ground to car, ground
to bulkhead, ground to ground, and bulkhead to boat.
818
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The New York Marine Co., with which this contract was made, is
a corporation entirely independent of the Delaware, Lackawanna &
Western Railroad Co. and in which this carrier has no interest and
over which it has no control. The company has been in business
since about 1913 engaged in a general lighterage and stevedore and
freight-transfer business in New York Harbor and around New
York, Hoboken, and Jersey City. It serves other railroads, carriers,
and shippers as well as the defendant. It is clearly shown that it
can and does render the service contracted for and similar services
for other carriers and shippers more expeditiously, efficiently, and
economically than they can possibly do themselves.
It appears there are a number of reasons why this is true; among
others, the following:
There are about 450 points of delivery of freight in New York
Harbor. This defendant railroad and other railroads load from 50
to 100 boats for delivery at as many different points each day.
If this carrier was doing this work for itself, the management would
have to arrange to have the labor available at whatever point a
boat discharged freight for this carrier, a thing difficult and ex-
pensive and sometimes impracticable to do at the right time. If the
boat with the carrier's freight does not get to the steamship dock
at the time notified in the permit issued, they can not charge de-
murrage nor make delivery until the ship gets ready to take it, so
they have to bring it back or wait. Hence, it is of great importance
to have a supply of men ready to load the freight so as to make
prompt response to short orders. The carrier found it could do
this much better and cheaper under the contract than it could itself,
as it was not always able to have the proper supply of men await-
ing at the proper point at the right time. This the contractor is
able to do. The contractor has from 1,500 to 2,000 men which can
be gotten to any place within 30 minutes or an hour. Labor must
be available at the proper time at whatever points the boats dis-
charge any freight. The contractor has similar contracts with other
parties and it has men available all along the water front and these
can be dispatched from one point to another on short notice. This
the defendant carrier can not do with the supply of men they are
justified in keeping, and when this carrier does the work it is some-
times compelled to take men from forces at Hoboken off of other
important work in order to make delivery. It is clear from these
and other reasons that the work can be and is done more, eco-
nomically, efficiently, and expeditiously than it could be done by
the carrier with its own forces.
Other pertinent facts are: This method of doing business was in
use at the time of and long prior to the transportation act, 1920, and
the making of this contract was not a mere subterfuge to avoid the
transportation act. The New York Marine Co. had been doing this
character of business since 1913.
This carrier had a contract of this kind under which this work was
done from 1904 to 1909. From 1909 to 1917 or 1918 the company
did its own work of this kind. In 1917 or 1918 it again made a
similar contract with William Spencer & Co. under which the work
was done until March 1, 1920, when it made a similar contract with
the New York Marine Co. for the performance of similar work in
New York Harbor, but this did not include the work at Hoboken
DECISIONS.
819
and Jersey City and the contract complained of was made for this
work, as stated, on January 30, 1922.
This further appears: On December 16, 1918, the Director General
of Railroads made a similar contract for the performance of all the
stevedore work for the railroads in New York Harbor, and a some-
what similar contract with same parties April 1, 1919.
We think it reasonably clear that these contracts were not made
as a subterfuge for the purpose of avoiding the operation of the
transportation act or the decisions of the Labor Board, but in line with
a long-established practice and to promote economy and efficiency.
Among other facts also insisted upon as material, it appears that
the work done under this contract was not done by employees known
as station employees or station forces, but consisted of transfers from
boat to car or car to boat. There were no wagon or auto deliveries
to consignees made by these forces, but such deliveries at this point.
are made at another place, the Hoboken City freight house, which
work is not involved in this controversy.
The work involved here is practically all lighterage work accord-
ing to the evidence.
It further appears that the majority of the men whose work is
involved in this controversy are colored men and not members of
the organization which presented this dispute. Nor was that organi-
zation authorized by the majority to present this dispute. They were
specifically excepted from the national agreement made with the
complaining organization during Federal control and were not in-
cluded in the proceedings which resulted in Decisions Nos. 2 and
147, or other decisions involving the clerks and station forces.
Second. As to the Buffalo contract with the Buffalo Freight
Terminal & Warehouse Co., we find that this contract went into
effect March 1, 1922.
This was for the handling of all freight of the railroad at the
East Buffalo transfer. The contractor was to transfer all freight
from one car to another at said transfer station as required by the
railroad, and to perform all the work incidental to the transfer.
The contracting company is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York which began business in 1912. It conducts a
general warehouse transfer and freight business. It has similar
contracts with the several railroads.
This defendant has had another somewhat similar contract with
the firm of Gratton & Lattimore which covered the handling of rail
and lake freight at Buffalo and has been in force for 37 years, and
this firm frequently handled the excess freight from the East Buffalo
transfer. That arrangement at the East Buffalo Terminal was suc-
ceeded by the contract complained of. This is an independent cor-
poration, and the carrier has no interest in it or control over it.
On September 21, 1921, the carrier made a written contract with
the Buffalo Freight Terminal & Warehouse Co. for the handling
and transfer of freight to and from vessels of the Great Lakes
Transit Co. to or from the cars of the railroad company at Buffalo, and
for the furnishing of all necessary labor and supervision of such work.
The contracts heretofore mentioned as made at and around New
York are pertinent as showing the past practices and purposes of
the carrier and as refuting the view that this contract was made
as a subterfuge to escape the operation of the transportation act.
820€
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The contracts were not a result of any new policy, but in accord
with past practices of the carrier, and the contracts were evidently
made both for reasons of economy and efficiency.
Third. Contract with Downey Brothers at Scranton, Pa.
This contract was entered into on March 8, 1922. The contract
provided that the contractors should handle all freight of the rail-
road at its Scranton freight transfer and shipping platform, and
its Scranton city freight house in the city of Scranton. They were
to transfer all freight from one car to another as required by the
railroad, and receive from shippers at the shipping platform all
outbound freight and load it into cars dispatched from the transfer
platform.
At the Scranton city freight house they were to receive all out-
bound freight into the freight house and unload all inbound freight
from cars into the freight house and deliver it to trucks of con-
signee, and at both places do all things incidental to this work.
Downey Bros. is a partnership composed of James Downey and
Joseph Downey, in which firm the carrier has no interest or control.
The firm has a freight warehouse and freight handling business.
It has storage warehouses in the cities of Rochester and Binghamton,
and performs a trucking service within a radius of 20 or 30 miles of
Rochester. They handle freight on the same basis and in competi-
tion with railroads.
What has been recited as to the course of business of the carrier in
relation to the other contracts also has some bearing on this contract,
but is not applicable to the same degree.
As to the dispute on behalf of the men affected by this contract
the following facts are material:
The carrier's employees, who have been engaged in doing this
work covered by this contract prior to its execution, were continued
in the employment at the same work under the contractor. They
remained at work for about two weeks, but went on a strike at noon
on March 22 and left the service in a body, and have been out of
the service since. The contractors employed other men who have
since been doing the work satisfactorily, and the contractors have
performed their contract to the satisfaction of the company.
OPINION OF MINORITY.
(1) We will first consider the complaint as to the Downey Bros.'
contract, the last named, as the facts in regard to that are different.
from the others and a material and vital question is presented in
regard to this not connected with the other cases.
It is not necessary for the Labor Board to decide whether this
particular contract with Downey Bros. was, so far as it affected the
employees' rights or interests, contrary to the transportation act,
1920, or not. We are of the opinion that these employees by going
on a strike-refusing to do the work required and voluntarily re-
moving themselves from the service, thus compelling an interrup-
tion of the operation of the carrier unless other employees filled
their places have removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the
Labor Board and the protection of the transportation act, 1920.
They have precluded the board from granting them any relief what-
ever otherwise might have been the merits of their case.

DECISIONS.
821
As settled by Decision No. 1 and Order No. 1 of the Labor Board,
the board can only act in behalf of and on application of those who
are in truth and in fact employees of the carrier, since those who
voluntarily quit the service, whatever their provocation, are no
longer employees. Thus, the decisions of the board heretofore ren-
dered on these contract cases, when relief has been granted to em-
ployees who were still doing the work required to keep the carrier
in operation, have been on the theory and assumption that they were
still in the service covered by the transportation act and were in
truth and legal effect still the employees of the carrier, and the
board has decided in several cases that they were.
It is of no avail to say the carrier was first in the wrong. If that
be granted, this does not justify the employees in taking the law
into their own hands, constituting themselves the judges of the issue,
and doing the very thing the transportation act, 1920, was passed
to prevent.
The purpose of the act was to prevent an interruption of the opera-
tion of any carrier. The public interest was predominant. On no
other theory or reason can the act be sustained as constitutional.
The act declares in the most positive terms that all parties shall
"exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available means to
avoid any interruption of the operation of any carrier growing out
of any dispute." It says that disputes shall be settled, if possible,
in conference between the representatives of the parties. If it is
not so settled "it shall be referred by the parties thereto to the
board," and the board shall receive and decide the dispute.
If language can mean anything, this certainly precludes any
action by either party that may lead to an interruption until this
course is taken.
The Labor Board was created for the very purpose of settling
these disputes and preventing an interruption of transportation. It
was intended to prevent acts by either or both-whatever the other
may have done that would result in such interruption. Without
regard to the faults of one party, the other must follow the direc-
tions of the act and can not take the law into its own hands and
then seek the aid of the tribunal established by the act. Any party
seeking relief must show a status of compliance with the law to
entitle it or them to a hearing or decision. It would manifestly be
subversive of the entire spirit and purpose of the act to hold that
striking employees can be heard. It would support and encourage
the very condition the act was passed to prevent.
For these reasons, without considering other quetsions, the appli-
cation on behalf of these employees should be dismissed and denied.
(2) The contracts with the New York Marine Co. at Hoboken and
Jersey City and at Buffalo with the Buffalo Freight Terminal &
Warehouse Co. may be considered together, as they involve similar
questions, though the facts vary in some respects. These facts have
been sufficiently set out in the preceding statement.
The question presented involves the correct construction and ap-
plication of the transportation act, 1920. The board has had before
it the general question relative to carriers contracting out work as
it affected the employees under the act, and has rendered a number
of decisions, most of which were in favor of the contention of the
employees in the cases decided. The leading decision and the one
822
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
on which most of the others were based is Decision No. 982-the
Indiana Harbor Belt case.
The Board, realizing the importance and complexity of the question
and the difficulty of establishing a plain general rule applicable to
all similar cases, a rule which would not exceed the powers of the
board and would not unduly and illegally conflict with the guaran-
teed rights of the carrier and unnecessarily interfere with economical
and efficient management, in that decision expressly stated that "this
decision rests upon the facts of this particular case," and that "each
of the other contract cases pending before the Labor Board will rest
upon its own facts and the general principles herein declared."
In such cases subsequently decided the board has endeavored to
conform to the rule thus announced.
The facts shown in this case vary materially from other cases here-
tofore decided and call for the closest analysis of them and the proper
application of the transportation act, 1920.
În the Indiana Harbor Belt case (Decision No. 982) it appeared that
the carrier turned over to the contractor its shops, tools, equipment,
etc., and had work done by the contractor that had been usually and
customarily done by its own employees. While the Labor Board did
not find that the contract in that case was made as a subterfuge on
the part of the carrier, it held that to allow such a practice as applied
to the facts of that case would result in an evasion of the terms and
purposes of the transportation act, 1920. It was pointed out in that
decision that in the opinion of the board the primary purpose of
Congress in the passage of the act was "to insure to the public as far
as possible, efficient and uninterrupted railway transportation by
protecting the people from the loss and suffering incident to the
interruption of traffic growing out of controversies between the car-
riers and the employees who do their work.”
And it was in substance held that by such contracts the carrier
could not be allowed to arbitrarily remove from its employment those
employees engaged in the customary work directly contributory to
the operation of the railroads.
In further consideration of the transportation act, 1920, as to its
proper interpretation and as applicable to the facts developed in this
case, as above set out, the Labor Board must necessarily bear in mind
certain principles that have been settled by the decisions of the courts
of last resort as to fundamental constitutional rights.
While the Supreme Court of the United States has decided in a
number of cases (especially in Gibbon v. Osborne, 9 Wharton 1;
Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 175 U. S. 211; Watson v. New York, 243
U. S. 332; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; R. R. Commission of Wis-
consin v. United States, recently decided) that Congress has the
power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to
regulate the power and right of contracts to prevent interference
with interstate commerce and to regulate the relations between car-
riers engaged in interstate commerce and their employees, and in the
absence of agreement between the parties to establish or provide for
establishing wages and working conditions, in the same cases it was
said this power of regulation must be limited to that which is appro-
priate, relevant, and necessary.
In the strongest opinion yet delivered by the United States Su-
preme Court in favor of the power of Congress to control the private
DECISIONS.
823
right of contract so as to prevent its interference with or destruction
of interstate commerce, that of Wilson v. New, this limitation is
recognized and expressed. In many other cases the Supreme Court,
only preserving the paramount power of Congress to control the
right of free contract so as to prevent the destruction and interrup-
tion of interstate commerce, has declared in favor of the freedom of
contract and the right of control as protected by the fifth and four-
teenth amendments to the Constitution, and it has declared that this
power to preserve and protect does not make Congress or govern-
mental agencies or the public in any sense the managers, nor can Con-
gress itself usurp the rights of railroads to manage their own prop-
erty. (See, among other decisions, Adair v. The United States, 208
U. S. 161 et. seq.; Railroad Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206; Kansas v.
Coppage, 236 U. S. 1; Hickman v. Coal & Coke Co., 245 U. S. 229;
and many other cases.)
Bearing this limitation in mind and construing and applying the
act in the light of all these decisions and the well-settled principles
which we must assume Congress had in mind, we find Congress did
not undertake to legislate against this right of contract and control.
We are bound to assume that Congress not only had these constitu-
tional limitations in view but passed the act with full knowledge of
previous and existing conditions and practice. It is also a rule of
interpretation and construction that while every word and sentence
in an act is to be given effect, nothing is to be implied beyond what
is expressed, except, such as must necessarily be implied to give the
act effect. Even remedial statutes are strictly construed as to parties
and subjects covered.
Applying these well-settled rules, we find no words prohibiting
such contracts and practices, although it was well known such had
long existed. We also find that one of the expressed purposes of the
act was to require efficient and economical management and operation.
As applicable to both contracts and views expressed as to the
transportation act, 1920, we may call attention to the fact that as is
universally and well known at the time of and long prior to the
passage of said act and since, contracts with other companies and
with private individuals have been resorted to and used to effectuate
transfers of persons, and baggage and freight from one carrier to
another, and from one terminal to another.
Certainly no one has or would, we presume, contend that all of
these contracts are contrary to the transportation act. Many car-
riers run their trains over lines and bridges of other lines over whose
employees they have no control. Many of these arrangements are
necessary; practically all are required by efficiency and economy.
These conditions were known to Congress and certainly it was not.
intended to interfere with them. Congress clearly did not intend
to interfere with these rights of contract to effectuate transportation,
or with any such contracts beyond what was and is reasonable, per-
tinent, relevant, and necessary. These requirements certainly do
not appear in these contracts.
Summary of opinion.-In the New York Marine contract it is
entirely clear that not only had this practice long existed as to this
work, but that experience had demonstrated that without regard to
the wages paid the work could be and is much more economically and
efficiently done under contract than it could be by the carrier. To
824
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
prevent the carrier doing this through a contractor who serving
many patrons had the necessary men available for the prompt per-
formance of this service, would impose a wholly unnecessary burden
on the carrier, which is directly opposed to the plain purpose of the
transportation act, 1920; and certainly such regulation by the Labor
Board would not be material, relevant, and necessary for the protec-
tion, preservation, or promotion of economical, efficient, and unin-
terrupted transportation of interstate commerce, and would in our
opinion be violative of the constitutional rights of the carrier.
So, in our opinion, this contract does not come within the rules
and prohibitions of our previous decisions, nor is it violative of the
transportation act, 1920.
The Buffalo contract case is not so clear. As previously stated,
it is not practicable in contract cases to promulgate a clear general
rule easily applicable to all cases, and for that reason the Labor
Board has announced that each case would be decided on its own
especial facts. The facts bearing on the practice and the nature of
this contract are set out above, and the board should not, in view
of what has been said, feel justified in declaring this contract in viola-
tion of its decisions or the transportation act, 1920.
The minority, therefore, holds that these cases should all be
dismissed.
The undersigned concurs in the above dissent
Scranton, Pa. and New York water-front cases.
R. M. BARton.
HORACE BAKER.
with respect to the
DECISION NO. 1280.-DOCKET 126.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen;
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Minneapolis & St.
Louis Railroad Co.
Question.—Application of paragraph (b), Article XX of Supple-
ment 24 to General Order No. 27, to switching crews at Fort Dodge
and Des Moines required to go to Kalo and Valley Junction, respec-
tively, to do the industrial switching at those points.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Switching crews at Fort Dodge and Des Moines,
in the performance of service within the switching districts at those two sta-
tions, are now and have been for many years performing industrial switching
at Kalo and Valley Junction, also taking cars to and from these points as a
part of the regular yard assignment. No change has been made in the assign-
ment of work performed since the issuance of Supplement No. 24 to General
Order No. 27. In the performance of their assignment, switch engines may or
may not pass the yard limit boards. Claim is made that because these crews
go beyond the yard limit boards they are performing road service and are en-
titled to allowance as provided for in paragraph (b), Article XX, of Supple-
ment 24 to General Order No. 27.
Employces' position.-That yard crews going beyond yard limits to perform
service at Fort Dodge and Des Moines should be paid in accordance with para-
graph (b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27; that is, a
minimum day in the yard for the time consumed switching in the yard, and miles
or hours for the time consumed beyond yard limits, for the reason that prior to the
DECISIONS.
825
issuing of General Order No. 27 the following rule appears in both engineers'
and firemen's schedule, effective December 1, 1915, and also in later schedules
up to the issuing of Supplement 24:
"When yard engines and crews are used in road work outside of yard limits
for the purpose of advancing trains or tonnage, enginemen will be allowed road
rates of pay. The time so employed will be deducted from the switching time;
that is, double time will not be allowed."
Also question 24 and answer thereto, Article XX, Interpretation No. 2 to
Supplement 24:
"What is the intent of the words 'road service' as used in this section?
"Decision.—Any service for which road rates are paid.”
This would also apply to switch engines pushing trains beyond yard limits.
Carrier's position.-Effective April 1, 1920, paragraph (b), Article XX, of
Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, was incorporated in the schedules of
the engineers and firemen and superseded the following in the engineer's
schedule:
"When yard engines and crews are used in road work outside of yard limits
for the purpose of advancing trains or tonnage, enginemen will be allowed road
rates of pay. The time so employed will be deducted from the switching time;
that is, double time will not be allowed."
The following was superseded in the fireman's schedule:
"When yard engines and crews are used in road work outside of yard limits
for the purpose of advancing trains or tonnage, firemen will be allowed road
rates of pay. Time so employed will be deducted from the switching time;
that is, double time will not be allowed, except that in no case will less than
a minimum day at highest rate for service performed be paid.”
Under the above-quoted articles enginemen were allowed actual time or
mileage at road rates for the time or miles made beyond the yard limit boards
at Fort Dodge and Des Moines, when required to go to Kalo or Valley Junction,
and yard rates for the balance of the time between the time they reported for
duty and the time tied up.
(6
Paragraph (b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27
differs from the above-quoted articles in the engineers' and the firemen's
schedules in that it specifies switching limits” as against yard limits" as
specified in the articles quoted above; and it is our contention that, although
the switch engine operating at Fort Dodge and the switch engine operating at
Des Moines may be required to go beyond the yard limit boards to Kalo or
Valley Junction, respectively, the yard limit board does not describe the switch-
ing district. The switching district, as we understand it, as used in paragraph
(b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, means the district
that is served by switching crews; and our investigation develops that all of
the work at Kalo and Valley Junction is performed by switching crews, and has
been performed by them for many years and is a part of the yard assignment.
We contend, therefore, that we are properly within the meaning of paragrapli
(b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, in compensating
the engineers and firemen on the basis of yard service or on the basis of the
combination of yard and road rates as formerly in effect; and that they are not
entitled to a minimum day in the yard, plus all time worked beyond the yard-
limit boards at road rates with a minimum of one hour. We contend that the
yard-limit board is not the measure of the switching district, but is properly
defined as an operating requirement to give notice to trains of the points where,
in approaching a station, they must proceed under control. In other words, the
conditions have not changed at all since April 1, 1920; the service is just the
same; the work performed is just the same and has been for many years, but
there was a combination of rates of pay in effect prior to April 1, 1920, owing
to the fact that the schedule rules then in effect specified yard limits. We have
proposed to the committee that, due to the fact this combination has been in
effect for many years, the practice of payment on that basis be continued, if
they so desired.
To grant the request of the engineers and firemen means that they will be paid
at least a minimum of eight hours plus all time worked outside of yard limits.
These crews work an eight-hour shift and therefore, to make the allowances
as they have requested, would be giving them a basis of pay contrary to the
basis in effect prior to the issuance of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27,
for the reasons that their schedules at that time provided that (as indicated
in their position) "double time will not be allowed."
826
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The board decides that paragraph (b), Article XX, of
Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, issued by the United States
Railroad Administration, does not apply to work performed within
the switching limits. Work performed beyond the switching limits is
governed by paragraph (b) of Article XX.
DECISION NO. 1281.-DOCKET 127.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Application of paragraph (b), Article XI, Supple-
ment 24 to General Order No. 27, to pool freight crews making trips
from McKees Rocks to Hazelton and required to deliver trains to the
New York Central yard at Hazelton, returning to Hazelton when
relieved.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Paragraph (b), Article XI, Supplement 24 to
General Order 27, reads as follows:
66
Engineers, firemen, and helpers in pool or irregular freight service may be
called to make short trips and turnarounds, with the understanding that one
or more turnaround trips may be started out of the same terminal and paid
actual miles with a minimum of 100 miles for a day, provided, (1) that the
mileage of all the trips does not exceed 100 miles; (2) that the distance run
from the terminal to the turning point does not exceed 25 miles; and (3)
that engineers, firemen, and helpers shall not be required to begin work on a
succeeding trip out of the initial terminal after having been on duty eight
consecutive hours, except as a new day subject to the first-in first-out rule or
practice."
Some pool freight crews making trips from McKees Rocks, initial terminal,
to Hazelton, final terminal, are required to deliver the train to New York
Central yard beyond Hazelton, returning to Hazelton where crew is relieved.
In returning from New York Central yard to Hazelton the crew is usually re-
quired to move a train to the latter point.
Employees' position.—It is our contention that in making the movement
above described the crew is required to make a short turnaround run after com-
pleting a straightaway run, such movement being contrary to the provisions
of paragraph (b), Article XI, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27,
above quoted.
In support of this contention, attention is directed to decisions in cases No.
15-19 and 15-86, settlements on Supplements 15 and 16, arrived at with rep-
resentatives of the Director General of Railroads, which read as follows:
"Decision-Practice of coupling short turn-around trips with straightaway
is eliminated. Article XI (b) of Supplement 15 provides the only manner
in which short trips and turnaround runs in pool or irregular freight service
may be operated out of a terminal.
"Decision.-Article XI, paragraph (b), Supplement 15, provides the only
manner in which short trips and turnaround runs may be opeated out of a
terminal. Practice of coupling short turnaround trips with straightaway runs
is eliminated. Under the Supplement calls should specify 'short turnaround
service.'
Attention is called to the fact that prior to the effective date of Supplement
15 to General Order No. 27, a differential of 98 cents to engineers and 78 cents
to firemen was paid in addition to the McKees Rocks-Hazleton trip rates,
such differential covering the movement between Hazleton and the New York
Central yard.
Carrier's position.-For many years prior to Federal control all freight
service on the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad was paid for on the trip
basis with various overtime limits, the following being one of the specified ··
runs in the schedule:
DECISIONS.
827
"McKees Rocks to New York Central yard and return to Hazleton, overtime
after eight hours
and prior to Supplements Nos. 15 and 24 this service-McKees Rocks to New
York Central yard and return to Hazleton, 64 miles, overtime after eight
hours-was therefore paid on a trip basis.
Article IX of Supplements Nos. 15 and 24 abolished trip rates and established
all service on a mileage basis, with 100 miles or less, eight hours or less, as
the basic day; therefore, this trip rate being less than the new mileage rate for
100 miles, of Supplements Nos. 15 and 24, was absorbed.
These crews have been operated in this manner for many years and it has
never been considered that in delivering their train to New York Central yard,
they were running through their terminal, Hazleton, nor is the first-in first-out
rule in any way involved.
We feel that decision to question 59 of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15
to General Order No. 27 (question 57 of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement
No. 24) applies to all specified trips, the mileage rates of the order having
been applied to the trip in question.
Hazleton and New York Central yard are all within the same general termi-
nal and the changing from a trip to a mileage basis in no way justifies the
claim of the engineers and firemen for an additional day for the service, Hazle-
ton to New York Central yard and return to Hazleton.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that inasmuch as running
from Hazleton to the New York Central yard, all within the same.
general terminal, has not heretofore been considered as running
through a terminal, there is nothing in paragraph (b), Article XI,
of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, to justify the claim of
the employees. The method of payment to the enginemen is the
same as that made to the trainmen for the service in question, and
the board considers the payment as made just and reasonable.
The position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1282.-DOCKET 128.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of Article XX (b), Supplement No. 24,
to General Order No. 27 to yard crews performing wreck-train
service within yard limits and necessary modification of article 57
of engineers' and article 62 of firemen's schedules.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Article LVII of the engineers' agreement and
Article LXII of the firemen's agreement read as follows:
'Yard crews will handle wreck trains within their own yard limits for period
of three hours without extra pay; if required to handle wreck trains over
three hours, they will be paid a wreck-train day instead of a yard day.
"Engineers (firemen) engaged for three hours or more in the aggregate in
mine-run work to be allowed mine-run rate for the entire day."
Paragraph (b), Article XX, Supplement 24, to General Order No. 27, reads
as follows:
"Where regularly assigned to perform service within switching limits, yard-
men shall not be used in road service when road crews are available, except
in cases of emergency. When yard crews are used in road service under con-
ditions just referred to, they shall be paid mile or hours, whichever is the
greater, with a minimum of one hour, for the class of service performed, in
addition to the regular yard pay and without any deduction therefrom for the
time consumed in said service.'
Employees' position.—The employees contend that when yard crews are used
to perform wreck-train or mine-run work within their yard limits, they should
be paid therefor in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b), Article
20936°-23- -53
828
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
XX, Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, this contention being based upon
question 24 and decision as shown in Interpretation 2 to Supplement 24,
reading:
Question 24.-What is the intent of the words 'road service' as used in
this section?
Decision. Any service for which road rates are paid."
The employees further contend that paragraph (a), Article IV, Supple-
ment 24 to General Order No. 27, which is a part of the Pittsburgh & Lake
Erie agreements, requires the payment of road rates for all wreck-train and
mine-run service whether performed within the yard limits or outside of such
limits.
Carrier's position. It has been the practice under paragraph (a) of this
rule to pay road rate for the entire day to yard crews, when, for a period of
over three hours, wrecking sevice was performed within yard limits, and under
paragraph (b) it has been the practice to pay road rate for the entire day to
yard crews when engaged in mine service three or more hours, and as all of
this service is performed within the recognized switching limits, we contend
that this practice is not disturbed by Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27,
and therefore the rule is retained. The committee claims that decision to
question 24 of Interpretation 2 to Supplement No. 24 (above quoted)
eliminates the entire rule.
** *
It is our understanding that decision to question 24 of Interpretation 2 to
Supplement No. 24 does not eliminate the provision of paragraph (b) of
Article XX that road service dealt with therein must be beyond switching
limits. This article in no way affects and is without prejudice to existing
practices and agreements as to use of crews who perform service within switch-
ing limits.
*
A similar case is involved in decision rendered by Railway Board of Adjust-
ment No. 1 in Pennsylvania Railroad case No. 27/231
where yard
engine crew performed wreck-train service for a portion of the day, all within
switching limits-wreck-train service paying road rates-and the board de-
cided that paragraph (b) of Article XX did not apply and allowed the yard
crew the higher rate (road rate) for the entire day, which conforms to our
rule and practice.
Decision.—The Labor Board decides that rule 57 of the engineers'
agreement and rule 62 of the firemen's agreement, cited by the
carrier as governing the method of payment when the work is per-
formed within the switching limits, are just and proper.
Yard crews performing work beyond the switching limits are
governed by paragraph (b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to
General Order No. 27, issued by the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration.
DECISION NO. 1283.-DOCKET 129.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of paragraph (b), Article XI, Supple-
ment 24 to General Order No. 27, and the necessary modification
of Article XXX of the engineers' agreement and Article XVIII of
the firemen's agreement, which provides for short trips in addition
to straightaway run upon arrival at first terminal and when “diver-
sion" is made.
Statement.-The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.—Article XXX of the engineers' agreement and Arti-
cle XVIII of the firemen's agreement read as follows:
"(a) Engineers (firemen) making a diverted run or directed to deliver their
trains to a point beyond their terminal, or instructed to return to a point they
have passed to do work, will be paid for actual time consumed with a minimum
of three hours. This allowance to be made:
DECISIONS.
829
"(1) When required to return a distance of 24 miles or more, one way; or
"(2) When required to deliver train beyond their terminal 21 miles or more,
one way, provided such extension is not covered by guaranteed minimum
rate; or,
"(3) When required to use any part of a branch or diverging line 2 miles
or more one way, making in either instance cited above a total additional dis-
tance covered by round trip 5 miles or more.
"(4) Crews destined to points on Monongahela division required to deliver
their trains, or part thereof, to Port Vue yard shall be considered diverted
and paid accordingly.
"(5) It is understood that in computing overtime on runs where a ' diversion
is made, the actual time consumed in making 'diversion' is deducted from total
time of the run.
"(6) Road crews required to deliver their train to points on the Lake Erie
& Eastern Railroad-Struthers to Briar Hill, inclusive will be paid for at
Briar-Hill rate.
"(7) Crews sent light McKees Rocks to Thirty-fourth Street for a train
which they move to Hazelton or beyond will be allowed actual time with a
minimum of four hours. In case a separate train is handled, a minimum day
will be allowed; it is understood this arrangement does not apply at any
other point.
"(b) Engineers (firemen) instructed to assist train going in the opposite
direction will be paid for the actual time consumed with a minimum of one
hour;
this in addition to the regular rate for the trip. Where engineers (fire-
men) are used in emergency service and do not lose their turn on the extra
list, or the service to which they are assigned, they will receive pay for time
on duty, with a minimum of three hours."
Paragraph (b), Article XI, Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, reads as
follows:
"(b) Engineers, firemen, and helpers in pool or irregular freight service
may be called to make short trips and turnarounds, with the understanding
that one or more turnaround trips may be started out of the same terminal
and paid actual miles with a minimum of 100 miles for a day, provided (1)
that the mileage of all the trips does not exceed 100 miles; (2) that the distance
run from the terminal to the turning point does not exceed 25 miles; and (3)
that engineers, firemen, and helpers shall not be required to begin work on a
succeeding trip out of the initial terminal after having been on duty eight
consecutive hours, except as a new day subject to the first-in first-out rule or
practice."
Employees' position.-The representatives of the employees contend that the
entire schedule rules quoted above should be eliminated, such contention being
based upon the following:
(1) Under this rule pool freight crews making a trip from McKees Rocks,
initial terminal, to Newell, final terminal, then required to deliver the train
to Brownsville Junction and return to Newell, are paid for a diversion with a
minimum of three hours.
(2) Crews called at McKees Rocks for trip west to Hazelton are often
required to proceed east to Thirty-fourth Street, pick up train and move
west through McKees Rocks to Hazelton.
It is our contention that in making the above-described movements the crews
are required to make a short turnaround in connection with a straight-
away run.
The short turnaround trips between Newell and Brownsville Junction and
between McKees Rocks and Thirty-fourth Street are contrary to the provisions
of short turnaround rule, paragraph (b), Article XI, of Supplement 24. In
support of this, attention is directed to decisions in cases No. 15-19 and No.
15-86, settlements on Supplements 15 and 16, arrived at with representatives
of the Director General of Railroads, which decisions read as follows:
“Decision.—Practice of coupling short turnaround trips with straightaway
is eliminated. Article XI (b) of Supplement 15 provides the only manner in
which short trips and turnaround runs in pool or irregular freight service may
be operated out of a terminal.
“Decision.-Article XI, paragraph (b), Supplement 15, provides the only
manner in which short trips and turnaround runs may be operated out of a
terminal. Practice of coupling short turnaround trips with straightaway runs
is eliminated. Under the supplement, calls should specify 'short turnaround
service.'"
830
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Carrier's position.―That portion of the rule providing arbitraries and spe-
cial allowances, applying to road service other than passenger, for work per-
formed at initial and final terminals and for delivering trains to a point beyond
their terminal, as defined in paragraph (a) of the article, is not eliminated by
Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27. This rule is subject to the Memo-
anda of Understanding issued by the director, division of operation and labor,
dated December 17, 1919,. and is specifically covered by answers to questions
20 and 35, as follows:
"Question 20.-A schedule provides that firemen running to Union Stock
Yards at Chicago are paid hourly rates, with minimum of two hours from time
way car passes Clyde Tower until relieved at roundhouse.
Answer.-Rule retained. It is our understanding that the special allow-
ance has been paid separately from the road trip, and therefore would be sub-
ject to revised Article X, section (b).
“Question 35.-A schedule provides, for going to stock yards at Chicago or
South Omaha, 123 miles per hour with a minimum of 30 miles. Time to begin
for trip when train is on designated track at Chicago transfer, Chicago, and
South Avenue yards, Council Bluffs. This 30-mile minimum will apply only to
engineers arriving at Chicago transfer or South Avenue yards with stock-yard
commodities in train. Other engineers will be paid as for new trip.
"Answer.-See answer to question 20.”
The character of work performed at the final terminal and in delivering
trains to points beyond their terminal is analogous to the service performed by
firemen running to Union Stock Yards at Chicago, as covered by question 20,
and Chicago or South Omaha, in question 35, and it has been decided that these
special allowances, having been paid separately from the road trip, are subject
to Article X, section (b), of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27. We
therefore hold that the portion of rule involved is not eliminated.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the payments as now
made to the enginemen for the trip in question are just and reason-
able, and that they are not subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b), Article XI, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27.
The position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1284.-DOCKET 130.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Application of Article XX (b), of Supplement No.
24 to General Order No. 27 to " drag service" and necessary modi-
fication of article 55 of engineers' and article 60 of firemen's
schedules.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts. In revising the agreements covering engineers
and firemen employed by the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co., a dispute
has arisen between the management and the committees representing the em-
ployees respecting the modifications necessary to properly apply the provisions
of Supplements 15 and 24 to General Order No. 27, and interpretations thereof,
and, not being able to reach a satisfactory conclusion, it is agreed to submit
the dispute to the United States Railroad Labor Board for decision as to proper
application thereof.
Article LV of the engineers' agreement, and Article LX of the firemen's
agreement read as follows:
"All drag runs running from one yard limit into another shall be regarded as
road runs, eight hours or less to constitute a day's work, way freight rates
to apply. Where an engineer (fireman) works part of a day in yard service
and a part in drag service, he shall be paid for the entire time at drag rates.
This to apply in all cases where a yard engineer (fireman) is diverted to
work outside of his own yard limits.
66
"The following runs will take the drag rate:
DECISIONS.
831
"Joint yard, Youngstown: Any crew required to work outside of the yard
limits between West Lake crossing on the west and the west switch in the
eastbound receiving yard, Hazelton, including Brown-Bonnell works and the
Bessemer plant of the Republic Iron & Steel Co. on the canal branch, will be
considered as being in drag service.
"Hazelton: The run between Hazelton and New York Central Valley yard
known as New York Central' drag.
The crew assigned to the work on Mahoning State line branch and de-
livering cars to N. K. or joint yard, and to other crews making movement to
New York Central passenger depot or beyond. Also Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
crews engaged on Lake Erie & Eastern railroad in puller service between
industries on that line and Hazelton yard; this also to apply to Pittsburgh &
Lake Erie crews sent to Lake Erie & Eastern to perform similar service, and
to crews moving cars from Struthers yard to Lake Erie & Eastern points or
vice versa.
'McKees Rocks: Crews running between McKees Rocks and Glassport
known as the 'Glassport' drag and to other crews making movements to
Bridge No. 2, West Side Belt Railroad.
Newell: Crews running between Newell and Dickerson run known as the
'Newell-Dickerson run' drag.
"Any crews doing work between Brownsville Junction on the east are en-
titled to drag rates.
Dickerson run: Yard crews working between Dickerson run and the Penn-
sylvania yard summit transfer.'
Employees' position.--The representatives of the employees contend that the
last sentence of the first paragraph reading: "This to apply in all cases where
a yard engineer (fireman) is diverted to work outside of his own yard limits,"
should be eliminated.
We agree that the crews regularly assigned to drag service and those regu-
larly assigned to perform drag and switching service should be paid at the
drag rate for the entire day.
Section (b), Article XX, Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, reads as
follows:
“When regularly assigned to perform service within switching limits, yard-
men shall not be used in road service when road crews are available, except
in case of emergency. When yard crews are used in road service under con-
ditions just referred to, they shall be paid miles or hours, whichever is the
greater, with a minimum of one hour, for the class of service performed, in
addition to the regular yard pay and without any deduction therefrom for the
time consumed in said service."
The representatives of the employees further contend that when regularly
assigned switching crew is required on any day to perform work which is
designated as "drag service," the employees are entitled to payment in accord-
ance with the provisions of section (b) of Article XX, above quoted.
Question 18 and decision in Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement 24 read as
follows:
Question 18.-Prior to the supplement, rules or practices were in effect
which provided that when yard crews regularly assigned within yard or switch-
ing limits were used outside of such limits, they would be paid the highest
rate for the entire day. How is such rule or practice affected by paragraph
(b) of Article XX?
"Decision.-Superseded by paragraph (b) of Article XX."
We further contend that the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie rule is similar to the
one described in question 18; therefore the decision is applicable.
Question 24 and decision, Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement 24, read as
follows:
CA
Question 24.-What is the intent of the words 'road service' as used in
this section?
Decision. Any service for which road rates are paid."
Inasmuch as the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie rule specifically states that drag
runs shall be regarded as road runs, and as road rates are paid for such
service, the representatives of the employees contend that paragraph (b) of
Article XX should apply when crews assigned to yard-switching service are
used in drag service.
Carrier's position.-It has been the practice under this rule to pay drag
(way freight) rates to yard crews at a number of points when required to
perform certain work outside of yard limits but within recognized switching
832
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
limits, and we contend that this practice is not disturbed by Supplement 24 to
General Order No. 27, and therefore the rule is retained.
The engineers and firemen claim that the decision to question 24 of Interpre-
tation No. 2 to Supplement 24 *
(above quoted), eliminates that por-
tion of the rule reading:
"Where an engineer works part of a day in yard service and a part in drag
service, he shall be paid for the entire time at drag rates. This to apply to
all cases where a yard engineer is diverted to work outside of his own yard
limits."
"It is our understanding that the decision to question 24 of Interpretation
No. 2 to Supplement 24 does not eliminate the provisions of paragraph (b),
Article XX, that road service dealt with therein must be beyond switching
limits. This article in no way affects and is without prejudice to existing
practices and agreements as to use of crews who perform service within
switching limits.
While paragraph (e), Article XX, of Supplement 24, refers to performing
service within switching limits," it does not specify how such limits should
be determined. The rights of the management to fix yard and switching limits
is a managerial question and can only be determined by the exigencies of the
service at each individual point. (See decision of Railway Board of Adjust-
ment No. 1, Oregon-Washington Railroad and Navigation Company, Case No.
27/243, * * *.)
In our judgment, the same principle is involved in decision rendered by Rail-
way Board of Adjustment No. 1, in Pennsylvania Railroad Case 27/231, *
where yard-engine crew performed wreck-train service for a portion of the day,
all within switching limits (wreck-train service paying road rate), and the
board decided that paragraph (b) of Article XX did not apply, and allowed the
yard crew the higher (road) rates for entire day, which conforms to our
practice.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that through-freight rates
apply to all "drag" runs. Paragraph (b), Article XX, of Supple-
ment 24 to General Order No. 27, issued by the United States Rail-
road Administration, applies only when "drag" service is per-
formed beyond the switching limits.
DECISION NO. 1285.-DOCKET 131.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers;
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Minneapolis & St.
Paul Railroad Co.
Question.-Application of Article XX, paragraph (b), of Supple-
ment No. 24 to General Order No. 27, to yard crews helping trains
out of yards.
The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Prior to April 1, 1920, yard crews at various points
were helping trains out of yards and beyond yard-limit boards as a part of
their regular assignment, compensation therefor being covered by yard rates
without arbitrary or special allowance. Since April 1, 1920, under paragraph
(b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, yard crews have
been allowed a minimum of one hour at road rates of pay, in addition to the
day's pay for yard service, for each time such service has been required of them.
This allowance is now discontinued.
Employees' position.-That yard crews going beyond yard limits in helping
trains out of yards should be paid in accordance with paragraph (b), Article
XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27; that is, a minimum day in the
yard for the time consumed switching in the yard, and miles or hours for the
time consumed beyond yard limits, for the reason that prior to the issuance of
General Order No. 27 the following rule appears in both engineers' and fire-
men's schedules, effective December 1, 1915, and also in later schedules up to the
issuance of Supplement 24:
DECISIONS.
833
:
"When yard engines and crews are used in road work outside of yard limits
for the purpose of advancing trains or tonnage, enginemen will be allowed road
rates of pay. The time so employed will be deducted from the switching time;
that is, double time will not be allowed."
Also question 24 and answer thereto, Article XX of Interpretation No. 2 to
Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27:
66
What is the intent of the words 'road service,' as used in this section?
"Decision.-Any service for which road rates are paid."
This would also apply to switch engines pushing trains beyond yard limits.
Carrier's position.-In the latter part of March, 1920, a conference was held
with the representatives of the engineers and firemen for the purpose of in-
corporating the provisions of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27 into the
working agreements, and to discuss and arrive at a mutual understanding of
the meaning of the supplement and its application. At this conference para-
graph (b) of Article XX was discussed and conclusions were reached, after
studying the article and the questions and answers relating thereto, contained
in Interpretation No. 2, that yard crews should be paid a minimum of one hour
at road rates of pay in addition to the regular yard day, without any deduc-
tion therefrom for time consumed in the service of helping trains out of yard
when the engines went beyond the yard-limit boards.
We are now in receipt of decisions rendered by Railway Board of Adjust-
ment No. 1, known as Case No. 27/213, between the Minneapolis, St. Paul &
Sault Ste. Marie Railroad and engineers and firemen * * *, and Case No.
27/286, between the Mobile & Ohio Railroad and engineers, firemen, conductors,
and trainmen * * *, indicating that where it had been the practice for yard
crews to perform such service as a part of their regular assignment, compensa-
tion therefor being covered by yard rates, without arbitrary or special allow-
ances, no change in the past-established practice is required nor was it con-
templated.
In conference with the representatives of the interested organizations held
October 25, 1920, the decisions above referred to were read and the committees
were notified that we were in error in our former conclusion that a special
allowance or arbitrary should be allowed for helping trains out of yard; and
that, effective as of November 1. 1920, the allowances will be discontinued and
the past practice that was in effect for a great many years will govern. It is
our contention, and the records support it, that it has always been the practice
at all terminals on this railroad at which switching crews are employed, that
when necessary to assist trains out of yards it is considered a part of the
regular assignment, and no extra compensation has been granted, except as
previously explained, namely, since April 1, 1920.
We further contend that it is right and proper for us to discontinue the prac-
tice that was put into effect on April 1, 1920, for the reason that, as set forth
by the decision above referred to, it was not the intention of paragraph (b),
Article XX of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27 to provide any special
allowance for work of this kind where special allowances were not in effect
prior to the issuance of the supplement.
Decision.—The Labor Board decides that paragraph (b), Article
XX, Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, issued by the United
States Railroad Labor Board, applies only when yard engineers
assist trains beyond the switching limits.
DECISION NO. 1286.-DOCKET 928.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Request of employees in telegraph service for reim-
bursement of amounts deducted from their wages in the months of
January, February, and March, 1921.
Statement. Under date of January 28, 1921, an order was issued
by the carrier directing the deduction of one-thirty-first from the
January earnings of all monthly-rated employees; the allowance to
all such employees of Saturday, the 29th, or Monday, the 31st, as a
834
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
day off; and the continuance of the same plan thereafter for the
deduction of one day's work and one day's pay per week. This ar-
rangement continued in effect through February, 1921. The order
of January 28, 1921, was a confirmation of a telegraphic message
dated January 27, stating in part that no one would be called upon
to work a six-day week for five days' pay, except under the stress of
necessity, the same applying also to seven-day-week workers with the
substitution of seven for six and six for five.
The carrier states that while it is true that a considerable portion
of the employees represented by the organization party to this dis-
pute were necessarily controlled by the exception which required
their working the same number of days per week as theretofore,
taking all of the employees of the carrier together, the cases in which
the order resulted in a reduction of compensation for the same work-
ing time were merely an incident to the general plan and were justi-
fied by the impracticability of carrying out the general plan without
such a result in individual cases by reason of the nature of railroad
operation and service.
The employees state that the action of the carrier as above de-
scribed was taken without consulting or advising the committee reg-
ularly elected to represent these employees and was, therefore, in
violation of the orders of the Labor Board and the agreement be-
tween the carrier and employees in telegraph service. The employees
request that the employees affected be reimbursed for the amounts
deducted from their wages as herein set forth.
In response to the contention of the employees the carrier states
that the Labor Board has no power to make any decision or ruling
affecting the legal rights of the carrier and the employees under con-
tract of employment in effect between them. The carrier denies that
the employees did not consent to the deduction, and contends that
on the contrary the continuance of its employees in the service after
the issuance of the order now complained of constituted an acquies-
cence in such order and an abandonment of any claim for compensa-
tion for time not worked or for greater compensation than after-
wards accepted by such employees when paid to them.
The carrier contends that the facts do not show any violation
of a decision of the Labor Board within the meaning of section 313
of the transportation act, 1920; and that said section has no applica-
tion to a departure from a fixed rate of pay specifically named in the
decision, except after decision by the board that the determining
factors as defined in the statute, including wages in other industries
and living costs, are sufficiently the same as those existing when the
decision was made to make the rate of pay named in the decision
just and reasonable within the definition of the statute; furthermore,
that the violation referred to in section 313 does not cover every de-
parture from the rates of pay or working conditions previously de-
clared reasonable by the board because the language of the section,
authorizing the board to determine after hearing the question
"whether in its opinion" a violation of this decision has occurred,
is not appropriate for every such case.
The carrier states that in so far as its action may have constituted
a departure from any previous decision or ruling of the Labor Board,
such departure is just and reasonable and is justified by existing
conditions, and is not a violation as outlined in section 313.
DECISIONS.
835
In support of the justness and reasonableness of its action the
carrier states that this reduction in working time of forces was put
into effect because of the necessity for economizing, which arose from
the fact that at that time the carrier's operating expenses were in ex-
cess of its operating revenues; therefore, as the carrier had no as-
surance as to how long this condition would continue it was forced
to reduce its operating expenses, and the course adopted of reducing
the number of days worked was designed to avoid the hardships
which would be inflicted upon individuals by an absolute reduction
in the number of men employed.
The carrier further states that the recommendations of the Manu-
facturers' Committee of the National Conference on Unemployment,
convened by the President, includes recommendations of part time
worked through reduced time or rotation of jobs, and the reduction
of the work week to a lower number of days during the present
period of industrial depression, as some of the emergency methods
which may be adopted to meet the present conditions of unemploy-
ment. The carrier contends that the developments of the unemploy-
ment situation since the order of January, 1921, was issued, justify
the policy which it then adopted-to avoid as far as possible increas-
ing the number of individuals unemployed, while at the same time
affecting the necessary economy.
The carrier further contends that the necessity and reasonableness
of taking steps to economize have been clearly shown by testimony.
before the Labor Board, and that subsequent orders and decisions
of the board have indicated that the rates of pay and working condi-
tions fixed when the orders now in question were issued by the carrier
were as a whole unreasonably and unduly favorable to the em-
ployees.
Opinion. The position of the carrier and the evidence submitted
have been carefully considered. The Labor Board has expressed its
opinion in so many orders, decisions, and announcements, of which
the carrier is aware, regarding the intent of Congress in enacting
Title III of the transportation act, 1920, and of the authority vested
in the Labor Board by said act, that it is not considered necessary
to reiterate its position as to the extent of its power under the said
act in this decision.
The Labor Board in Decision No. 91 fully stated its reasons for
deciding that the action of the carrier in deducting amounts from
the earnings of the employees was in violation of Decision No. 2.
It is the opinion of the Labor Board that when any changes of
wages or contracts or rules, previously in effect, are contemplated or
proposed by either party, conference must be had as directed by the
transportation act, 1920, and by rules or decisions of procedure
promulgated by the board; where agreements are not reached the
dispute must be brought before the Labor Board and no action taken
or change made until so authorized by the board.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the action of the carrier
in deducting certain amounts from the wages of employees in tele-
graph service, as herein set forth, was in violation of the trans-
portation act, 1920, the orders and decisions of the Labor Board,
and the agreement between the carrier and the employees in tele-
graph service.
The employees affected shall therefore be reimbursed for amounts
deducted during the months of January, February, and March, 1921.
836 ·
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1287.-DOCKET 2456.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the failure of the carrier named
above to apply Decision No. 553 issued by the Labor Board.
Statement. The dispute upon which this decision is rendered was
presented to the Labor Board in ex-parte form by the employees and
arises over the failure of the carrier to apply the provisions of De-
cision No. 553.
Decision No. 553 reads as follows:
Under the circumstances cited and in view of Interpretation No. 4 to De-
cision No. 119, the Labor Board decides that the carrier shall not be permitted,
effective as of July 1, 1921, to change the payment for overtime from a puni-
tive to a pro-rata basis.
After due notice to the carrier, a hearing was held under the pro-
visions of section 313 of the transportation act, 1920, at which hear-
ing the carrier was represented. The employees state that the carrier
has failed to comply with the above-quoted decision and is still re-
quiring employees in telegraph service to work.overtime at pro-rata
rate instead of at the rate of time and one-half as required by rule 3
of the agreement between the employees and the carrier, effective
October 15, 1919.
The employees request that the Labor Board direct the carrier to
comply with the provisions of Decision No. 553 and reimburse the
employees for the difference between the compensation they have re-
ceived and the compensation they would have received under the
application of the decision.
The carrier admits that Decision No. 553 has not been applied, but
contends that it has not been ignored. The carrier states that the
decision has been given serious consideration; that it has never noti-
fied the employees affected by the decision that it would not comply
with the provisions thereof; but that it has simply deferred its appli-
cation until the money necessary for its application ($11,000) is
available.
Opinion.-Rule 3 of the agreement between the carrier and em-
ployees in telegraph service, effective October 15, 1919, provides that
overtime shall be computed on the minute basis and will be paid for
at the rate of time and one-half time. On July 13, 1921, the carrier
notified the representatives of the employees in telegraph service.
that, effective July 1, 1921, overtime would be paid at pro-rata rates.
The action of the carrier in arbitrarily changing the basis of overtime
on July 1, 1921, was clearly in violation of the agreement of October
15, 1919, the orders and decisions of the Labor Board, and the trans-
portation act, 1920.
Decision. Decision No. 553, dated December 6, 1921, clearly pro-
vides that it is effective July 1, 1921, and the carrier, in failing to
restore the basis of pay for overtime provided for by agreement with
its employees in telegraph service, and reimbursing said employees
for the difference between the compensation they have received and
what they would have received under the proper application from
July 1, 1921, is acting in violation of said decision.
DECISIONS.
837
DECISION NO. 1288.-DOCKETS 331 AND 477.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-
neers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; Order of Rail-
way Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Switchmen's Union
of North America; International Association of Machinists; International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America;
International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers;
International Alliance of Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers; Brotherhood
Railway Carmen of America; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers; Order of Railroad Telegraphers; United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers; Brotherhood of
Railway Signalmen of America; Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees; International
Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers v. Peoria Railway Ter-
minal Co.
Question. Protest against a reduction in wages made effective
February 16, 1921, and request that carrier restore the rates of pay
arbitrarily reduced without agreement with the employees.
Statement. The employees state that on February 17, 1921, repre-
sentatives of the employees were called into the office of the general
manager and notified that they would have to accept a reduction in
pay; that they were asked to agree to an arrangement which would
make their wage uncertain in that they were to get what was left
after certain expenses and fixed charges were paid; and that they
were told, in substance, that they should either accept the proposition
of the carrier or leave the service.
Furthermore the carrier was aware that the reduction arbitrarily
put into effect was objectionable to the employees; yet, since the
notification, the carrier has deducted from the earnings of the em-
ployees varying amounts approximating 19 and 20 per cent of the
wages as authorized by Decision No. 2. The amounts deducted since
the effective date of Decision No. 147, July 1, 1921, more nearly ap-
proximate the decreases authorized by that decision.
The employees further state that the Peoria Railway Terminal Co.
was properly under Decision No. 2, and that it being a terminal com-
pany a majority of whose stock is owned by trunk lines, it is also
properly under Decision No. 147.
The representative of the carrier states that after the road was
returned from Federal control, it continued to attempt to meet the
existing rates of pay, including Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board,
but the business became so light and expenses so high that they were
incurring a serious deficit, and after reducing forces, deferring main-
tenance, etc., it finally became necessary to reduce wages; further
that if the grand lodge officers had not interfered the agreements then
being negotiated would have been perfected and no complaint made
by the employees directly interested.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the action of the car-
rier in reducing wages of the classes of employees represented by
the organizations parties to this dispute was in violation of Decision
No. 2, and that the employees represented by the petitioners shall be
reimbursed for the difference between the wages they have received
and the wages they should receive under the orders of the Labor
Board that affect them.
1
838
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1289.-DOCKET 154.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Question.-Controversy concerning the perpetuation of territorial
or division differentials, which differentials were discontinued by the
carrier with the effective date of Supplement No. 15 to General
Order No. 27, January 1, 1919.
Statement. This controversy involves the question of differentials
in both freight and passenger service, as between the territory east
and the territory west of Yermo, which the firemen contend exist
and the carrier contends do not exist.
Decision.-The matter complained of in the application and dis-
pute submitted in this case having occurred before the passage of
the transportation act, 1920, by which the Labor Board was created,
the board decides that it is without jurisdiction.
The dispute is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1290.-DOCKET 155.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Question. Claim of firemen for freight rates of pay when used on
locomotives of 3,500 and 3,600 class in passenger service.
Decision. The matter complained of in the application and dis-
pute submitted in this case having occurred before the passage of
the transportation act, 1920, by which the Labor Board was created,
the board decides that it has no jurisdiction of the dispute.
The case is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1291.-DOCKET 160.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Question.-Controversy concerning perpetuation of differentials
in both passenger and freight service, which differentials were dis-
continued by the carrier with the effective date of Supplement No.
15 to General Order No. 27, January 1, 1919.
Statement.—This controversy involves differentials in both freight
and passenger service-between the territory east and the territory
west of Yermo in freight service, and the territory east and the
territory west of San Bernardino in passenger service-which the
engineers contend exist and the company contends do not exist.
Decision. The matter complained of in the application and dis-
pute submitted in this case having occurred before the passage of
the transportation act, 1920, by which the Labor Board was created,
the board decides that it is without jurisdiction.
The case is therefore dismissed.
DECISIONS.
839
DECISION NO. 1292.-DOCKET 175.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
•
Question.-Controversy regarding_the_allowance to yard crews
helping passenger trains out of East Portland.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Yard engines are used to help passenger trains
out of East Portland and compensation therefor has been claimed under the
provisions of paragraph (b), Article XX, of Supplement No. 24 to General Order
No. 27, and under Article 23 (b) of engineers' and firemen's current agreement,
which are identical and read as follows:
"Where regularly assigned to perform service within switching limits,
yardmen shall not be used in road service when road crews are available,
except in case of emergency. When yard crews are used in road service under
conditions just referred to, they shall be paid miles or hours, whichever is
the greater, with a minimum of one hour, for the class of service performed,
in addition to the regular yard pay, and without any deduction therefrom for
the time consumed in said service."
Claim denied and compensation allowed at straight yard rates.
Employees' position.-Yard crews assigned in Albina yard are required
to help passenger trains over East Portland hill, a distance of approximately
3.8 miles. Committees contend that crews engaged in this service should be
compensated under the provisions of Article XX (b), Supplement 24 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27, and Article 23 (b) of schedule effective May 1, 1920, which
are identical as quoted above
** * *
The carrier contends that where it was the practice for yard crews to help
trains out of the yard prior to the promulgation of Supplement 24, the pro-
visions of Article XX (b) thereof do not apply, and cite Decisions Nos.
27/213 and 27/286, issued by Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1 to sustain
their contentions. These decisions read as follows:
"The issue in this case concerns the intent of paragraph (b) Article XX of
Supplement No. 24.
"A review of the records clearly indicates that it has been the practice on
this railroad for a number of years to require yard crews to assist trains out
of yard, compensation therefor being covered by yard rates without arbitrary
or special allowances. The claim is therefore denied.”
The committees are not unmindful of these decisions of Railway Board of
Adjustment No. 1 which have denied the application of the rule quoted, but
contend that said decisions were predicated upon service for which men had
not theretofore been paid "arbitrary or special allowances."
for the
For many years there have been "arbitrary or special allowances
service in question on the Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. as
evidenced by the following rates and rules:
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1897.-SWITCHING SERVICE.
Engineer
Firemen .
-per month__ $90.00
_do____ 60.00
12 hours or less a day's work.
Overtime:
Engineer.
Firemen__
-per hour__ .30
__do____ .20
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than switch-
ing service, engineers will be paid $3.90 per day, and firemen, $2.25 per day.
"The company reserves the right to use switch engines outside of yard limits
for legitimate switching work on basis of yard pay."
Under this schedule the minimum road rate for engineers was $3.90 and for
firemen, $2.25 per day.
840
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Engineer
Firemen
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1901.-SWITCHING SERVICE.
12 hours or less to constitute a day's work.
Overtime:
Engineer-
Firemen
-per month_- $90.00
do____ 60. 00
-per hour__
_do_.
.30
.20
When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than
switching service, engineers will be paid $3.90 per day, and firemen,
$2.25 per day.
"The company reserves the right to use switch engines outside of
yard limits for legitimate switching work on basis of yard pay."
Under this schedule the minimum road rate for engineers was $3.90, and for
firemen, $2.25 per day.
Engineer
Firemen
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1903.-SWITCHING SERVICE.
10 hours or less to constitute a day's work.
Overtime:
Engineer
Firemen
per day $3.15
__do____ 2.15
-per hour__
.313
__do_____ .211
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than
switching service, engineers will be paid $4 per day, and firemen,
$2.40 per day.
The company reserves the right to use switch engines outside of
yard limits for legitimate switching work on basis of yard pay."
Under this schedule the minimum road rate for engineers was $4 and for
firemen $2.40 per day.
" SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1907.-SWITCHING SERVICE ENGINEERS.
"First-class yards, $3.75 per day of 10 hours or less, overtime pro rata after
10 hours.
"Second-class yards, $3.50 per day of 10 hours or less, overtime pro rata after
10 hours.
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits, for other than switch-
ing service, engineers will be paid $4.40 per day.
66
The company reserves the right to use switch engines outside of yard limits
for legitimate switching service on basis of yard pay."
The minimum road rate for freight service under this schedule was $4.40
per day for engineers.
.66
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 24, 1910.-SWITCHING SERVICE—ENGINEERS.
"First-class yards, $4.25 per day of 10 hours or less, overtime pro rata after
10 hours.
Second-class yards, $4 per day of 10 hours or less, overtime pro rata after
10 hours.
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than switch-
ing service, engineers will be paid $4.90 per day.
"The company reserves the right to use switch engines outside of yard
limits for legitimate switching service on basis of yard pay."
The minimum road rate for freight service under this schedule was $4.80
per day for engineers.
" SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1911.-SWITCHING SERVICE-FIREMEN.
"First-class yards, $2.50 per day of 10 hours or less, overtime pro rata after
10 hours.
"Second-class yards, $2.40 per day of 10 hours or less, overtime pro rata
after 10 hours.
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than switch-
ing service, firemen will be paid $2.90 per day.
"The company reserves the right to use switch engines outside of yard limits
for legitimate switching service on basis of yard pay."
Under this schedule the minimum road freight rate was $2.80 per day for
firemen.
DECISIONS.
841
At the time Supplement 15 to General Order No. 27 was applied to the
schedule of January 1, 1919, it was understood and agreed that Article XX (b)
of the schedule effective January 1, 1919, should be eliminated and a new rule
substituted, effective as of January 1, 1919. Article 20 (b) reads:
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than switch-
ing service, engineers will be paid $5.96 and firemen $4.09 per day."
With the elimination of the above-quoted rule, the following was drafted
and agreed to in lieu thereof:
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than switch-
ing service, engineers and firemen will be paid freight rates according to class
of engine for entire day's service, and in such cases they will not be required
to work overtime in yard service except in cases of emergency."
With the adoption of the rule quoted next above, the arbitrary or special
allowance" feature was continued, as road rates were higher than yard rates.
With the promulgation of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27 the com-
mittee claimed time should be allowed under the provisions of Article XX (b)
thereof, or miles or hours, whichever is greater, with a minimum of one hour
for each trip at the rate applying on the locomotive used for the road service,
plus regular yard pay, and without any deduction therefrom for time consumed
in road service for the yard service.
To this the management does not agree, claiming yard rates is proper com-
pensation.
As for many years an
arbitrary or special allowance" has been made for
the service in question, evidence of which is set forth above, we ask (1)
that the management be instructed to compensate enginemen under the pro-
visions of paragraph (b) Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order
No. 27; (2) that a prompt and accurate check back to effective date of said
supplement, December 1, 1919, be made and that enginemen be compensated
the difference between what they were paid and what they should have been
paid.
Carrier's position.-For a great many years, yard engines have been used
to help passenger trains out of East Portland, within switching limits, and
there has been no change in this established and accepted practice.
In engineers' schedule, effective December 24, 1910, and firemen's schedule,
effective June 1, 1911, the following rule appeared:
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than
switching services, engineers (firemen) will be paid $4.90 ($2.90) per day.”
There was no change in this rule other than in rates of pay in accordance
with General Order No. 27 until January 1, 1919, when the following rule was
agreed upon:
"When switch engines are used outside of yard limits for other than switch-
ing service, engineers and firemen will be paid freight rates according to
class of engine for the entire day's service, and in such cases they will not be
required to work overtime in yard service except in cases of emergency.”
This rule was in effect until December 1, 1919, effective date of Supplement
24 to General Order No. 27.
Subsequent to December 1, 1919, yard crews have been paid yard rates of
pay for service to which they are regularly assigned and which is performed
within switching limits. The work of helping trains out of East Portland is
a part of the regular assignment of these yard crews and is performed within
switching limits.
Where yard crews are used in road service and outside of switching limits
they are paid in accordance with article 23 (b) of the engineers' and firemen's
existing agreement, reading as follows:
“(b) Crews used outside switching limits.—Where regularly assigned to per-
form service within switching limits, yardmen shall not be used in road serv-
ice when road crews are available, except in case of emergency. When yard
crews are used in road service under conditions just referred to, they shall
be paid miles or hours, whichever is the greater, with a minimum of one hour
for the class of service performed in addition to the regular yard pay, and
without any deduction therefrom for the time consumed in said service."
Decision. The Labor Board decides that paragraph (b), Article
XX of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, issued by the United
States Railroad Administration, applies only when yard engines
assist trains beyond the switching limits.
842
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1293.-DOCKET 222.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Order of Railway Conductors v. Southern
Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Proper rate of pay applicable to trainmen in fire-train
service, Sacramento division.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-On district between Blue Canon and Truckee, distance
41.4 miles, over the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the track is inclosed in wooden
snow sheds, and as a precautionary measure fire trains with engines and train
crews are maintained at certain intervals. Question of proper compensation
for conductors and trainmen under different wage orders and supplements of
the United States Railroad Administration and increases granted by Decision
No. 2 of the United States Railroad Labor Board is in controversy.
Employees' position.-The following rules covering fire-train service on the
Sacramento division have been agreed to by the carrier and the committee
with the exception of section (a):
"ARTICLE 30.--FIRE-TRAIN SERVICE, SACRAMENTO DIVISION.
"(a) Trainmen in fire-train service will be paid as follows: Conductors,
$6.68 per day; brakemen, $5.79 per day.
“(b) Working hours will be from 6 a. m. to 2 p. m.
"(c) Overtime to be computed on the minute basis and paid for at three-
sixteenths of the daily rate.
"(d) Service other than fire-train service performed between the east and
west mile board of the station, designated in bulletin of assignment as the
home terminal of the fire-train crew, will be computed separately on the minute
basis, with a minimum of one hour, and paid for at one-eighth of the daily
rate; such allowance to be made in addition to compensation provided for fire-
train service.
"(e) When used beyond the mile boards, in other than fire-train service,
trainmen will be compensated for the service performed at the rate and under
the rules governing. Such allowance to be made in addition to compensation
provided for fire-train service.
"(f) Trainmen in fire-train service called for such service before 6 a. m.
or after 2 p. m. will be paid therefor on the overtime basis as provided in sec-
tion (c) of this article.
"(g) A trainman assigned to fire-train service and required in an emergency
to watch engine shall be paid for the time consumed on the minute basis, at
one-eighth of the daily rate, with a minimum of one hour, same to be allowed
in addition to compensation for fire-train service.
DEFINITION OF FIRE-TRAIN SERVICE.'
1. Going to and returning from fire.
2. Time consumed at fire.
“(NOTE.—In connection with definition No. 2 it is understood whatever
duties have been performed in the past at fire and paid for as fire-train service,
will govern in future.)
"3. Sprinkling sheds.
"4. Supplying Gunter and Lakeview stations with water.
"5. Supplying locomotives with water when engines run short of water ac-
count of mechanical defects, derailments, wrecks, track obstructions, defects,
or shortage in station supply tanks occurring after crews depart from ter-
minal."
The committee therefore contends that trainmen in fire-train service should
be paid through-freight rates, applicable to the district on which fire train is
assigned and operated in accordance with article 15 of trainmen's agreement,
reading:
DECISIONS.
843
"ARTICLE 15.-BASIC DAY AND OVERTIME
"(a) In all road service, except passenger service, 100 miles or less, 8 hours
or less (straightaway or turn around), shall constitute a day's work. Miles
in excess of 100 will be paid for at the mileage rates provided.
"(b) On runs of 100 miles or less overtime will begin at the expiration of
eight hours; on runs of over 100 miles overtime will begin when the time on
duty exceeds the miles run divided by 12. Overtime shall be paid for on the
minute basis at a rate per hour of three-sixteenths of the daily rate."
The above article revised to conform to section (a), Article IX, of Supple-
ments 16 and 25, reading:
"(a) All service which prior to the effective date of this order was paid on a
monthly, daily, or trip basis shall be established upon the mileage basis and paid
the rates according to the class of service and operated under the rules herein
provided."
Carrier's position.-Prior to application of supplements 16 and 25 trainmen
assigned to fire-train service were compensated on monthly basis-conductors,
$171.70 per month; brakemen, $144.50 per month-and fractions of months
were paid for at so many 30ths or 31sts, as the case might be. In other words,
if conductors or brakemen worked but one day in a 30-day month, conductors
would receive $5.72 and brakemen $4.82; in a 31-day month conductors would
receive $5.54 and brakemen $4.66. In establishing daily rates under supple-
ments 16 and 25 monthly rates of $171.70 for conductors and $144.50 for brake-
men were multiplied by 12, divided by 365, producing $5.64 per day for conduc-
tors and $4.75 per day for brakemen. Under decision No. 2, United States
Railroad Labor Board, $1.04 was added, establishing a rate for conductors of
$6.68 per day and for brakemen $5.79 per day.
The carrier is not clear on application of article 15, referred to and quoted
by organization. Article 30 (fire-train rules) was negotiated within the past
six weeks, and the organizations' presentation is the first intimation received
that they objected to paying fire-train crews on a daily basis instead of a mileage
basis. The carrier did understand, however, that the rates outlined in section
(a) were objectionable to organizations, and statements made to grand officers
and committees in conference are reiterated, that we are agreeable to pay train-
men in fire-train service on a mileage basis, but we are not willing to agree
that the mileage rates applicable to through and irregular freight service should
apply to fire-train service.
In fact, it was necessary to negotiate a special rule to cover fire-train
service as outlined by the committee in their presentations, which proves beyond
question that this service is peculiar and not comparable with any other class
of service on the system.
The carrier contends that present rates of $6.68 per day and $5.79 per day
for conductors and brakemen, respectively, producing a monthly compensation
exclusive of overtime in a 30-day month of $240 for conductors and $173.70 for
brakemen, is a very liberal compensation for this class of service.
It will be noted rule quoted by organizations restricts these men to a very
limited service; in this connection they are used to perform duties coming
under designation of fire-train service on rare occasions, averaging about twice
a week. Crews receive additional compensation for movements such as rerail-
ing and spotting cars within the confines of their terminals, and when used
beyond their terminal limits they receive a minimum day at rates applicable
to the class of service performed; in all, averaging about $50 per month for con-
ductors and about $40 per month for brakemen in addition to their regular
salaries.
The Labor Board's attention is called to the fact that the carrier has no
objections to paying men in fire-train service on a mileage basis, and had
the organization requested it it would have been done. However, the carrier
contends there are no grounds on which to base request that rates established
in section (a) be further increased, for the reason that men in fire-train
service have never been paid through and irregular freight rates, and for the
further reason rates outlined in section (a) are adequate and liberal compen-
sation for the class of service performed.
Decision. The Railroad Labor Board decides that the rates of
pay now in effect are just and reasonable.
Request of employees is therefore denied.
20936°-23- -54
844
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1294.-DOCKET 224.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Application of monthly guaranty to passenger brake-
men, established under Supplements 16 and 25 to General Order No.
27, United States Railroad Administration, also guaranty established
under section 1, Article VII, of Decision No. 2, United States Rail-
road Labor Board.
Statement.-Prior to the effective date of Supplement 16, the
minimum monthly rate for passenger brakemen under General
Order No. 27 was $125.80, with the exception of the suburban elec-
tric service at Oakland, Calif., on the western division where the
minimum rate was $121.55. The carrier takes the position that
money monthly guaranties applicable to passenger brakemen, shown
in Supplements 16 and 25 to General Order No. 27, United States
Railroad Administration, and subsequently increased by Decision
No. 2, United States Railroad Labor Board, apply to all runs except-
ing runs or assignments which carried a higher monthly guaranty
prior to the issuance of Supplements 16 and 25.
Employees' position. Following the effective date of Supplement
16, the carrier has taken the position that the money monthly guar-
anty for brakemen on any new runs put on after January 1, 1919,
should be $120.
This position is taken by the carrier, notwithstanding the fact
that there would have been no question as to what minimum monthly
rate would have been applied to any new run put on between Janu-
ary 1, 1918, the effective date of General Order No. 27, and January
1, 1919, the effective date of Supplement 16.
The employees contend that it was never the intention of Supple-
ment 16 to General Order No. 27 to reduce a money monthly
guaranty, established by General Order No. 27.
Carrier's position.-The carrier takes the position that guaranties
shown in supplements are to be incorporated in the agreement and
apply to all runs, except that higher monthly guaranties are pre-
served for passenger brakemen on runs and assignments where such
higher guaranties prevailed prior to issuance of Supplement 16 and
25, with increases granted in Decision No. 2, United States Railroad
Labor Board, added, but the carrier does not understand that these
higher monthly guaranties are to be extended to territory on which
there was no passenger service operated prior to the issuance of
Supplements 16 and 25. Neither does the carrier understand that it
is intended to apply these higher monthly guaranties to runs not
operating prior to the issuance of said supplements. In this con-
nection, however, if an additional run was added to a pool of runs,
or a run was added covering the same territory, and crews operat-
ing in such pool or over the same territory on which the additional
run was added received a guaranty in excess of that contained in
Supplements 16 and 25, the carrier understands the additional crews
or crew added as outlined would be entitled to the same monthly
guaranty as other crews operating over the same territory.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the monthly guaranty
for flagmen and brakemen shall be $120 a month in territories where
DECISIONS.
845
passenger service did not exist heretofore, but that in territories
where passenger service did heretofore exist the monthly guaranty
for brakemen and flagmen on new runs inaugurated shall be $125.80
a month, prior to the application of Decisions Nos. 2 and 147.
DECISION NO. 1295.-DOCKET 244.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Order of Railway Conductors v. Western
Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. Claim for terminal switching and terminal delay time
from March 1, 1920, for passenger crews assigned to trains Nos. 2
and 4, from time required to report for duty at Oakland yard until
train leaves Western Pacific mole.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Crews assigned to train No. 4 were required to report
for duty at Oakland yard one hour and five minutes before leaving time, anċ
are now required to report one hour before leaving time.
Crews assigned to train No. 2 are required to report for duty at Oakland
yard one hour before leaving time.
Crews get engines at roundhouse, herd to and couple to train, then handle
train from Oakland yard to Western Pacific mole-distance 2 miles-double
train over, when it consists of more than eight cars, in order to spot baggage
cars at platform and double back when baggage and express is loaded.
The baggage cars are partially loaded during the afternoon at Western Pacific
mole for train No. 4. These cars are doubled over on to train by engine and
crew of train No. 4.
Employees claim continuous terminal time under section 11 of Artile I,
reading:
“Initial terminal delay and switching.—In passenger service, crews making
not less than 100 miles or passing entirely over the district, when held at
initial district terminal one hour, will receive one hour's pay in addition to
the miles and time consumed in making the trip. If held over one hour, will
be paid on the basis of pro-rata overtime, actual minutes to be counted. Where
both switching and initial delay occur at same district terminal, total time
will be computed as switching.'
For the service in question the carrier is paying 30 minutes in addition to
all time earned on the trip, the other 30 minutes being accounted for as pre-
paratory time, which is paid for in connection with the road trip.
Employees' position.-Committee contends that the herding of engines, mov-
ing of train from Oakland yard to Western Pacific mole-distance 2 miles-
doubling train over and back, spotting cars, picking up baggage and express
cars partly loaded, is initial switching and should be computed with the delay
time and paid for as switching, under section 11 of Article I.
Special agreement referred to by the carrier reads:
"For handling engines and trains from Western Pacific mole to Oakland
yard, passenger crews will be paid actual minutes from arriving time of train
at mole until relieved from care of engine and train at designated track at
Oakland yard. Crews will be on hand for duty at Oakland yard 50 minutes in
advance of leaving time at the mole of local trains and allowed 20 minutes
overtime, in addition to other time, and will report at Oakland yard one hour
in advance of leaving time at mole of through trains and allowed 30 minutes
overtime, in addition to other time. (One mile for each four minutes.)”
This agreement is superseded by section 11 of Article I, as provided by
Article VIII of revised schedule, dated November 1, 1918, reading:
"The foregoing rates of pay, rules and regulations herein set forth consti-
tute, in its entirety, the agreement between the Western Pacific Railroad and
its conductors and trainmen, which agreement in its entirety will take effect
November 1, 1918, and remain in effect 30 days and thereafter until the expira-
tion of 30 days' notice in writing served by one party hereto upon the other,
which notice shall state the change or changes desired."
846
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Carrier's position. The operation of passenger trains from Western Pacific
mole began in August, 1910. This continued until August 3, 1918, when these
trains were run from Southern Pacific Oakland Pier, due to consolidation under
Federal control. When Federal control ended on February 29, 1920, Western
Pacific passenger trains again began operating from Western Pacific mole.
First agreement with conductors and trainmen became effective May 1, 1911;
present agreement effective November 1, 1918. Both of these agreements are
silent as to how passenger trainmen shall be paid for coupling engine and back-
ing train to Western Pacific mole prior to time set to depart, for the reason that
there was no such service when first agreement was entered into, and passenger
trains were not being operated from Western Pacific mole when present agree-
ment was made effective and the matter was regarded as a dead issue, it not
being anticipated that the former method of handling would be resumed.
The agreement relating to this special service, which the carrier contends
never had been abrogated, was made with both passenger trainmen and engine-
men after passenger service had been permanently established and definite
arrangements made for parking these trains. Agreement referred to was
entered into at a joint meeting October 25, 26, and 27, 1911, and reads:
"Passenger service.-For handling engines and trains from Western Pacific
mole to Oakland terminal, passenger crews will be paid actual minutes from
arriving time of train at mole until relieved from care of engine and train at
designated track at Oakland terminal.
"Crews will be on hand for duty at Oakland Terminal 50 minutes in advance
of leaving time at the mole of local trains, and allowed 20 minutes overtime
in addition to other time, and will report at Oakland Terminal one hour in
advance of leaving time at mole of through trains and allowed 30 minutes
overtime in addition to other time. (One mile for each four minutes.)"
Furthermore, trainmen are being paid actual minutes for time consumed in
backing passenger trains Nos. 1 and 3 from Western Pacific mole to Oakland
yard, as outlined above, which clearly establishes our claim that this special
agreement is in effect thus far, and if in effect in part certainly it is in effect
as a whole. Section 12 of Article I reads:
"SEC. 12. Final terminal delay and switching.—In passenger service, crews
making not less than 100 miles or passing entirely over the district will be
Where
paid terminal delay after the lapse of one hour at the overtime rate.
both switching and final terminal delay occur at same district terminal, the
total time will be computed as switching."
This section does not require payment for such extra service, there being
no switching and the delay unloading baggage and express and backing train
to Oakland yard ordinarily consumes 30 to 45 minutes.
Immediately upon resuming operation from Western Pacific mole, March 1,
1920, question was asked as to how payment for this special service should
be made and instructions were given to pay as per agreement quoted. Payment
is being so made to both trainmen and enginemen at the present time, and
enginemen recognize it as a fair compensation for service rendered. On March
9, 1920, trainmen on train No. 4 were instructed by the superintendent to
report one hour and five minutes before leaving time, instead of one hour.
As soon as this came to our notice it was changed to one hour in order to
strictly conform to the special agreement. This extra five minutes will be
added to the 30 minutes provided for in the agreement, making 35 minutes
paid in addition to all other time made on trip for this service during period
crews were required to report one hour and five minutes in advance of leaving
time.
In the agreement, effective May 1, 1911, rule 3 reads:
"SEC. 3. Time to begin and end.-In passenger and freight service, time of
trainmen to begin 30 minutes prior to time set to depart and end when relieved
at terminal.
"Terminal delay.-Road crews making not less than 100 miles or passing
entirely over the district, when held at district terminal one hour, will receive
one hour's pay in addition to the miles and time consumed in making the
trip. If held over one hour, 1 mile will be allowed for each six minutes
so held."
In the agreement effective October 1, 1918, sections 8 and 11 of Article I
read:
"SEC. 8. Time to begin and end.-Time of passenger trainmen will begin 30
minutes prior to time set to depart and end when relieved at terminal, except
as provided in section 4 of this article.
DECISIONS.
847
"SEC. 11. Initial terminal delay and switching.-In passenger service, crews
making not less than 100 miles or passing entirely over the district, when held
at initial district terminal one hour, will receive one hour's pay in addition
to the miles and time consumed in making the trip. If held over one hour,
will be paid on the basis of pro-rata overtime, actual minutes to be counted.
Where both switching and initial delay occur at same district terminal, total
time will be computed as switching.”
The part in italics seems to be one of the bases of the trainmen's claim for
one hour or more for this special service. The carrier contends that this
provision has nothing to do with the special agreement as it relates to Oakland
Terminal, and that such special agreement is not invalidated by this change
in the wording of the rule. Attention is called to the words "held" and
delay" in section 11. Ordinarily these through passenger trains, Nos. 2 and 4,
leave Western Pacific mole about on time, but in any event there is no
until after time set to depart.
delay"
Another basis of claim is that trainmen should be paid one hour because
required to switch their trains at Oakland yard before backing to mole.
There is no switching to be done. There is one crossing which must be kept
open, but this is closed and train is coupled up by yard crews. The only serv-
ice required of trainmen is to couple engine, then back train to Western Pacific
mole. Carmen are on hand to test air. That this does not constitute switch-
ing is clearly set forth in the following cases: Case No. 132, Missouri Pacific;
Case No. 137, Missouri Pacific; Case No. 139, Missouri Pacific; 27/336, El Paso
& Southwestern; 27/337, El Paso & Southwestern.
It is true that on train No. 4 it is necessary to double over after arrival at
mole to get baggage cars which are placed there during the day by yard engine,
in order that express may be loaded during afternoon. This doubling over
sometimes occurs with train No. 2 also, but only when train has more than
eight cars. None of this service is switching in the sense in which such word
is generally accepted and interpreted in passenger service, and the carrier con-
tends full compensation is provided in the agreement which allows 30 minutes'
pay for all incidental service prior to departure from this terminal.
To claim that article 8 eliminates all other understandings, agreements, and
well-established past customs is hardly in harmony with our experience or the
facts, nor would trainmen care to literally subscribe to such an interpretation,
as we are constantly adjusting claims based on past practice or some commonly
understood verbal or written agreement not to be found in "Schedule of pay
and regulations for conductors and trainmen."
Committee's contention for one hour initial switching, provided trains Nos. 4
and 2 depart from Western Pacific mole on time, is based upon a combination of
rules and is wrong in principle.
Under section 8 of Article I, passenger trainmen are required to report for
duty 30 minutes prior to time set to depart, in order to perform any inci-
dental service which may be necessary to enable train to depart at the time
set. Cleaning and lighting lamps, markers, etc., and placing engine on train,
are some of the duties which are necessary before time set to depart, and for
which payment is contemplated in section 8, Article I.
In this particular case men are required to report one hour in advance of
leaving time in order to allow 30 minutes for movement of train from Oakland
yard to Western Pacific mole, the other 30 minutes being the preparatory time
provided in section 8 of Article I. The committee endeavors to combine pre-
paratory time and the 30 minutes' time consumed in backing train to Western
Pacific mole and make of it an arbitrary of one hour terminal switching
or delay.
In July, 1911, a similar question arose between the management and a com-
mittee of the employees. It was ruled at that time, accepted by the com-
mittee, and has been effective ever since, that terminal delay is not paid for
unless the delay is one hour or more after the time set to depart.
The carrier contends that the present method of payment is a fair com-
pensation for the service performed, inasmuch as road overtime on trains
Nos. 4 and 2 is computed from 30 minutes prior to time set to depart from the
Western Pacific mole, and crews are also paid 30 minutes in addition to all
other time earned on the trip for moving train from Oakland yard to Western
Pacific mole, and such payment as is provided in the special agreement made
in October, 1911, is not abrogated by present schedule rules; rather the agree-
ment of many years' standing and acceptance takes preference over the
schedule, as it provides special payment for special work at a particular
848
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
terminal, thus leaving the application of any conflicting schedule rule to points
not covered by special agreement.
Decision.-Article VIII of agreement, effective November 1, 1918,
reads as follows:
The foregoing rates of pay, rules, and regulations herein set forth constitutes,
in its entirety, the agreement between the Western Pacific Railroad and its
conductors and trainmen, which agreement in its entirety will take effect
November 1, 1918, and remain in effect 30 days and thereafter until the expira-
tion of 30 days' notice in writing served by one party hereto upon the other,
which notice shall state the change or changes desired.
This article eliminates all special agreements on the Western
Pacific Railroad.
The case is remanded for further conference between the carrier
and its employees to determine a just and reasonable basis of pay for
the service in question.
DECISION NO. 1296.-DOCKET 245.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Order of Railway Conductors v. Western
Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. This controversy involves the question of trainmen
filling water cars and conductors being held responsible for water in
auxiliary water cars used to supply engines handling trains.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Water cars are filled at Delle for commercial use at a
potash plant located at Salduro, 63 miles west of Delle.
Water cars are filled at Delle for company use at Wendover, the terminal,
72 miles west of Delle.
Water cars are filled at Shafter for company use at Wendover, the terminal,
40 miles east of Shafter.
At Wendover, a terminal, auxiliary water cars are filled and used by engines
taking trains out of that point, conductors being held responsible for having
auxiliary water cars filled before leaving there.
Superintendent's circular No. 67-A, issued under date of September 24, 1920,
reads as follows:
"We have had several cases where trains left Wendover with auxiliary water
cars supposed to be filled, but after leaving the terminal it was discovered that
there was no water in the car. When investigation was made the responsibility
for auxiliary water car being left empty was shifted from one to another.
“Hereafter the conductor will be held responsible for having the water car
filled before leaving a terminal or any other station where an auxiliary is
picked up for service in his train."
Employees' position. The committee contends that filling water cars at
Delle, Shafter, Wendover, or any other point, and emptying same, is not the
work of trainmen. The committee further contends that the filling of aux-
iliary water cars at Wendover or any other district terminal or point for the
use of engine pulling train is no more the work of trainmen than that of filling
the engine tank, as the auxiliary water car is a part of the engine and is used in
supplying the engine with water, the same as the engine tank is used.
The committee also contends that the conductor is not responsible for the
contents of the auxiliary water car, neither is he responsible as to when or
how water is used out of the auxiliary water car any more than he would be
responsible for the water, coal, or oil used from the engine tank or any other
necessary supplies used for the safe operation of the engine.
Carrier's position. The stations mentioned in joint statement of facts are
in desert territory; no water is available, nor can it be developed between
Delle and Wendover, a distance of 72 miles. A 23-mile pipe line carries water
to Wendover from springs on Pilot Mountain, the only available supply adja-
cent thereto. A water station is located at Proctor, 23 miles west of Wend-
•
DECISIONS.
849
over, and another at Shafter, 40 miles west of Wendover. The supply of
water at Delle is limited only by the size of the pipe line and is ample to
supply the requirements between that point and Wendover. During certain
seasons of the year the available supply of water at Wendover is not sufficient
to meet the requirements at that point, and it is necessary to haul water from
Delle and occasionally from Shafter. Freight trains between Wendover and
Delle, both east and westbound, supplement engine tank with an auxiliary
water car. Helper engines westbound are also compelled to supplement en-
gine tank with auxiliary water car, the grade being 1 per cent Wendover to
Silver Zone, a distance of 34 miles. As a rule, tonnage trains are unable to
make Proctor for water, making it necessary for the road engine to run to
Proctor tank from a point about 1 mile east. The Proctor supply is limited
by the capacity of the springs. The Shafter supply is limited only by the
capacity of the pump.
The roundhouse track arrangements at Wendover are such that they will
not permit storage of water cars in this area, and in consequence auxiliary
water cars are kept out in the yard, are picked up by train crews leaving
Wendover after engines leave the roundhouse tracks, and filled by them at a
standpipe located in the yard, which is not in the roundhouse area. Train
crews are paid terminal switching under section 5 of Article II for this work
at Wendover terminal.
The work of filling water cars at Delle and Shafter invariably results in
overtime, and in consequence trainmen are paid at time and one-half for this
work. In many cases filling water cars results in payment of local freight.
rates to the crew doing the work, as filling such cars is counted as one of the
three or more stations under section 11 of Article II for which the increased
local rate is paid.
During the greater part of the year no yard engine is maintained at Wend-
over, terminal switching being performed by roadmen and paid for under sec-
tion 5 of Article II.
Transportation rules place the conductor in charge of the train; therefore,
the carrier feels that it is proper and natural to hold him responsible for know-
ing that water cars in his train have been filled before leaving Wendover.
Trainmen do not make the coupling between auxiliary water cars and engine
tanks; this work is performed by the enginemen.
Such
Trainmen contend that the enginemen should fill auxiliary water cars.
has not been the practice on this railroad. Trainmen have filled all water cars
from time of construction of the railroad to the present day. It is not possible
to have this work done by other than employees in train service without such
excessive expense as to make it prohibitive.
Trainmen are not required to empty water cars. There are certain desert
stations, however, where no water is available; in such cases water is supplied
from a water car and the station water barrels filled by trainmen, who are
paid local freight rates for this service.
The large potash plant located at Salduro has no other source of water
supply than that purchased from the railroad, nor can they develop a water
supply in this territory.
The carrier is doing what it can to improve the situation. An appropriation
of $16,000 has been authorized for construction of a water station at Knolls,
a station 39 miles east of Wendover and 33 miles west of Delle. Water will
be hauled from Delle to this point. This will eliminate use of auxiliary water
cars east of Wendover. An appropriation of $6,000 has been requested to con-
struct a water track and water racks at Delle, which will relieve trainmen
of filling water cars at that point. When these two improvements have been
made trainmen will be relieved altogether of this duty between Wendover
and Salt Lake, where 90 per cent of the work is done. The carrier proposes
to attempt to develop additional water at Proctor next year; and if they are
successful, the situation at Wendover and west will be considerably relieved.
Also propose to buy for freight service west of Wendover 10 new engines for
spring delivery, having 12,000 gallons' water capacity, which will eliminate
the use of water cars west out of Wendover. This will eliminate the use of
auxiliary water cars except between Gerlach and Jungo on the first district
of the Eastern division, In this territory it is the intention to drill a well
at Ronda in an attempt to develop water; if successful, all auxiliary water
cars will be eliminated.
850
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
These are improvements which were proposed prior to the protest on the
part of trainmen in regard to filling water cars.
The carrier feels that inasmuch as trainmen have been performing this
work ever since construction days, and in view of the fact that they are the
logical men to do the work and do not suffer financially because required to do
it, there is no reason why any change should be made, especially in view of
the improvements contemplated and cited above.
Decision.-Inasmuch as the practice complained of has been in
effect for many years, and in view of the fact that the carrier has
improvements under way which will relieve the employees from
performing the service in question, the board decides that no change
is justified at this time.
DECISION NO. 1297.-DOCKET 246.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern
Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of the employees that question 61 and decision
thereon in Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 25 to General Order
No. 27 is not applicable to guaranty applying to brakemen in three-
crewed local service.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that section 3, Article IV,
of agreement in effect between the carrier and the trainmen shall
be changed to read as follows:
When three or more local crews are assigned to any division and run first-in
and first-out, 20 trips or less will constitute a month's work. This guaranty
shall be applied for the days of the assignment and not for lay-over days.
Extra trips in local service will be paid for at same rate. Crews assigned in
addition to the minimum number, as shown above, that do not cover the same
territory and are not run first-in and first-out with other crews, will be paid
the same rate per mile for actual mileage made daily, with a minimum of 100.
DECISION NO. 1298.-DOCKET 247.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern
Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Claim for local rates of pay for the Port Lavaca and
Beeville branches, mixed runs, in accordance with provisions of ques-
tion 60 and answer thereto in Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 25.
Statement. These two branch runs, prior to General Order No. 27,
paid brakemen $83.49, which covered all service-through freight,
local, or mixed.
Supplement No. 16 provided that all the monthly-rated service
should be established upon the mileage basis, paid the rates accord-
ing to class of service, and operated under the rules of the supple-
ment.
In accordance with question 91 and answer in Interpretation No. 1
to Supplement 16, the mileage rates were established to conform
therewith, and resulted in the following rates:
Port Lavaca, mixed run.
Beeville, mixed run----
Per 100 miles.
$4.41
4.35
DECISIONS.
851
Decision No. 2 added $1.04 to the above rates.
The employees claim question No. 60 and answer in Interpretation
No. 1 to Supplement 25, which provides that "where mixed service
was paid the through-freight rate, or less than the through-freight
rate, through-freight rate shall apply; where paid a special rate
which was higher than the through-freight rate, but less than the
local rate, local rate shall apply, but where the amounts of increase
produce rates higher than the local rates they shall be retained," en-
titles them to local rates of pay on the run in question.
The carrier claims that the rate of $83.49 was the rate applying to
through freight, local, and mixed service, and that it can not be
argued that the rate was in itself a local rate; that the service on
the two branches is light and does not nearly approximate local
service; and that the Director General of Railroads did not con-
template any reclassification of service.
Under date of March 1, 1921, the carrier advised that the conduc-
tors' general committee agreed in the schedule, effective May 1, 1920,
that the service in question was not local service and not subject to
local rates.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the rate of $4.81 for
brakemen on the Port Lavaca branch, mixed run, and $4.75 on the
Beeville branch, mixed run, is just and reasonable. The rates were
arrived at by adding the increases of Decision No. 2 and subtracting
the decreases of Decision No. 147 from the rate of $4.41, Port Lavaca
mixed run, and the rate of $4.35, Beeville mixed run.
DECISION NO. 1299.-DOCKET 248.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern
Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Claim for through-freight rates of pay in work-train
service on the three freight divisions west of Del Rio.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Employees' position.—Question 59 and answer thereto, Interpretation No. 1
to Supplement 25, reads:
Schedule contains a monthly work-train rate applicable to the system.
Should this be adjusted under this section or Article IX (a), and by what
method?
“Decision. In applying this section to work-train service, where heretofore
paid less than through freight, pay through-freight rate. Where heretofore
paid same as local freight, continue to pay local-freight rates. Where paid an
arbitrary rate more than through-freight rate, but less than local rate, pay
same amount of money in cents per day above the through-freight rate as
before. Where higher than local rate, pay same as before."
“Under the decision quoted, the committee would understand that the work-
train rate as shown above, being lower than the through-freight rate on the
divisions mentioned, should be increased to equal the through-freight rate.
Carrier's position. The carrier wishes to point out that the agreement with
conductors and brakemen at the time Supplements 16 and 25 became effective
contained a work-train article applying to the system as a whole and fixed a
uniform rate which was applicable to all divisions. It will be observed from
the foregoing that the system work-train rate for brakemen under the schedule
in effect at the time General Order No. 27 was issued was less than the,
through-freight rate on seven of the freight districts where rates in excess
of the standard through-freight rate were in effect and was higher than the
standard through-freight rate applicable on 13 of the other districts.
In applying the increases provided by Supplement 16, the work-train rate
applying to the system was higher than the standard through-freight rate
852
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
authorized by Supplement 16 on all divisions except the three divisions west
of Del Rio, where the mileage rate for through-freight service established
under General Order No. 27 was higher than the through-freight rates author-
ized by Supplement 16.
The committee is now claiming that the through-freight rates applying west
of Del Rio, which rates are higher than the through-freight rate authorized
by Supplements 16 and 25, should be applied to work-train service, and contend
that the work-train rate of $4.22 for brakemen on all other districts, which
is higher than the through-freight rate, be applied instead of the through-freight
rate authorized by General Order No. 27 and Supplement 16. Their contention
seems to be based on question 59 of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 25,
which the carrier holds does not support their claim, for the reason that the
reference made to through-freight rates in question 59 covers the through-
freight rates of the supplement, which is $4.08 per hundred miles for brakemen,
and does not apply to through-freight rates existing on certain divisions, which
are higher than the through-freight rates of the supplement. The work-train
rate per hundred miles under. Supplements 16 and 25 for brakemen is $4.22, or
14 cents in excess of the through-freight rate provided by the supplements men-
tioned, and the carrier contends that, inasmuch as the work-train rules applied
to the system as a whole, it is not now proper to have a varying work-train rate
for the different divisions.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that inasmuch as the agreed-
upon work-train rate of pay of $4.22 was in excess of the through-
freight rate of $4.08, established by Supplements 16 and 25 of the
United States Railroad Administration, that further increase is not
justified.
DECISION NO. 1300.-DOCKET 278.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Louis-
ville & Nashville Railroad.
Question. Claim of C. A. Smith, conductor, for payment of time
which elapsed between the end of deadhead trip and the beginning
of service trip at intermediate point.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Conductor Smith was called to leave Montgomery, his
home terminal, at 11:10 a. m., April 3, 1920, upon a freight train to deadhead
to Georgianna (60 miles), an outlying point, to make a service trip with power
assigned to Local freight trains that lay up there over nights and on Sundays,
arriving there at 2.30 p. m., called to depart from Georgianna on a service
trip at 5.30 p. m., running south to Flomaton (60 miles), turning there, run-
ning back in service to Montgomery, his home terminal (120 miles), arriving
at 10.05 a. m., and relieved at 10.40 a. m., April 4, for which he was paid 60
miles at through-freight rates for the deadhead trip and allowed through-
freight rates for the service trip of 180 miles and 3 hours and 16 minutes
overtime.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that, under the provisions of
the agreement, the carrier has no right to relieve conductors assigned to chain-
gang service between terminals except under the hours-of-service law without
pay, and asks that Conductor Smith be paid the 2 hours and 30 minutes that
he lay over at Georgianna.
Carrier's position.-Conductor Smith was paid actual miles at through-
freight rates for the deadhead trip independently of the service trip and then
paid for the subsequent service trip on the usual basis; having done this, we
hold that we have correctly fulfilled our obligations under the agreement.
It is the contention of the employees in support of this claim that we had
no right to relieve Conductor Smith at Georgianna, and that we should there-
fore have paid him continuously. But, since the conductors have insisted upon
independent pay for all deadhead trips, we believe we had a right to relieve
Mr. Smith upon his arrival at that point and use him in other service later,
as was done. Had we not so used him within 10 hours after his arrival at
DECISIONS.
853
Georgianna, he would have received a minimum day for the deadhead trip,
as called for under section (b), Article XII, of the agreement.
Prior to the date of this occurrence, we had maintained for some time that
the deadhead rule (as covered by the article quoted) should apply only at
points at which conductors could be relieved—that is, at terminal points. But
this was not acceptable to the conductors, who contended for independent dead-
head pay in all cases, and we finally conceded the point. Consequently, it
would only be logical that, if this method of payment were applied to this case,
the other conditions of the same rules should also be of equal application.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the claim of the em-
ployees is not justified.
DECISION NO. 1301.DOCKET 280.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Order of Railway Conductors; Brother-
hood of Railway Trainmen.
Question. Claim of conductors that switching-run rate of pay be
allowed on Nos. 27 and 28, etc.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts-On June 12, 1920, a new freight run was established,
designated as Nos. 27 and 28, to perform one round trip daily between Chipley
and River Junction, Fla. (distance, 44 miles each way). The bulletin adver-
tising the run stated that through-freight rates of pay would apply, and it
was bid on and accepted on that basis. A regular local freight, Nos. 38 and 39,
also operates over the same territory.
The run in question performs service substantially as follows: Leaving
Chipley it handles all through loads and empties brought to that point by train
No. 23 (through freight from Pensacola to Chipley, put on the same day as
train No. 27) and also short loads and empties for points between Chipley
and River Junction. Returning, it handles the through cars on hand at the
latter point, and also short loads and empties as on the outgoing trip. In both
directions, it does the necessary station switching, occasioned by setting off or
picking up loads or empties as required.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that trains Nos. 27 and 28,
operating in turn-around service between Chipley and River Junction, are
required to perform station switching daily, thereby making it a switching
run; and as the service performed classified the run for rate of pay, the
committee contends that the run should be paid as provided for in section (d),
Article IV of the agreement.
Carrier's position.-For some time prior to the establishment of this run, it
was necessary on account of increased tonnage to run a second section of
train No. 25 (a through freight from Pensacola to River Junction, passing
through Chipley), in order to handle overflow through tonnage and empties
for points between Chipley and River Junction. On this account, it was
deemed proper to make a new arrangement and on the date mentioned new
runs were put on to operate between Pensacola and Chipley, trains Nos. 23 and
24, and another to make a round trip between Chipley and River Junction,
trains Nos. 27 and 28, this latter being the run now in controversy.
This run is not a local freight, nor does the conductor's committee so claim,
but their claim is that as it does some part of the station switching, which
at times was formerly performed by the local run, it should thereby be con-
sidered a switching run and paid the rates applicable to that service.
We maintain that this is not a switching rum; that it can not be so called
under a proper acceptation of that term; and that the only correct classifica-
tion to be applied to it is that of through freight, and, as shown in the joint
statement of facts, we have been paying the rates pertaining to this class of
service. Switching between terminals does not change the classification of
a through-freight train nor the rate applicable to it, as is clearly set out in
paragraph (c), page 5, of the director general's memorandum dated December
17, 1919, and as upheld in decisions of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1-
for example, its Docket No. 1964, which covered a case on this railroad.
854
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. It is contended by the carrier that the run in ques-
tion was not intended to do local freight work, which is taken care
of by regular local trains Nos. 38 and 39. The employees show
nothing to the contrary.
The claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1302.-DOCKET 282.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Nevada Northern Railway Co.
Question. Request of the employees in train and engine service
that the increases specified in Articles VI and VII of Decision No. 2
of the Railroad Labor Board be applied to the wage scale in effect
on the Nevada Northern Railway as of May 1, 1920.
Statement.-At the hearings before the Labor Board in connection
with the employees' request for increased wages and changed work-
ing conditions, Mr. E. T. Whiter, representing the Association of
Railway Executives, certified that he was duly authorized to repre-
sent the Nevada Northern Railway Co., upon which certification this
carrier was named in Decision No. 2.
Interpretation No. 2 to Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board pro-
vides that the phrase reading, "The rates established by or under
the authority of the United States Railroad Administration," means
the rates in effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the increases specified in
Articles VI and VII of Decision No. 2 shall be added to the rates in
effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920, for the employees involved in
this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1303.-DOCKET 283.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Order of Railway Conductors; Brother-
hood of Railroad Trainmen.
Question.-Request of carrier for amendment to schedule rule 47.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Existing schedule with Order of Railway Conductors
and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen confines pusher service to Atoka, Deni-
son. Shreveport, and Houston. The management served 30 days' notice on
the organizations of their desire to amend the rule so as to also provide for
pusher service at Osage, Okla. Being unable to agree as to conditions under
which this service may be operated, the matter is submitted to Labor Board for
decision.
Employees' position.—We contend that pusher service properly belongs to
roadmen and that the changing of yard limits from Osage to Mahan (5 miles),
and the subsequent handling of tonnage by yard engines from Osage to Mahan,
where it is picked up by road crews, was sharp practice on the part of the
railroad.
The employees made a concession to the railroad in agreeing to rule 47,
reading:
"The railroads agree not to run double-headers, except in cases of wrecks,
snow blockades, and working engines to and from shops, in which cases the
tonnage of trains moved will be limited to what the larger of the engines pro-
pelling such trains can handle over the division without doubling. Vinegar,
DECISIONS.
855
Kansas, Bells, and Brookshire Hills will be excepted so far as doubling is con-
cerned.
"Pusher service will be confined to Denison, Atoka, Shreveport, and
Houston.'
The carrier is now double-heading and pushing trains with yard engines be-
tween Osage and Mahan, in violation of rule 47. The carrier has also been
using yard crews in hauling tonnage between Osage and Mahan.
The employees ask that road crews be assigned to this pusher service; or
if it is decided that yard engines may be continued in this service, then com-
pensation shall be rendered according to paragraph (b), Article XX of Supple-
ment 25 to General Order No. 27.
Carrier's position.—Our new recently constructed train yard at Osage, Okla.,
is located at foot of 1 per cent grade and trains with full through tonnage
can not be handled up the hill Osage to Mahan, all within yard limits, without
assistance. Similar conditions were recognized and provided for in the past
by the adoption of a pusher rule which permitted yard engines to assist trains
out of Houston, Shreveport, Ray-Denison, and Atoka yards, without extra
compensation.
Nearing the completion of our new yard we notified the organizations of our
desire to amend rule 47 so as to also include pusher service at Osage to
take care of a pressing need and requirement there. They have indicated a
willingness to agree to such an amendment, provided the carrier will allow
the yardmen extra compensation based on actual minutes, with minimum of
one hour for each train assisted out of the yard.
We do not think this is reasonable, as at the time the pusher article was
agreed upon, the conditions at Osage were materially different from the pres-
ent. They are now properly comparable with the conditions at stations above
enumerated, where pusher service is authorized, and we do not feel that we are
unreasonable in asking that this service be performed by yard crews without
extra compensation. This for the reason that since the original arrangement
was first entered into, the wages of yardmen have been very materially in-
creased, their hours of service reduced, and overtime hours placed on basis
of time and one-half; further, that during the time they are engaged in pusher
service, they could not be performing yard duties as well, and the pusher
service being of a less arduous nature than the yard service, could not be
regarded as imposing extra burdens on the men, certainly not to the extent that
would justify the payment of duplicate time which would be involved by
granting the request to continue the payment at yard rates for the entire period
of service and in addition thereto pay compensation above stated for the time
they are engaged in assisting trains out of the yard.
We think all concerned agree as to the necessity for this service at Osage,
and since it is in the direction of improved and efficient service and of benefit
to the men as well as to the carrier, the service should be authorized without
additional compensation.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that when yard engineers
assist trains beyond the switching limits, paragraph (ỏ), Article
XX, of Supplement 25 to General Order No. 27, applies, but does
not apply within the switching limits.
DECISION NO. 1304.-DOCKET 284.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Western
Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim for initial switching time and final terminal
delay and switching on Portola-Keddie local freight from February
3, 1919, date of bulletin assigning crews.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-Bulletin 22, dated February 3, 1919, reads as fol-
lows:
"Bids will be received in this office until 12 noon, February 13, for one con-
ductor and three brakemen on local between Oroville and Keddie; Sunday lay-
over at Oroville.
856
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
*
"One conductor and three brakemen, local between Portola and Keddie;
Sunday lay-over at P'ortola."
Sections 5, 6, and 7, Article II of agreement between this carrier and its
employees, are quoted below:
"SEC. 5. Terminal switching.-Actual time consumed by freight crews in
switching at district terminals, when road service is not less than 100 miles or
covers entire distance of district, will be paid for on the basis of 1 mile for each
4.8 minutes, actual minutes to be counted.
“SEC. 6. Initial terminal delay and switching.-In freight service, crews
making not less than 100 miles or passing entirely over the district, when held
at initial district terminal one hour, will receive one hour's pay in addition
to the miles and time consumed in making the trip. If held over one hour
will be paid on the basis of pro rata overtime, actual minutes to be counted.
Where both switching and initial delay occur at same district terminal, total
time will be computed as switching.
“SEC. 7. Final terminal delay and switching. In freight service, crews mak-
ing not less than 100 miles or passing entirely over the district will be paid
terminal delay after the lapse of one hour at the overtime rate. Where both
switching and final terminal delay occur at same district terminal the total
time will be computed as switching, 1 mile for each 4.8 minutes."
Sections 1 and 2, Article VII of same agreement, read as follows:
SEC. 1. Terminals.-The following stations are established as division and
district terminals:
"Division terminals: Oakland, Gerlach, and Salt Lake City.
District terminals: Oakland, Stockton, Oroville, Portola, Gerlach, Winne-
mucca, Elko, Wendover, and Salt Lake City.
SEC. 2. Definition of a terminal.—Terminals are the points where runs begin
or end.
A turning point on a turnaround run shall be considered as an inter-
mediate point on a continuous run.'
Employees' position.-The employees contend that Keddie and Portola are the
terminals under sections 1 and 2 of Article VII for crews assigned to work be-
tween Portola and Keddie, one way each day (except Sunday), distance 40
miles, which constitutes their assigned district; and that crews should be paid
for initial terminal switching and final terminal delay and switching under
sections 5, 6, and 7 of Article II.
Section 2 of Article VII defines that terminals are the points where runs
begin or end, and was adopted for the purpose of establishing districts when
desired other than those designated in section 1 of Article VII.
Carrier's position.--The third district, western division, has Oroville for its
western and Portola for its eastern district terminals. Keddie, an intermediate
station, is located 40 miles west of Portola. Owing to the fact that there is a
1 per cent grade eastward for 100 miles on this district and the local work is
heavy, two local crews are used-one between Oroville and Keddie, and an-
other between Keddie and Portola; eastward one day, westward the next.
The carrier has declined to pay initial switching and final terminal delay on the
Portola-Keddie local, basing its authority for so doing on sections 5, 6, and
7 of Article II of present agreement with conductors and trainmen, which
provide that the time as claimed is not paid for until crews have made 100
miles, or have passed entirely over the district. The contention of the em-
ployees that section 2 of Article VII was adopted for the purpose of establish-
ing districts, is incorrect. It was adopted for the purpose of establishing termi-
nals of short runs such as the one in argument.
tables and transportations rules, established the
stood when the schedule was written.
and fully explained in working time-tables.
Section 1 of Article VII, time-
districts and it was so under-
District terminals are clearly shown
The only question is: Do sections 5, 6, and 7 of Article II mean what they
say? The carrier contends that these articles are clearly worded, should not
be misunderstood, and were incorporated in the agreement to care for such
runs as that between Portola and Keddie. There is no justice in a claim for
terminal delay or work when a crew is required to run but 40 miles and is
paid 100 miles therefor, except when on duty more than eight hours. Time and
one-half is paid in all freight service for all time on duty longer than eight
hours.
Decision. The matter complained of in the dispute, having oc-
curred before the passage of the transportation act, 1920, by which
DECISIONS.
857
the Labor Board was created, the board decides that it has no juris-
diction of the dispute.
The case is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1305.-DOCKET 302.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of George P. Smith, yardman, Glendive yard.
Štatement.—The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-George P. Smith, yardman, regularly assigned as
engine foreman, Glendive yard, was used temporarily as yardmaster on May
29, 1920, the assignment as yardmaster calling for a total spread of 12 hours.
Yardmasters are given one hour off for meals.
Paragraph (c), rule 1, Article IV of the yardmen's schedule, reads as fol-
lows:
Yardmen assigned to other than their regular duties will be paid the
established rate for the service performed, but in no case shall the yardman
so assigned be paid less than on the basis of their regular rates."
Mr. Smith was allowed the engine foreman's rate for the hours worked as
yardmaster, which was in excess of the regular yardmaster's salary, and in
computing the allowance one hour was deducted for the meal period. Mr.
Smith being allowed one day and three hours' overtime at time and one-half
at the engine foreman's rate.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that paragraph (c), rule 1,
Article IV of the yardmen's schedule, reading as follows-" Yardmen assigned
to other than their regular duties will be paid the established rate for the
service performed, but in no case shall the yardman so assigned be paid less
than on the basis of their regular rates "—provides, in substance, that yard-
men assigned to other duties shall in no case be paid less than on the basis
of their regular rates; and that the basis of their regular rates include the
following conditions: First, an hourly rate as provided for in Artcle IV,
rule 1 (a)-
Foremen
Helpers
Switchtenders.
Per day.
Per hour.
$6.96
$0.87
6.48
. 81
5.04
63
and, second, a minimum-day guaranty as provided for in rule 2—
66
Eight hours, or less, shall constitute a day's work
with overtime in excess of eight hours at the rate of one and one-half times
the hourly rate, which is provided for in rule 3, first paragraph, reading:
"
Except when changing off where it is the practice to work alternately days
and nights for certain periods, working through two shifts to change off; or
where exercising seniority rights from one assignment to another; or when extra
men are required by schedule rules to be used (any rules to the contrary to
be changed accordingly), all time worked in excess of eight hours continuous
service in a 24-hour period shall be paid for as overtime, on the minute basis,
at one and one-half times the hourly rate. This rule applies only to service
paid on an hourly or daily basis and not to service paid on mileage or road
basis."
The rules provide for the continuity of time as provided for in rule 8 (a):
"Yard crews and switchtenders will be allowed 20 minutes for lunch between
4 and 6 hours after starting work without deduction in pay."
We, therefore, request that the time of Mr. Smith, engine foreman, be com-
puted on a continuous-time basis and that he be reimbursed for the time lost
because of the one hour being deducted.
Carrier's position.-George P. Smith, engine foreman, was used to fill a
temporary position as yardmaster on May 29, 1920. This assignment called
for 11 hours' work within a spread of 12. Paragraph (c), rule 1 of Article
IV, quoted in the joint statement, provides that yardmen shall be paid not less
than on the basis of their regular rates, which is understood to mean when the
858
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
yardman's hourly rate multiplied by the hours worked as yardmaster is in ex-
cess of the yardmaster's daily pay that the yardman's hourly rate will govern,
and as yardmasters are given one hour off for meals it is the contention of the
management that it is proper to deduct this hour, which yardmasters do not
work, from the total spread of time.
Mr. Smith covered a spread of 12 hours in filling the assignment as tempo-
rary yardmaster on May 29, and taking out one hour for meals he actually
worked 11 hours, and under the rule referred to Mr. Smith was entitled to one
day's pay at the engine foreman's rate and three hours' overtime at one and
one-half times the engine foreman's hourly rate for time in excess of eight
hours, which is greater than the regular yardmaster's daily pay.
This conforms to various decisions rendered by Railway Board of Adjust-
ment No. 1 on similar cases submitted to them by other lines, particular at-
tention being directed to Board No. 1's decision in Docket Case No. 1980 *
*
It is the carrier's understanding of the board's decision in this case that the
hours worked multiplied by the yardman's hourly rate will be allowed, and if
this is not equal to the yardmaster's regular rate that the yardmaster's rate
will govern. If the contention of the yardmen is correct, this would in many
instances result in creating a monthly or daily rate greatly in excess of that
paid to regular yardmasters. For illustration, if a regular yardmaster receiv-
ing the rate of $280-which is the rate paid the regular yardmaster at Glen-
dive—lays off for a period of 28 days, and the position is filled by a switch
foreman and paid on the basis as claimed by the men, this would produce a
monthly compensation of $341.04, amounting to $61.04 more than the compen-
sation paid the regular yardmaster. Under the method followed by the car-
rier in the example cited, the allowance to the engine foreman for the same
period would amount to $304.36, or an increase of $24.36 over the regular
yardmaster's pay.
*
It is the position of the carrier when engine foremen have been paid the
engine foreman's rate per hour as applied to the actual hours worked as yard-
master, which in this case was 11 hours within a spread of 12, producing a
rate of compensation higher than that allowed regular yardmasters, that the
schedule rules have been complied with.
Decision. The rule does not guarantee, when employees in ques-
tion are assigned to other than their regular duties, that they shall
be paid not less than the earnings of their regular assignment, and
in view of the fact that the conditions of meal period applicable to
the yardmaster's position were accorded to and accepted by Mr.
Smith, the Labor Board decides that the payment as made was just
and reasonable.
DECISION NO. 1306.-DOCKET 321.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Question. Claim of W. E. Ferrier, conductor, for a minimum day
on account of extra trip in passenger service.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Conductor Ferrier, regularly assigned in passenger
service, operating under short turnaround rule daily, between Sedalia and
Columbia, Mo., distance 66 miles, during September, 1920, worked the entire
month, for which he was credited with 150 miles daily, or 4,500 miles for the
month.
On September 19, 1920, he was required to make a side trip on Hannibal
branch, outside of his assigned run, from New Franklin to Fayette, Mo., and
return, distance 22 miles round trip.
One hundred and fifty miles were claimed for the extra trip on Hannibal
branch in addition to the monthly guaranty of $217. No extra compensation
DECISIONS.
859
was rendered, the carrier claiming the right to require 4,675 miles for the
money-monthly guaranty of $217.
Employees' position.-Under general regulations, article 32, conductors' and
brakemen's schedule, reads as follows:
Trainmen assigned to regular runs will not be required to make short runs
in addition to their regular service, except in case of emergency, when, unless
otherwise provided, a minimum day will be allowed for the extra service in
addition to the time earned on their regular runs.”
The employees contend that article 32, wherein the carrier has agreed they
will not require trainmen to make short runs in addition to their regular
service except in emergency, and providing payment for a minimum day in
event so used, is operative now the same as when passenger service was on a
monthly basis.
Question No. 10, Interpretation No. 1, to Supplement 25, clearly covers this
case, setting forth the fact that 30 minimum days with daily mileage of less
than 150 miles does equal the monthly guaranty.
This contention is further supported by a settlement arrived at between
representatives of the Director General of Railroads and the representatives
of the four train-service organizations, signed by C. S. Lake, in Memorandum
No. 16-37 covering controversy between Kansas City Southern Railroad and
their conductors and trainmen, as follows:
Question.—On assignments of 30 days per month, with daily mileage less
than 150 miles, may extra service be required to make up the daily guaranties?
“Decision.-No. Thirty minimum days equal the guaranty regardless of
mileage made. (See Decision No. 11, Interpretation No. 1.)"
Carrier's position.-It has been the practice, sanctioned and concurred in by
the train-service organizations, not to allow compensation in excess of $217
per month to passenger conductors ready and available for service during the
entire month, unless and until mileage made exceeds 4,675 per month, in which
case the miles are paid at authorized rate.
We think this practice is fully supported by interpretations to Supplements
16 and 25, and to grant the contention of the employees would be, in effect,
to provide a daily guaranty, when, as a matter of fact, only monthly guaranty
is provided for.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the payment of actual
miles for the extra passenger service rendered between New Franklin
and Fayette, Mo., on September 19, 1920, was just and reasonable
and in conformity with the rules.
The claim for payment of a minimum day is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1307.-DOCKET 325.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Order of Railway
Conductors v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Question. Request that schedule rules regarding designated points
for yard crews going on and off duty at Oklahoma City, Okla., be
complied with.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.—Article 19 of the engineers' and firemen's schedule reads,
in part, as follows:
"Time will begin when required to report for duty and end at time engine is
placed on designated track or fireman is released from care of the engine inclu-
sive of time off for meals, except as provided in section (c) of the rule govern-
ing meal periods. In the beginning and ending of day there shall be a specified
point for going on and off duty. Switch enginemen will be given 10 minutes'
time in which to prepare their engines for service, when going on duty, wliere
such service is required of them."
At Oklahoma City, Okla., certain yard crews that work at Packingtown,
which is within the Oklahoma City terminal, are required to report for duty at
20936°-23—55
860
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Oklahoma City roundhouse, go to Packingtown, a distance of about 4 miles,
work their assigned shift, and then are relieved from duty at Packingtown, or
vice versa.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that yard crews must be re-
lieved from duty at the same point at which they are required to report for
duty, in accordance with the above-quoted rule.
Carrier's position.-It has been the practice at Oklahoma City for crews on
certain engines to start work at one designated point and cease work at another
designated point, and, while there has been some controversy on this subject,
we feel this practice is authorized under schedule article above quoted and is
fully supported by Article XVIII of Supplements 24 and 25, as follows:
"Provisions of existing rules that there shall be a specified point for either
going on or off duty, or both, are not affected by anything herein, but schedules
having no such rules shall be modified to provide that yard crews shall have a
designated point for going on duty and a designated point for going off duty."
It is further shown that interpretations clearly sustain this practice and
require only that the point for going on duty, also the point for going off duty,
although different, must be the same each day until changed by proper bulletin.
Decision. The Labor Board sustains the position of the carrier
in this particular case.
DECISION NO. 1308.-DOCKET 328.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Kansas
City Southern Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of Mr. Crabtree, conductor, and crew for con-
tinuous time.
Statement.—The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Mr. Crabtree and crew were called at De Queen at 6
a. m., July 2, 1920, to handle train No. 55 to Shreveport, a distance of 126 miles.
Arrived at Texarkana, a point 55 miles south of De Queen, at 10.30 a. m.
Engine on passenger train No. 1 had failed, and the engine handling train
No. 55 was taken to handle train No. 1, Texarkana to Shreveport. Train No. 1
left Texarkana 11 a. m., and arrived at Shreveport at 2.10 p. m.
Mr. Crabtree and crew were deadheaded from Texarkana to Shreveport on
train No. 1 and were paid 126 miles for the combined service and deadheading
De Queen to Shreveport; caboose remained at Texarkana until 5.15 p. m.,
when it was picked up and handled to Shreveport, arriving at 9.25 p. m.
Article XV, paragraph (a), of trainmen's schedule, effective February 19,
1920, 'reads as follows:
When freight trainmen deadhead with caboose, first crew out will be dead-
headed, second crew out will run the train. On reaching terminal, the crew
deadheaded will stand ahead of the crew on train on which deadheaded. When
necessary to deadhead crew and caboose, the crew will deadhead with caboose.
Should a trainman be deadheaded on freight train without caboose, he will be
allowed full rates and used as an additional man when necessary and paid for
class of service performed. Freight trainmen deadheading under instructions
for service will be allowed full rates for the miles or hours, whichever is the
greater, at the rate for the class of service that caused such deadheading, with
guaranty of minimum day, except when deadheading is combined with service,
combined deadheading and service will be paid on a basis of miles or hours,
whichever is the greater, from time called to deadhead until relieved from serv-
ice or vice versa. No allowance will be made for deadheading to relieve others
who lay off of their own accord or when exercising seniority rights."
Employees' position.-The employees' position is that the time of this crew
should be continuous from time required to go on duty at commencement of
trip until arrival of their caboose at final terminal due to the failure of the
carrier to comply with schedule rule which provides, “when necessary to dead-
head caboose the crew will deadhead with caboose," taking the position_that
under the rule the carrier has not the right to separate the crew and the
caboose.
DECISIONS.
861
Carrier's position.-The carrier holds that the service performed by Mr.
Crabtree, conductor, and crew is properly classified under paragraph (a),
Article XV, as deadheading combined with service. Article XV reads, in part,
as follows:
"When freight trainmen deadhead with caboose, first crew out will be dead-
headed, second crew out will run the train. On reaching the terminal, the
crew deadheaded will stand ahead of the crew on train on which deadheaded.
When necessary to deadhead crew and caboose, the crew will deadhead with
caboose."
This clearly outlines the method to be followed when necessary to deadhead
crews out of terminals, or between district terminals.
A portion of Article XV reads:
((
Except, when deadheading is combined with service, combined deadheading
and service will be paid on a basis of miles or hours, whichever is the greater,
from time called to deadhead until relieved from service or vice versa."
This provides how payment shall be made for deadheading combined with
service, or service identical with that performed by Conductor Crabtree and
crew, which was as follows: Departed from De Queen initial terminal, on
train 55 at 6 a. m., with Shreveport as destination terminal, ran train 55 miles
to Texarkana, an intermediate station on the run, and deadheaded to Shreve-
port, 71 miles, on passenger train arriving at the home terminal at 2.10 p. m.
Total time on duty was 8 hours and 10 minutes, for which crew was allowed
126 miles' pay, or the equivalent of 10 hours' and 5 minutes' service.
Mr. Crabtree is claiming pay for all time between 6 a. m. and 9.25 p. m., at
which hour last named his caboose arrived at Shreveport; he is claiming pay
for 7 hours and 15 minutes after he arrived at his home terminal, after being
tied up, and after being released from duty, which the carrier feels is unreason-
able and not authorized by the agreement.
Decision.-Claim for continuous time by Mr. Crabtree, conductor,
and crew is not justified and is therefore denied. The crew were
properly compensated under the schedule of wages.
DECISION NO. 1309.-DOCKET 334.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Protective Order of Railroad Trainmen in America v. International & Great
Northern Railway.
Question.-Request that Decision No. 2 be applied to certain em-
ployees working on passenger trains.
Statement. The employees contend that inasmuch as Supplement
12, issued by the United State Railroad Administration, was applied
to their positions, and they received the rates as specified therein,
and as they were performing the duties and receiving the pay of
passenger brakemen regardless of the fact that the carrier designated
them as "train porters," and as Decision No. 2 provided for increases
applicable to brakemen's positions, they should, therefore, benefit by
its application.
The carrier states that Decision No. 2 was not applied to the
employees in question; that supplement 12 was applied, but that just
prior to the issuance of Decision No. 2, a bulletin was issued relieving
the employees from the duties prescribed for brakemen under the
book of rules; and, further, that the employees may have performed
some of the duties thereafter in emergency-such as throwing a
switch, etc.-under the instructions of a conductor, but that as the
employees in question in service on May 1, 1920, the effective date of
Decision No. 2, were train porters and were not required by the
862
· DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
carrier to perform the duties of brakemen, they therefore were not
entitled to the increases contained in Decision No. 2 as the decision
does not apply to train porters.
Decision. The provisions of Decision No. 2 do not apply to the
positions of train porters.
DECISION NO. 1310.-DOCKET 374.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad.
Question.—Request for coal passers at Grays, Shawano, and
Crookton, on the third division of the Rio Grande Railroad.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-This complaint originated on the first district of the
third division. Salida to Gunnison (narrow gauge), approximately 74 miles.
Mileage and grades are as follows:
Salida (terminal), 18.9 miles-2.3 per cent and 4 per cent grade ascending
west.
Grays (coal by hand from bin), 6.7 miles-4 per cent grade ascending west.
Marshall Pass (summit 4 per cent grade), 4.2 miles-4 per cent grade ascend-
ing east.
Shawano, 123 miles-1.88 per cent to 4 per cent grade ascending east.
*Sargent (incline coaling station), 8.3 miles-1 per cent to 1.28 per cent
grade ascending east.
Crookton, 23.6 miles-0.5 per cent to 0.9 per cent grade ascending east.
Total, 74 miles-Gunnison (terminal).
*All east-bound trains take coal at Sargent.
Employces' position. On west-bound trips from Salida to Gunnison firemen
are running out of coal between Salida and Grays frequently, and are reaching
for and shoveling down coal every trip before they reach Grays, which is
approximately 7 miles from the top of the hill.
On east-bound movements, firemen are reaching for and shoveling down
coal between Gunnison and Crookton.
This case involves the application of Article XII, Chicago arbitration award
of April 30, 1915, and article 69 of the engineers' and firemen's schedule.
The matter was previously referred to and final decision received from
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1, January 10, 1921, reading as follows:
"After careful consideration of the facts submitted, the board finds that
there is not enough evidence to further amplify their decision in Case
No. 2051. In addition to that fact, the board at this time would not have
jurisdiction in the matter, as no claim against the United States Railroad
Administration is involved."
It is the contention of the organization that Article XII of the award
of 1915, and article 69 of the enginemen's schedule, apply to narrow gauge the
same as standard locomotives, and, regardless of the amount of coal consumed or
the class of locomotive, or width of the railroad, the intent and purpose
of Article XII, arbitration award of 1915. was to keep the coal within reach
of the firemen from the deck of the engine on all coal-burning locomotives,
which is all the firemen are asking in this matter, and it is not being done
between the points in question,
and this fact has been determined
time and again since the controversy came up, and this the management
admits, but insists that the amount of coal consumed and the character
of the service is such that it is not necessary to grant the required assist-
ance
*
Carrier's position. This controversy involves the proper application of
Article XII of the award in the arbitration between the western railroads.
and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, dated April
30, 1915, and article 69 of the current agreement between the Denver & Rio
Grande Railroad and the engineers, firemen, and hostlers.
1
863
DECISIONS.
The question was submitted to Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1 of the
United States Railroad Administration, and hearings were held at Wash-
ington on March 11, 1919, in its Docket Case No. 734. The case was
again submitted to Board of Adjustment No. 1 and handled in its Docket
Case No. 2051, and subsequently presented to the same board on December
4, 1920, resulting in a letter decision dated January 4, 1921. * * *
The carrier contends that Article XII of the Chicago award resulted from
complaints that the firing of modern-type, heavy-freight locomotives re-
quired the constant exercise of extreme physical effort, which necessitated
such relief as could be afforded by passing coal forward in the tenders.
Particular stress was devoted to the firing requirements of the large con-
solidation and mikado locomotives with tractive power of 50,000 pounds or
more being placed in operation at that time on low-grade lines of the Middle
West for the handling of drag freight trains at slow speed. As a result of
th's complaint, tests were made of the firing capacity of firemen on various
roads, which showed a sustained firing capacity by firemen on this line of
approximately 6,000 pounds per hour and a maximum capacity for short
periods of 20 per cent to 25 per cent greater.
The carrier further contends that no thought was given, in consideration
of this award, to narrow-gauge locomotive (maximum tractive effort 27,000
pounds), to the sustained firing requirements which for this line does not
exceed 40 per cent of that for standard-gauge locomotive and to the tender
capacities which are only from 6 to 8 tons, as compared with 14 to 21 tons for
standard-gauge locomotives.
Tests have been made in this territory, the results of which are recapitulated
as follows:
Eastbound
(1) DENNISON-CROCKTON.

POct. 6, 1919
Oct. 3, 1919
Oct. 1, 1919..
Average.
Date.
Date.
Coal handled.
Engine.
Time.
Total
pounds.
Average
pounds
per hour.
(2) CROOKTON-SARGENT.
H. m.
459
2 15
5,295
2,353
458
1 50
4, 215
2,299
450
2 05
4,560
2, 189
2,280

Coal handled.
Engine.
Time.
Total
pounds.
Average
pounds
per hour.
H. m.
459
0 55
2,700
458
0 55
1,860
2,946
2, 029
450
0 45
3, 440
4,588
3, 191
Oct. 6, 1919.
Oct. 3, 1919
Oct. 1, 1919.
Average..
Oct. 6, 1919..
Oct. 3, 1919.
Oct. 1, 1919..
Average.
(3) SARGENT-MARSHALL PASS.

459
3 10
5,370
1,694
458
2 05
4, 635
2, 129
450
2 30
6,000
2,400
2,074
864
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Westbound.
(1) SALIDA-GRAY.

Date.
Coal handled.
Engine.
Time.
Total
pounds.
Average
pounds
per hour.
Oct. 1, 1919.
Oct. 4, 1919..
Oct. 2, 1919..
Average..
Oct. 1, 1919..
Oct. 4, 1919.
(2) GRAYS-MARSHALL PASS.
Oct. 2, 1919.
Average.
Eastbound:
Engine 459..
Engine 458..
Engine 450
Average..
Westbound:
Engine 454.
Engine 452.
Engine 450..
Average.
H. m.
454
452
2 15
4,725
2,100
458
2 40
10, 635
3,983
3,042

454
452
1 15
2, 460
1,968.
458
0 55
2,625
2,863
2, 415
Average pounds handled per hour, all districts.

Date.
Pounds.
Oct.
6. 1919
2,111
Oct.
3, 1919
2,215
Oct.
1, 1919
2,627 ·
2,317
Oct.
1, 1919
1,728
Oct.
4, 1919
2, 053
Oct.
2, 1919
3, 701
2,494
Pounds.
1,575
6, 000
Average pounds coal consumed per locomotive per hour all narrow-
gauge lines of system (from fuel report)
Maximum sustained firing capacity per hour for firemen per 1915 test_
Triple engine trains, Salida-Marshall Pass.

Nov. 13, 1920……….
Nov. 14, 1920..
Nov. 16, 1920…….
Average...
Date.
Coal handled.
Engine.
Time.
H. m.
274
Average
Total
pounds. pounds
per hour.
7 50 14,000
1,788
454
7 50 15,000
1, 914
500
7 50
11,000
1,404
456
5 55 14,000
2,400
218
5 55
11,000
1, 860
285
5 55
11,000
1,860
218
6 50
10,000
1,464
457
6 50
16,000
2,340
400
6 50
10,000
1, 464
1,832
Traveling, engineer making tests states that—
"The three trips that I made were not under the most favorable conditions,
as it was during the night part of the time when at this time of year we have
the cold and a frosty rail to contend with, and part of the engines were coaled
DECISIONS.
865
from the ground, which coal had more or less dirt in it on account of coal
chute at Salida being out of order. But with these conditions none of the fire-
men were overworked, as the class of engines in this territory does not burn
coal fast enough when working at slow speed to make it hard work, and when
it is necessary to shovel down coal on these engines it only takes a few min-
utes. Am satisfied that when we get the Crested Butte coal out of Salida it
will not be necessary to shovel down any coal, as the narrow-gauge engine will
steam freer on this grade of coal and burn less of it. I can not recommend
that coal passers be put on in this territory.”
The carrier admits that it is necessary at times to reach for or
shovel down coal in this territory, but argues that the wording of
Article XII, reading, "So that it can be reached by firemen from
deck of locomotive," was not intended to require coal passers for
narrow-gauge locomotives on a short-mileage and light-traffic dis-
trict, 50 per cent of which is descending grade requiring very little
physical effort, and the remainder ascending grade requiring less
than one-half of the sustained effort necessary on standard-gauge
locomotives.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the request for coal
passers at Grays, Shawano, and Crookton for shoveling coal forward
on tenders of narrow-gauge engines is not justified.
DECISION NO. 1311.-DOCKET 377.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Question. Request that rates and rules as set forth in Decision
No. 2 of the Labor Board be incorporated in the schedule covering
engineers and firemen.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Statement of facts.-The schedules of the engineers and firemen on the New
York, Ontario & Western Railroad covering rates of pay and working condi-
tions, effective as of December 1, 1919, were made with the representatives
of the United States Railroad Administration and the engineers and firemen,
and were signed by B. P. Flory, superintendent of motive power, representing
the Administration.
The schedules contained only the rates of pay and rules of General Order No.
27 and supplements, together with the rules that were in the schedules prior to
Federal control not effected by the orders and supplements.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that the schedules should now
be revised and the rates and rules as set forth in Decision No. 2 should now
be incorporated therein, as provided in section 6, Article XIII of the decision,
which reads as follows:
'SEC. 6. The increases in wages and the rates hereby established shall be
incorporated in and become a part of existing agreements or schedules."
The employees further contend that after this is done the schedules should
then be signed by the representatives of the New York, Ontario & Western
Railroad Co. as an agreement between the railroad and the engineers and fire-
men, instead of an agreement between the United States Railroad Administra-
tion and the engineers and firemen.
The employees further contend that there should be no changes made in the
existing rules or rates of the schedules except as ordered by Decision No. 2 of
the United States Railroad Labor Board.
In conference with the general manager of the New York, Ontario & Western
Railroad Co., he declined to revise the schedules and incorporate the
decision of the United States Railroad Labor Board, and he also declined to
866
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
join the committee in a joint submission of the controversy; therefore, the
committee is submitting this matter to the board for a decision.
Carrier's position. This dispute arises from the fact that the carrier declines
to substitute its corporate name in place of the Director General of Railroads
in the agreements which were continued under Decision No. 2 of the United
States Railroad Labor Board.
About January 26, 1921, the carrier received a letter from the organizations
representing the employees, copy of which is attached, and you will please note
that the request is not for the incorporation of the provisions of Decision
No. 2, but a request to change the titles of the schedules to read with the rail-
way company instead of with the United States Railroad Administration.
The carrier did not think it proper to accept these agreements as a whole,
as it was a party to Dockets 1, 2, and 3, upon which your Decision No. 119
has been rendered, and it desired an opportunity to negotiate its individual
agreements.
The request of the employees not only covered the rates of pay under Deci-
sion No. 2, but would have required the carrier to agree to all provisions of
the schedules made between the organizations and the Director General of
Railroads. The company feels that there are some rules in the agreements
between the Director General of Railroads and the organizations which were
made during Federal control and which are working a hardship on the rail-
way company, and should be revised; therefore, we want an opportunity to
negotiate in regard to rules of the new schedules so as to have them fit our
local conditions.
The railway company has applied and has always been ready to incorporate
in existing schedules the rates promulgated by Decision No. 2, but does not
think it proper to sign the schedules in their entirety.
In accordance with Decision No. 119, this company stands ready to negotiate
new agreements with its employees.
Decision.-Inasmuch as the carrier put into effect increases in rates
pay in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Board's Deci-
sion No. 2, its position is sustained.
of
Attention is directed to Interpretation No. 2 to Decision No. 119,
which reads in part as follows:
The Labor Board did not, nor could it under the provisions of the transpor-
tation act, 1920, include in its Decision No. 119 any matter which was not
properly before it as a dispute. Decision No. 119 did not, therefore, terminate
the existing schedules or agreements of the train, engine, and yard employees
in the service of the carriers involved. Changes in such schedules or agree-
ments, however, may be made after the required notice, either by agreement of
the parties or by decision of this board, after conference between the parties
and proper reference in accordance with the provisions of the transportation act
and the rules of the board.
.
DECISION NO. 1312.-DOCKET 382.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen v. Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Question. Complaint against running crews through Ennis, Tex.,
in new passenger service established between San Antonio and Dallas
during the month of October, 1920.
Statement. Crews assigned to the service in question operate one
train each way per day, 330.42 miles, between San Antonio, Tex.,
on the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway and Dallas,
Tex., on the Houston & Texas Central Railroad; some mileage on the
run between intermediate points is also made on the San Antonio &
DECISIONS.
867
Aransas Pass Railroad, amounting to 37.8 miles, or 11.44 per cent
of the total. The Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio mileage is
89.79 miles, or 27.17 per cent of the total, and the Houston & Texas
Central Railroad mileage is 202.83, or 61.49 per cent of the total mile-
age operated.
The service to crews is assigned on a percentage basis, as follows:
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad-Houston divi-
sion-one crew.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad-Austin division—one crew.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad-Dallas division-two crews.
Decision. The assignment as made is just and reasonable, is not
in violation of any schedule rule, and is a good practical and eco-
nomical arrangement. Claim denied.
131
DECISION NO. 1313.-DOCKET 383.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Proper application of Supplements 15 and 24 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27, continuation of way-freight rates to so-called drag
service.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-In revising agreements covering engineers and firemen
employed on the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, a dispute has arisen between
the management and the committee representing the employees respecting the
modifications necessary to properly apply the provisions of Supplements 15 and
24 to General Order No. 27 and interpretations thereof, and, not being able to
· reach a satisfactory conclusion, it is agreed to submit the dispute to the United
States Railroad Labor Board for decision as to proper applications thereof.
Article 55 of the engineers' agreement and article 60 of the firemen's agree-
ment read as follows:
"All drag runs running from one yard limit into another shall be regarded as
road runs, eight hours or less to constitute a day's work, way-freight rates to
apply. Where an engineer (fireman) works part of a day in yard service and
a part in drag service he shall be paid for the entire time at drag rates. This
to apply to all cases where a yard engineman is diverted to work outside of
his own yard limits.
"The following runs will take the drag rate:
JOINT YARD-YOUNGSTOWN.
"Any crew required to work outside of the yard limits between Westlake
crossing on the west and the west switch in eastbound receiving yard, Hazelton,
including Brown-Bonnell works and the Bessemer plant of the Republic Iron
& Steel Co. on the Canal branch, will be considered as being in drag service.
66
HAZELTON.
The run between Hazelton and New York Central Valley yard known as
'New York Central drag.'
"The crew assigned to do the work on Mahoning State line branch and
delivering cars to 'NK' or joint yard, and to other crews making movement
to New York Central passenger depot or beyond.
"Also Pittsburgh & Lake Erie crews engaged on Lake Erie & Eastern Rail-
road in puller service between industries on that line and Hazelton yard.
This also to apply to Pittsburgh & Lake Erie crews sent to Lake Erie & Eastern
to perform similar service, and to crews moving cars from Struthers yard to
Lake Erie & Eastern points, or vice versa.
868
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
"M'KEES ROCKS.
"Crews running between McKees Rocks and Glassport, known as the 'Glass-
port drag,' and to other crews making movements to Bridge No. 2, West Side
Belt Railroad.
NEWELL.
"Crews running between Newell and Dickerson run, known as the 'Newell-
Dickerson-run drag.'
"Any crew doing work beyond Brownsville Junction on the east is entitled to
drag rates.
DICKERSON RUN.
"Yard crews working between Dickerson run and the Pennsylvania yard
at Summit transfer."
Since these rules became effective in 1910, engineers and firemen performing
drag service on the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, as outlined in the above-
quoted rule, have received the way-freight rate, which was higher than the
through-freight rates.
Employees' position.-The representatives of the employees contend that
inasmuch as these rules are conversion rules, converting these "road runs
into local-freight runs, whenever the service performed is in accord with the
provisions as set forth in the rules, the employees performing such service
should continue to receive the way-freight rates.
The committees contend that nothing contained in Supplements 15 or 24
permits the management of the railroad to change the rates of pay of such
employees from way-freight rates to through-freight rates.
The committees contend that question 39, Interpretation No. 1 of Supple-
ment 24, and decision thereto, clearly sustains the position of the committee-
such question and decision reading as follows:
Question 39.-Should present schedule rules for classification of local-
freight service be continued?
"Decision.Yes."
Carrier's position.—As indicated by the rule, the service in question con-
sists (except as mentioned below) of yard runs or assignments going beyond
the yard-limit board. All of the runs enumerated in rule (except the Glass-
port drag and Newell-Dickerson-run drag, performing drag service between
established terminals, and on which no question is raised. are manned by
yard-train crews and are operated within switching limits. Where the service
is regular, road engine-crews are entitled to the work, but the service is in no
manner local-freight service nor has it ever been classed as such; therefore,
it does not come within the scope of paragraph (b) of Article IV, Supplements
15 and 24 to General Order No. 27.
It has been the practice under this rule to pay drag (way-freight) rates to
yard crews when required to take cars beyond their yard limit, and it is our
contention that under the application of Supplements 15 and 24, the payment of
way-freight for this class of service is eliminated, as this service, which under
the rule is regarded as road service, is covered by paragraph (a) of Article IV,
Supplements 15 and 24, as unclassified service, which provides for the payment
of such service at the through-freight rate.
Decisions rendered, as covered by Memoranda 15-39, 15-40, and 15-48, deal
with the application of paragraph (a) of Article IV, Supplements 15 and 24,
to the classes of service enumerated therein, formerly paid, because of schedule
rules, on a way-freight basis. These decisions provide for the application of
through-freight rates, providing former rates were not higher, in which case
they are retained.
Therefore, it is the carrier's contention that the memoranda referred to
* would apply under the revision of this rule, as the work performed
comes within the scope of paragraph (a) of Article IV, Supplements 15 and 24,
and the rule should be revised to conform therewith.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that through-freight rates
shall apply in all drag service. Paragraph (b), Article XX, of
Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, applies when movements
are made beyond switching limits.
DECISIONS.
869
DECISION NO. 1314.-DOCKET 394.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Kansas
City Southern Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of J. E. Wray for deadhead time.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Statement of facts.-On April 15, 1920, J. E. Wray was in the service of the
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. in the capacity of extra brakeman and was
on this date assigned to and stood first out on the extra board, sometimes
designated as spare list," which board is maintained at Heavener, Okla., the
recognized district and home terminal, and from which point extra men are
sent to protect vacancies which occur from time to time on crews that are
assigned to outlying points and which do not reach the home terminal.
This company maintains short turn-around freight service crews between Fort
Smith, Ark., and Spiro, Okla., which crews go to work and tie up at Fort
Smith, but at no time do these crews reach Heavener, the home terminal.
Fort Smith is located at a distance of 42 miles from Heavener and when vacan-
cies occur on the Fort Smith-Spiro crews, such vacancies are filled by dead-
heading men from Heavener to Fort Smith. The rule of the current contract
between the Kansas City Southern Railway Co. and the Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen, governing pay for deadheading, reads:
“ART. 15 (a).—When freight trainmen deadhead with caboose, first crew
out will be deadheaded, second crew out will run the train. On reaching
terminal, the crew deadheaded will stand ahead of the crew on train on which
deadheaded. When necessary to deadhead crew and caboose, the crew will
deadhead with caboose. Should a trainman be deadheaded on freight train
without caboose, he will be allowed full rates and used as an additional man
when necessary and paid for class of service performed. Freight trainmer
deadheading under instructions for service will be allowed full rates for the
miles or hours, whichever is the greater, at the rate for the class of service that
caused such deadheading, with guarantee of minimum day, except when dead-
heading is combined with service, combined deadheading and service will be
paid on a basis of miles or hours, whichever is the greater, from the time
called to deadhead until relieved from service or vice versa. No allowance will
be made for deadheading to relieve others who lay off of their own accord or
when exercising seniority rights."
In this instance a brakeman on one of the Fort Smith-Spiro runs was taken
sick and it became necessary to deadhead an extra brakeman from Heavener
to take his place. Brakeman Wray being the man deadheaded to fill the
vacancy, after learning the cause of the vacancy, did not consider that the
exception to the rule applied, for the very good reason that laying off account
of being sick is quite different from laying off of one's own accord.
The management takes the position, and adheres to that position, that when
a member of a crew becomes incapacitated for service through sickness and on
account of such sickness it becomes necessary that he be relieved, he is con-
sidered as having laid off of his own accord, and any additional burden of
operation cost created thereby, should be borne by the employee who may be
sent to relieve the sick employee by donating, gratis, his time consumed dead-
heading to and from the assignment.
Employees' position.-When employees covered by the rule are prevented
through sickness from performing service on their respective assignments, they
are in a relative position to employees who become injured, due to the fact that
they have no alternative in either case, but the nature of their sickness or
injury is the sole determining factor; whereas an employee who desires to
lay off to exercise a personal privilege can determine for himself just when
it suits his convenience to be relieved from service and, therefore, his actions
are governed of his own accord. But to say that any one is acting of his own
accord when that one has absolutely no control over the situation, is placing
the matter beyond the employee's understanding as to what constitutes a just,
reasonable, and equitable proposition.
Therefore, we take the position-and rightfully so, we believe that when
men are required to deadhead to relieve others on account of sickness or injury,
they are entitled to receive pay for such deadheading in line with the schedule
rule, exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.
870
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A letter from the carrier dated April 8, 1921, reads, in part, as follows:
"Brakeman J. E. Wray on April 15, 1920, was on the extra board at Heav-
ener, Okla., and idle, when he was called to deadhead to Fort Smith to relieve
a brakeman on a run out of Fort Smith, who had asked to be relieved on
account of being sick. Mileage, Heavener to Fort Smith, 42 miles. Wray
worked April 15, the day on which he deadheaded, and April 16, the following
day, then returned to Heavener deadhead on the 17th, to be again marked up
on the extra board. His claim was for 100 miles each way for deadheading
between Heavener and Fort Smith. Schedule for trainmen, dated February
19, 1920, contains an article covering deadheading.
(See art. 15-a,
quoted in statement of facts above.)
"We had a deadhead rule in the agreement in effect prior to February 19,
1920, which provided allowance of one-half time for passenger men and one-
half time for freight men when deadheading on passenger trains. In the
conference for the rewr.ting of the agreement which was made effective Feb-
ruary 19, 1920, representatives for the organizations were contending for full
time or mileage for deadheading on passenger trains. The request was granted
with the understanding that no allowance would be made for deadheading
where deadheading was caused by men laying off of their own accord. This
was agreed to by the organization representatives and the article adopted as
written. The question of deadheading to relieve men in cases of injury was
not discussed. Each case of that kind is handled on its merits."
Carrier's position.-When we were negotiating the agreement which became
effective February 19, 1920, as stated by Mr. Carroll, the organization repre-
sentatives, or the committee that presented the revision of the schedule or the
revised schedule to us, asked us to pay full rates for both passenger and
freight trainmen when deadheading on passenger trains.
We had a great deal of trouble, under the freight rule without a provision
that we would not pay for men laying off of their own accord, in deciding
those sick cases. It seemed to us it became a practice among the men to use
that sick leave as a subterfuge for pay. After we talked at some length
about the rule, I decided that I could afford to grant the full rates of pay
in lieu of having a question between the men all the time as to whether they
were laying off sick or whether they were off on their own accord, and I
granted that rule, as has been read into the record here, with that understand-
ing, and that feature was discussed across the table. There was nothing said
about the case of a man being injured in service. I do not recall, at least,
that it was mentioned.
Mr.
This man, as you probably noted from the file as presented by Mr. Carroll,
laid off on the 15th. He wanted relief on the 16th, the day following.
Wray was deadheaded on the 15th to fill this man's run on the 16th, and the
man reported in time for his run again on the 17th, which relieved Mr. Wray
after completion of his work on the 16th, and he exercised his seniority rights
by returning to his extra board at Heavener.
There is a high perecentage of the men who are deadheaded on these leaves
or for men laying off of their own accord that are extra men. They are on
the extra board, without anything to do. There is a possibility that they might
have gotten out on the same day on some other run and there is a possibility
that they might not have gotten out for several days.
In the cases of injury, as referred to by Mr. Carroll, there would be some
little question as to what we would do, and, as stated in the general manager's
letter in reply to the inquiry from the board in regard to this case, we treat
those individual cases as they come up, but there are not so many cases where
the men lay off from service. They generally lay off and arrange for their
relief so that relief will be provided at these outlying points prior to the
time that their service period begins.
We thought that the rule as written was quite plain and that it could not
be misunderstood or misconstrued. It is barely possible that timekeepers or
trainmasters have passed time slips for men who have deadheaded under the
rule; but if that was done, it was done in error and without the knowledge or
approval of the general officers, and I do not think it had the approval of
the superintendents. It was purely an error on their part.
At the time the straight time was allowed-or granted, rather, across the
table-it seemed to be a very satisfactory adjustment of the question.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is sustained.
DECISIONS.
871
DECISION NO. 1315.-DOCKET 409.
(Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Virginian Railway Co.
Question-Claim that engineers and firemen assigned to switch-
ing service at Sewalls Point yard are entitled to payment under
section (b), Article XX of Supplement 24 to General Order No.
27, which is Article XLI (b) of the engineers' agreement and article
XX (b) of the firemen's agreement on the Virginian Railway.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-The rule in controversy reads:
“Where regularly assigned to perform service within switching limits, yard
men shall not be used in road service when road crews are available, except
In cases of emergency. When yard crews are used in road service under
conditions just referred to, they shall be paid miles or hours, whichever is
the greater, with a minimum of one hour, for the class of service performed,
in addition to the regular yard pay and without any deduction therefrom for
the time consumed in said service."
Sewalls Point is the eastern terminus of the Virginian Railway. Tidewater
is a point approximately 7.4 miles west of Sewalls Point, and South Branch
is approximately 5.1 miles west of Tidewater. Prior to February, 1919.
Sewalls Point yard was governed by yard-limit board located west of that yard,
and from this yard-limit board to a point just east of Tidewater was a portion
of main line. Just east and west of Tidewater there were yard-limit boards
governing Tidewater, and west of the western yard limits of Tidewater was
a portion of main line continuing to a yard-limit board located just east of
South Branch which governed that yard appproaching from the east. An-
other yard-limit board governing South Branch from the west was located
just west of that point. Effective during the month of February, 1919, all
these yard-limit boards were removed except the one west of South Branch
so that after that date the entire terminals were governed as one continuous
yard limit.
Engineers Lyons, Finnell, and Spencer, and firemen engaged in switching
on hump jobs at Sewalls Point were required to go west to Tidewater and to
South Branch to move trains tied up under the hours-of-service law into
Sewalls Point, for which claim is made that they should be paid miles or
hours, whichever is the greater, with a minimum of one hour, in addition
to their regular yard pay, and without any deduction therefrom, in accordance
with the rule herein quoted.
Emplcoyees' position. The switching limits prior to February, 1919, were
confined to the respective yard limits, and a removal of the yard-limit boards,
resulting in one continuous yard limit for the entire terminals, did not change
the original switching limits.
A yard crew assigned at Sewalls Point is entitled to payment in accordance
with the rule quoted in the joint statement of facts when required to go
beyond the original switching limits of the yard in which engaged for the
purpose of bringing into that yard a train tied up under the hours-of-service
law.
Carrier's position. Our contention is that yard-limit boards are established
essentially for operating reasons, and are generally recognized as the divid-
ing line for yard and road work, except where switching limits are established.
Assignment in yard service embraces the territory governed by the yard-
limit boards, unless there are switching limits established, and when the
location of yard-limit boards is changed, assignment in yard service embraces
the territory within the new limits.
Yard-limit boards, if the exigency of the service so requires, may be changed
at the option of the carrier, provided such action does not involve the viola-
tion of contracts.
Prior to December 1, 1919, the effective date of Supplement 24 to General
Order No. 27, the following rule was applicable to assignment in yard service
when work was performed beyond the yard-limit boards:
872
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
"If switch engines are worked during the day or night in more than one
yard or do work beyond the yard limits, engineers will be paid 46 cents per
day and firemen 33 cents per day in addition to the regular yard rates, except-
ing in the event that yard engineers or firemen with or without their engines
are sent beyond first passing track outside of yard limits, road rates will apply
for that day's work. This does not include pushing service out of the yards
by switch engines."
When a switch-engine crew assigned to Sewalls Point yard performed service
between Sewalls Point and South Branch, it was paid the yard rate plus the
arbitrary, as road service was not recognized as having been performed until
the crew passed South Branch limit board.
Paragraph (a), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27,
eliminated the payment of arbitrary or special allowance for extra or addi-
tional service performed during the course of or continuous after the end of
the regularly assigned hours, and for the service performed between Sewalls
Point and South Branch the arbitrary was eliminated.
The carrier therefore contends that the determination of yard-limit boards
is a managerial question, if such action does not involve the violation of con-
tract, and as paragraph (a), Article XX, of Supplement 24 eliminated the
arbitrary paid for service between Sewalls Point and South Branch, there was
no contractual violation, and that the carrier is within its rights in using
the yard-engine crew to perform service between Sewalls Point and South
Branch yard limit boards without the additional payment specified under the
rule quoted in the joint statement of facts.
66
Another contention that we wish to submit is that paragraph (b), Article
XX, of Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27 changed the yard assignment
to where regularly assigned to perform yard service within switching limits."
Question No. 23 of Interpretation 2 to Supplement 24 defines "regularly
assigned to engine crews who may properly be called and used in service
within switching limits for which yard rates are paid.
""
Question No. 24 of Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement 24 defines road service
as any service for which road rates are paid.
Inasmuch as yard crews, prior to Supplement 24, were used between South
Branch and Sewalls Point, for which the arbitrary was paid when sent beyond
the yard-limit board, we contend that the switching limits of that crew were
not confined to Sewalls Point yard but anywhere between South Branch and
Sewalls Point, and that when crew was used outside of Sewalls Point the arbi-
trary was paid, but that Supplement 24 eliminated this arbitrary, and therefore
the original switching limits of this crew have always been between Sewalls
Point and South Branch yard board, and the fact that it is not now used or that
the yard-limit board at Sewalls Point may have been changed does not change
the status of the crew a particle.
Road rates have never been paid between Sewalls Point and South Branch
for any service beyond the Sewalls Point yard-limit board. Therefore, when
a work crew works in between these points, it can not perform road service
as specified in question No. 24 of Interpretation No. 2 to Supplement 24.
Decision.-Evidence shows that the work in question was per-
formed within the switching limits, and the Labor Board decides
that paragraph (b), Article XX, of Supplement 24 to General
Order No. 27, is not applicable.
DECISION NO. 1316.-DOCKET 303.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Question. Claim of Yardmen McLaughlin, Finnegan, and Coheen
for additional compensation from July 20 to 24, 1920, inclusive, while
employed in Butte yard, based on paragraph (b), Article I and
Article IX of yardmen's schedule in effect prior to September 1, 1920.
Statement. The yardmen involved in this dispute were assigned
to a regular shift in yard service at Butte, working eight hours per
DECISIONS.
873
day. A road crew regularly assigned to work-train service on the
division was used on the dates shown below to perform pile-driver
service exclusively within the yard limits at Butte. These yardmen
claim the following time at overtime rates which represents the dif-
ference between the hours worked in their regular yard assignment
and what they would have earned had they been used in place of the
road crew:

July 20.
July 21.
July 22...
July 23...
July 24..
Hours. Minutes.
0 0 0 00 00
3
2
3
3
3
29949
20
40
15
5
10
The yardmen's wage schedule contains the following rules:
The last paragraph of rule 12, section (a) of Article IV, pro-
vides that-
Where switching limits are not defined, yard limits will govern the working
zone of yardmen, and yardmen will do all yard, work-train, and transfer work
within yard or switching limits * * *
The same schedule, rule 14, section (b) of Article IV, reads as
follows:
The right to preference of work and promotion will be governed by seniority
in service.
Decision. It is clear that the provisions of the rules quoted
above were violated by the carrier.
The Labor Board therefore sustains the claim of the employees.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissent from decision in Docket 303 for reasons
set forth below:
A cursory reading of the rule involved would in these days of
high pressure seem to justify the decision; however, since the rule
has been in effect for the past seven and one-half years or, to be
exact, since June, 1915, it would seem the part of wisdom as well
as justice to determine from actual practice what interpretation
had been placed on the rule by the parties to the agreement, than
which no more impelling or convincing evidence could be submitted.
A careful review of the transcript of the hearings of this case
clearly discloses that since June, 1915, the interpretation was with-
out a single dispute of record, except the case here under dispute.
There are work trains organized for service wholly within yard
or switching limits manned by yardmen holding seniority rights
within the limits involved.
There are work trains organized for general service within and
without yard or switching limits manned by road crews.
The work train here involved was one assigned to doing the pile-
driving work over the entire Montana division, and was manned
strictly in accordance with the theretofore prevailing practice.
Supporters of the decision argued as justification that when this
claim was presented to the highest official of the carrier designated
874
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
to review cases of this kind, the claim also included allowances for
two extra yardmen for one day each who were available one on the
20th and one on the 24th, but not used, and that the official having
allowed the later claims definitely fixed the clear understanding of
the intent of the rule.
This line of reasoning is not even persuasive, much less controlling,
when considered with the fact that more than five years' practice has
determined the intent of the rule.
The majority have doubtless found a happy justification for over-
turning a mutually accepted interpretation of years' standing, and
at the same time voting an economic waste and increasing certain
expenses by directing that regularly assigned work-train crew be dis-
placed and held under pay, while another crew is assembled and put
under pay to perform a service properly belonging to the assigned.
crew but happening to fall within yard or switching limits; in other
words, requiring the carriers to pay two conductors and four brake-
men for a service in which but one conductor and two brakemen
could possibly function.
I concur in this dissenting opinion.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
DECISION NO. 1317.-DOCKET 576.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. North-
western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question.-Filling vacancies in positions of baggagemen on electric
trains.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Article I of agreement reads in part as follows:
"Rates of pay for trainmen on passenger trains propelled by steam or other
motive power will be as follows: Baggagemen, electric, $0.0277 per mile; $4.16
per day; $124.80 per month."
Employees' position. The employees take the position that vacancies in the
position of baggagemen should be filled from the ranks of trainmen, as Article I
of schedule provides the mileage, daily and monthly rates of pay for baggage-
men in electric service, and that vacancies should be bulletined and filled from
the ranks of men in train service.
Carrier's position.-Article XL of agreement with trainmen does not grant
seniority rights to baggagemen in steam or electric service. There are three
positions involved, men filling such positions being designated as baggagemen-
collectors, in short, turnaround electric interurban passenger service, their
principal duties being the collection of tickets.
Baggagemen-collectors are not required to pass examination on train rules
and are not qualified to perform the service of trainmen, nor do their duties
require such service. It is therefore the contention of the management that
such men are not eligible to promotion and should not be subject to condi-
tions and seniority rights of trainmen. These positions can be filled by the
management from employees injured in the service or not being able to per-
form regular trainmen's work.
Baggagemen-collectors are allowed rates of pay under section (a), Article
I, of agreement referred to in above statement of facts, which are based on
DECISIONS.
875
provisions of Supplement 25 to General Order No. 27, such rates having been
subsequently increased by Decision No. 2 of the United States Railroad Labor
Board.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that future vacancies in these
positions shall be filled from the ranks of trainmen, but the present
occupants of the positions shall not be displaced.
DECISION NO. 1318.-DOCKET 410.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Virginian Railway Co.
Question.-Request for nine rules applicable to hostlers and hostler
helpers.
Štatement.—The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Under date of April 9, 1920, the representatives of the
employees filed request for certain rules governing the service of hostlers and
hostler helpers, which have been declined by the representatives of the carrier.
The rules requested read as follows:
"1. A hostler is a man responsible for the care and handling of engines at
terminals and outlying points. Engines will be handled by hostlers at ter-
minals and outlying points, except when they are handled by engine crew. They
will relieve engineers and firemen in passenger service at the passenger stations
at Norfolk and Roanoke; at all other points they will relieve engineers and
firemen at the designated place.
"2. Hostlers shall not be required to oil, or to place supplies on, or to pre-
pare engines for service. At terminals or outlying points where the work is
light, it will be mutually agreed between the officers of the company and the
committee as to additional other work to be assigned.
"3. Hostlers and hostler helpers will have a fixed time to begin work each
day. Should conditions change making it necessary to change such hours, the
usual notice will be given.
"4. Hostlers will be furnished competent helpers at all times.
"5. Hostler helpers required to handle engines will be classed as hostlers.
'6. The seniority rights of firemen, hostlers, and hostler helpers are inter-
changeable; yard firemen will be given consideration according to length of
time in service at the points where they hold rights. This is not to interfere
with the rights of hostlers in the service of the road as hostlers prior to the
effective date of this rule, who will be the oldest hostlers at their respective
terminals.
"7. Fireman incapacitated for road service shall be eligible for hostling
service and take any position his seniority entitles him to, the incapacity
to be determined by the proper officials and the proper committee.
"8. Vacancies in hostling service will be filled in the same manner as
vacancies in road service, provided this will not act in any way to prevent
having competent men for the work. If there is no competent man on the extra
list available, a man may be called from an assigned run providing that he
is not so used at a loss to himself.
"9. Hostlers will make claims for and turn in time for themselves and out-
side helpers in a manner similar to that of engineers."
Employees' position.—The rules requested are reasonable, fair, and in line
with rules and practices in effect on other railroads in the territory.
Carrier's position.—The proposed rules will materially increase the operat-
ing costs of the carrier. Economy is contemplated in the laws creating the
various Governmental agencies regulating transportation, and to the end
that it may be accomplished it is extremely important that rules which
create an unnecessary expense should be kept to a minimum. The rules
and practices regulating the matters within the scope of the proposed rules
are just and reasonable, and we respectfully request that no change be
made.
20936°—23—56
876
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision.-Suggested changes in rules are not justified at this
time. Rules and working conditions for train and engine service
employees will be given consideration at a later date.
DECISION NO. 1319.-DOCKET 411.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Virginian Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of K. D. Johnson, engineer,
who was dismissed on September 7, 1920, for responsibility in con-
nection with overlooking train No. 54 on August 5, 1920.
Decision. The request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1320.-DOCKET 413.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
Question.-Engine inspection and duties of firemen at end of trip.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Joint statement of facts.-The carrier and the employees can not agree upon
the application of the 15-minute arbitrary time for engine inspection and usual
duties of firemen at the end of a trip, provided for in section 6 of Article XXVI,
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen's joint schedule, November 1, 1919, reading:
"Where engineers are required to inspect engines, and firemen are required
to perform the usual duties after arrival at a terminal at end of trip or day's
work, they will be allowed 15 minutes' arbitrary terminal overtime for such
service."
Employees' position.-The 15 minutes' pay provided for is for a specific
service aside from and in no wise related to trip, time on trip, or mileage of
trip or day's work, and time on trip or day's work can not in any manner
absorb the 15 minutes' arbitrary allowance, or any portion thereof, in any
class of service.
Carrier's position.—Section 6 of Article XXVI, referred to in the state-
ment of facts, has been in the engineers' and firemen's schedule for a number
of years, and it was our understanding and is borne out by past practice that
this would not apply on branch lines where the work was performed during
the regular day's work. In other words, our crews on branch lines have an
eight-hour day, and are paid on that basis, and when the engine inspection
is made within the eight hours for which they are paid, no arbitrary time is
allowed, but if this inspection is required after the day's work is completed,
there is no question as to paying them in accordance with article referred to.
If this arbitrary 15 minutes was paid for prior to completion of the day's
work, it would have the effect of paying double time for same.
""
Decision. If firemen are required to perform "the usual duties,'
as referred to in section 6 of Article XXVI of the schedule of wages,
effective November, 1919, after the expiration of the time for which
they received compensation, they should be allowed pay in accord-
ance with the rule, but not otherwise.
DECISIONS..
877
į
DECISION NO. 1321.-DOCKET 419.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Question. Proper rate of pay under Decision No. 2 for switch
tenders at Denver yard.
Statement.-The following is quoted from the submission:
Statement of facts.--Prior to the effective date of Decision No. 2 the Colo-
rado & Southern Railway Co. paid its switch tenders in Denver yard helpers'
rate, which under the rulings of the United States Railroad Administration
was $5.11 per day of eight hours.
Section 4 (yard service), Article VII, reads as follows:
NOTE.-Superseding rates established by or under the authority of the
United States Railroad. Administration and in lieu thereof for each of the
hereinafter-named classes the following increased rates are established:
Foremen, $6.96 per day; helpers, $6.48 per day; switch tenders, $5.04 per
day."
In view of the fact that section 4 of Article VII supersedes rates established
by the United States Railroad Administration and specifies in lieu thereof a
rate of $5.04 for switch tenders, the Colorado & Southern Railway Co. has
since May 1, 1920, the effective date of Decision No. 2, paid its switch tenders in
Denver yard $5.04 per day of eight hours instead of $5.11 per day of eight
hours, as heretofore.
-
-
Employees' position.-Switch tenders in the Denver yard have always received
the helpers' rate of pay, and on July 20, 1920, were receiving $5.11 per day of
eight hours. The following schedule rule applies in filling permanent vacancies:
"Vacancies.-Switch tenders. Temporary vacancies are filled by the extra
switchmen and the rules which apply to filling a temporary vacancy of a
helper apply to filling that of switch tender."
These positions are located at the mouth of the yard and their duties corre-
spond to some extent to the duties of assistant yardmasters, for they are re-
quired to take switch orders over the telephone and give them to the various
crews- passing their station.
*
*.
*
*.
The employees contend that the helpers' rate of $6.48 per day of eight hours
should apply, effective May 1, 1920.
Carrier's position. In our present and former schedules there was no men-
tion made that switch tenders would be paid the same rate as helpers. The
article we carry in our present schedule is rule 31. It says:
"Vacancies.—Switch tenders. In filling vacancies in switch tenders' positions
in Denver yard, preference will be given to yardmen who have been injured
or incapacitated in Denver yard service."
Now, it is true we did pay our switch tenders the same rate of pay as we did
the helpers, and in our previous schedules there was a separate article which
gave the rate for switch tenders. When our helpers were working on a 10-hour
basis our switch tenders were on a 12-hour basis for the rate of pay as specified
here, which was the same as the helpers' rate.
The United States Railroad Administration, under Supplement 16 to General
Order No. 27, cites a rate of $5.11 for our switch tenders.
That rate was in effect until the issuance of Decision No. 2. When: Decision
No. 2 was issued we noted, under section 4, yard service, Article VII, the
following: "Superseding rates established by or under the authority of the
United States Railroad Administration and in lieu thereof,
*
Now, as we understand those words, it eliminates the rate of pay which
was established by the United States Railroad Administration. It says so
very plainly. And when we readjusted our rates of pay, finding no saving
clause in Decision No. 2, or words to that effect, that higher existing rates
would be maintained, we used the rates of pay that Decision No. 2 instructed
us to for our foremen, helpers, and switch tenders. That is where we got
the rate of $5.04.
There is nothing said in Decision No. 2 that higher rates will be main-
tained. It eliminates entirely the rates established by the Railroad Admin-
istration, and $5.11 was the rate established by the Railroad Administration.
2.
878
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
It gives us a flat rate to put in effect-namely, $5.04-and we used that
rate effective May 1, 1920, which is, of course, the effective date of Deci-
sion No. 2.
Decision. Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board established a specific rate
of pay of $5.04 per day for switch tenders, effective May 1, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1322.-DOCKET 468.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railroad Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. This controversy involves the bulletining of certain
freight service between Eureka and Willits.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Joint statement of facts.-Section 1, Article XVII of trainmen's agreement,
section 1, Article XXVIII of engineers' agreement, and section 1, Article XXIX
of firemen's agreement, read as follows:
"All runs must be bulletined at terminals for 10 days as soon as created
or become vacant, if such runs are to be maintained or remain vacant for
a period of 30 days or more."
Employees' position.-Several requests to bulletin the runs which have been
operating in this territory for a period of several months have been denied.
The employees contend that inasmuch as these runs have been in operation
for more than 30 days, the carrier is required to bulletin the runs as provided
by the above-quoted rules.
Carrier's position.-Under existing agreements with the engineers and fire-
men, and under the trainmen's agreement in effect prior to July 1, 1920,
if these runs were assigned, the starting time must be specified, the number
of trips stated in bulletin, the guaranty of 100 miles for each day men-
tioned in the assignment, and other similar restrictions appertain.
As the running of these trains depends entirely upon the volume of business
to move, which is likely at any day to be affected by the supply in the market
or the price of lumber, which is the chief commodity handled, the carrier deems
this service a species of overflow to be handled preferably from the extra board,
being largely controlled by the supply of empty cars and available power to
move same.
Furthermore, 100 miles of the line between Eureka and Willits is located in a
narrow canyon and traffic is subject to frequent interruptions account slides
and washouts, especially during the winter months when rainfall is heavy.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that, under the circumstances,
the position of the carrier is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1323.-DOCKET 573.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Question.-Are Engineer Yager and Fireman Daniels, through-
freight crew, entitled to local pay for trip Fairview, Okla., to Altus,
Okla., July 9, 1920, for placing car on incline coal chute at Clinton,
Okla.?
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Employees' position.—It is our contention that the schedule rule clearly
covers the matter in question and reads as follows:
“Article II (b).—When through-freight crews are required to do way-freight
work, such as loading or unloading freight at stations, or doing station switch-
ing, other than picking up and setting out cars, they will be paid way-freight
rates for the entire trip."
DECISIONS.
879
On July 9, 1920, Engineer Yager and Fireman Daniel received an order on
arrival at Clinton in through-freight service to place a car of coal on the chute
at that place. Clinton is an intermediate point for through-freight crews. They
compiled with instructions, which required them to get the empties off the
chute, put them away, go to the west end of the yard and switch out the car of
coal and place same on the chute. The work thus performed involved switch-
ing other than "picking up and setting out cars," and in our opinion comes
clearly within the intent and purpose of the rule quoted, which defines the
service that is to be performed by through-freight crews.
Carrier's position.-When the triweekly way-freight crew arrived and tied
up at Clinton, Okla., their terminal, on July 9, 1920, cars on the coal
chute were not empty. Three extra freight trains passed Clinton and took coal
while the local crew was taking its rest, which reduced the supply in the
pockets and on the chute to an extent that it would be exhausted before the local
crew resumed duty; therefore, this through-freight crew was instructed to
take one car of coal from the west end of the yard and place it on the chute, a
distance of about 600 feet.
The claim that this emergency move should change the character of the
service and pay from through-freight to local is purely technical, and is an
attempt to reinstate arbitrary allowances surrendered by train and enginemen
in lieu of the national agreement providing for time and one-half after eight
hours' service.
As a matter of fact, the service of placing the car of coal on the chute was
paid for at time and one-half rates, for the reason that the crew used 14 hours
over this 132-mile district, being on overtime after the expiration of 10 hours
and 30 minutes, a part of which time was caused by this move.
Decision. The claim for local pay is not justified and is, therefore,
denied.
DECISION NO. 1324.-DOCKET 574.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad Co.
Question.-Is C. M. Hammer, engineer, entitled to a runaround
by reason of using Engineer Campbell on Altus yard engine, Mon-
day, October 11, 1920?
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Statement of facts.-Engineer Fisher, regularly assigned to Altus yard en-
gine was subpoenaed to appear in court at Cordell, Okla., as a witness, Monday,
October 11, 1920; it being assumed he would be absent from Altus, Okla., one
day, the 11th, an engineer was not deadheaded from Fairview, Okla., to relieve
Mr. Fisher, but Mr. Campbell, a promoted engineer who was working as fire-
man on the Altus yard engine, was used as engineer. Engineer Fisher did
not return to Altus until the 12th, too late to perform service on that date,
and after his return to Altus he requested a leave of absence which was granted,
and an engineer deadheaded from Fairview to relieve him.
Claim is based on runaround rule, paragraph (h) of Article XXXIII,
reading:
"Engineers and firemen who are available for service and who, through no
fault of their own, are run around at any division terminal by other engineers
or firemen in like service, will be allowed 50 miles. If not called for service
within eight hours, they will be allowed 100 miles, and, in either event, will
stand first out."
Paragraph (b) of the same article provides that—
"
Engineers assigned to extra list shall be run first in and first out of all
division terminals where boards are located."
Paragraph (a) of Article XXIV provides that—
'Rights of engineers and firemen will be governed by seniority in service."
No extra board is maintained at Altus. There is an extra board maintained
at Fairview, division terminal, 132 miles north of Altus.
It is not denied by the carrier that notice of Engineer Fisher having to at-
tend court was ample to have gotten an engineer from Fairview to relieve him.
880
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Employees' position.—It is our contention that no emergency existed in this
case which would warrant the use of an emergency engineer; that vacancies
on this engine should be filled from the accredited extra board located at
Fairview as has always been done in the past and in accordance with schedule
rules quoted; that foreman at Altus advised operating officer to deadhead
engineer to relieve Mr. Fisher and was instructed to use Fireman Campbell as
engineer instead, thus necessitating use of emergency fireman or roundhouse
man instead of accredited extra fireman from Fairview extra board; that
Fireman Campbell was used as engineer on this vacancy for a period of three
days; that, even though assumed that Mr. Fisher would be gone only one day,
it could reasonably be assumed that he might be detained as a company witness
for a much greater period; that any mileage made by emergency engineers is
charged to mileage equivalent in determining number of engineers to be as-
signed to extra lists in accordance with universal schedule rules; that the fact
that Engineer Hammer was deadheaded to fill this vacancy after the expiration
of three days is proof conclusive that rules and practices were being violated;
and that we have at no time recognized or agreed that engineers should be used
other than in accordance with seniority and rules, except in cases which could
justly be determined as emergency by reason of the accredited engineer not
being available and the inability of the company to make him available, which
was not the case in this instance.
:
.
Since our statement of fact was prepared, we have learned that Engineer
Fisher had already arranged to lay off prior to his return from attending court,
such leave to begin immediately after his use as a company witness; and that
the foreman was in possession of this knowledge at the time he wired for
engineer from the accredited extra board to relieve Mr. Fisher prior to the
time he was relieved to attend court.
Carrier's position.-On account of cases being frequently postponed, after re-
quests had been made for attendance of certain employees, and it being under-
stood that Engineer Fisher would be absent but one day, and the further fact
that a promoted engineer (Engineer Campbell) was being used as a fireman
on this switch engine, and further, taking into account there are no rules in
effect requiring the carrier to deadhead men from one terminal to another
when competent employees of that department are available where needed, the
management did not consider it necessary or in line with good railway prac-
tice to deadhead an engineer from Fairview, use him one eight-hour shift at
Altus, then deadhead him back to Fairview, requiring three days at an expense
of $26.20 for one eight-hour trick, which by using the engineer available cost
only $7.20. We do not feel that the rules contemplate or require such extrava-
gance.
It is true that when it is known that such vacancies would last for several
days, in the interest of the extra men, such deadhead trips may have been
made, and when Mr. Fisher returned to Altus and laid off for a given period,
an engineer was deadheaded from Fairview to fill the vacancy; in fact, how-
ever, this also is an unnecessary expenditure which probably should be elimi-
nated, particularly on roads like the Orient, endeavoring to operate under na-
tional agreements; standard wages, and working conditions contemplated for
heavy main-line service, but being applied to very light traffic resulting in the
road regularly failing to earn its actual expenses for labor and material.
Concerning the last paragraph of the employees' position advising that they
had learned that Engineer Fisher had arranged to lay off before leaving to:
attend court; the investigations develop this information to be in error. The
roundhouse foreman at Altus states as follows:
"Mr. Fisher told me he was figuring on going to Kansas City when he got
back from court, but he did not know for sure."
+
The trainmaster, who was also at Altus a day or two prior to Mr. Fisher's
departure for Cordell as a witness, states Mr. Fisher said nothing to him in
regard to contemplated trip to Kansas City, or that he intended to continue
his leave after returning from court.
The carrier does not deem this: material, however, there being no rule re-
quiring the deadheading of employees at the carrier's expense, and the em-
ployees are asking the Railroad Labor Board to provide one.
Decision. Under the circumstances as indicated by the submis-
sion and brought out at the hearing, C. M. Hammer, engineer, is not
entitled to pay for being run around.
Claim is therefore denied.
DECISIONS.
881
DECISION NO. 1325.-DOCKET 577.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. North-
western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. This controversy involves the performance of switch-
ing and herding service at Sausalito Pier by other than trainmen or
yardmen.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Joint statement of facts.-Employees other than trainmen and yardmen, desig-
nated as electrical inspectors, are used at Sausalito to assist in building up
and cutting down interurban electric trains. Electric trains or single motor
cars are handled between Sausalito and shops accompanied by electrical
inspectors.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that the positions of herders
at Sausalito should be filled from the ranks of trainmen or yardmen. When
additional men are needed on Sundays and holidays, they are selected from
the ranks of trainmen or yardmen. The service performed by these men
is a combination of switching and herding and properly belongs to men em-
ployed in train or yard service, as the seniority rights of trainmen and yard-
men are interchangeable.
Carrier's position.-Electric trains used in short turn around interurban
passengers service are made up at Sausalito. The work involved consists of
cutting off motors with trailers to be set out on adjacent tracks in reducing
trains and in picking up trailers from adjacent tracks and setting them in on
trains when increasing the number of cars.
Ordinarily this work is performed by a motorman with the assistance of
train crew during spot time at Sausalito, for. all of which time they are
compensated. During the absence of motorman, electrical inspectors are used
to make up or reduce electric trains at Sausalito and occasionally to accompany
electric cars to the shop for repairs, inside of yard limit, a distance of less than
one mile.
Such movements have, however, been infrequent and are not now
being performed while the yard crew is on duty.
Electrical inspectors couple and uncouple electrical equipment, also air hose
and jumper lines incident to the making up or breaking up of trains. The
work which they perform in moving cars is but a minor part of their duties,
consuming an average of less than 40 minutes per man per day. Herders have
never been employed in the handling of electrical equipment, movement being
within interlocking yard limits, and it is the position of the carrier that such
employees are unnecessary on account of the limited amount of service of this
character to be performed.
Decision. The Labor Board decides, after carefully considering
the evidence produced at the hearing on this case, that the request
of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1326.-DOCKET 580.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. North-
western Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. This controversy involves the question of trainmen
operating dump cars.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission :
Joint statement of facts.-Trainmen are required to operate air dump cars.
Section (e), Article XVI of agreement reads as follows:
"Trainmen will not be required to operate Lidgerwoods, Jordan spreaders,
or dump cars, nor handle cable, aprons, or side boards on work equipment."
882
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that the operating of Lidger-
woods, Jordan spreaders, or dump cars is not the work of trainmen, and that
section (e), Article XVI of schedule, relieves them of that duty.
Carrier's position.—In making up the agreement it was the spirit of section
(e) of Article XVI to relieve trainmen from the physical operation of Hart
convertible and similar types of work cars which are dumped by means of a
ratchet operated by a man at the end of a car. Air dump cars require merely
the manipulation of a valve located on end of car to dump and return the car to
normal position after dumping. It has been the practice for trainmen to operate
valves on air dump cars-maintenance of way men being used to operate such
cars as required physical effort.
It is the contention of the carrier that the rule was formulated to relieve
trainmen from performing labor incident to manipulation of dump cars re-
quiring physical effort and that technical application of the rule to include air
dump cars should not change prevailing practice. Furthermore, it is a danger-
ous practice to permit men having nothing to do with controlling movement of
train to operate dumping apparatus on this type of car, as such men are ordi-
narily unfamiliar with signals and are likely to cause accident by releasing
dump while train is in motion.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the service required is.
not unduly burdensome, and it is reasonable to request trainmen, un-
der the circumstances cited, to operate the valves on air dump cars.
DECISION NO. 1327.-DOCKET 412.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad System.
Question. Representation for hostler helpers.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Joint statement of facts.-The carrier and the employees can not agree upon
the representation for hostler helpers.
Employees' position. The employees contend that question No. 107 and
decision thereon, contained in Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 24 to General
Order No. 27, does not give the organizations the right under Article XXIII to
represent hostler helpers and handle their grievances, and offer in support of
their position question and decision as follows:
66
Question 107.-Does Article XXIII require that rates and conditions of
the supplement for pay of the three hostler classes shall be incorporated into
existing agreements with engineers or firemen, where such agreements do not
cover any class of hostler?
"Decision.—Yes."
Carrier's position.-It is not our understanding that General Order No. 27
and supplement thereto, gives the engineers and firemen the right to represent
hostler helpers. We incorporated the hostler-helper rates of pay in the
schedule, and it is our understanding that this is all that is required.
Decision. In the absence of any agreement between the parties
interested, the Labor Board remands the case for further conference
to agree on a rule to cover the question.
DECISION NO. 1328.-DOCKET 418.
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1922.
El Paso & Southwestern System v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers;
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Question.-Application of Decision No. 2 to various articles in the
joint schedule of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the
DECISIONS.
883
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, effective
November 1, 1919.
Statement. The following is quoted from the submission:
Statement of facts.-The carrier and employees can not agree as to the
application of Decision No. 2 to certain daily compensation provided for in the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen's joint schedule, effective November 1, 1919, as follows:
"ART. XVI (4).-Crews used in this service will be allowed $4.96 per day of
24 hours (fraction thereof pro rata) while on foreign lines, for expenses.
"ART. XVII (2).-Engineers will be paid $2.94 per 100 miles or less for
learning the road.
"ART. XVIII (1).-Engineers and firemen attending court, inquests, and
other similar service for the company will be paid $5.84 per day of 24 hours or
less, and will be allowed $3.67 per day of 24 hours (fraction thereof pro rata)
for expenses."
Employees' position.- Inasmuch as the Railroad Labor Board has declared
that the intent of this decision is that the named increases, except as other-
wise stated, shall be added to the compensation established by and under the
authority of the United States Railroad Administration as set forth in schedule
Articles XVI, XVII, and XVIII and established by Article X of Supplement
15 to General Order No. 27, and, not being related to any particular class
of service, were esstablished on through-freight basis as per Article X of sup-
plement 15 to General Order No. 27; therefore the daily compensation provided
for in schedule Article XVI, XVII, and XVIII should be increased $1.04, as
shown in section 2 of Article VI of Decision No. 2.
Railroad's position.-The $4.96 per day allowed enginemen on foreign lines
for expenses, and the $2.94 per 100 miles or less for learning the road, also
the $5.84 per day for attending court, and $3.67 per day for expenses,
is an entirely arbitrary payment for this service, and not paid on a through-
freight basis, or any other class of service, and it is our understanding that
these arbitraries should not be increased $1.04 per day by Decision No.
2 of the Railroad Labor Board.
Decision This dispute relates to the increasing of arbitrary rates
or special allowances, specific mention of which is not made in
Decision No. 2. These allowances are closely interwoven with rules.
The decision on this dispute will be held in abeyence pending the
disposition of rules and working conditions.
DECISION NO. 1329.-DOCKET 906.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Claim of employees for reimbursement of amount of
wage reduction in January and February, 1921-application of
Decision No. 91.
Statement. On March 2, 1921, the Labor Board issued Decision
No. 91 as a result of dispute between the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and the
Erie Railroad Co. The dispute so decided was predicated upon
protest made by representatives of the employees that the carrier
had, during the month of January, 1921, arbitrarily reduced the
wages of certain employees of the classes represented by the organ-
ization herein referred to below the wages established by the United
States Railroad Labor Board in its Decision No. 2, and in so doing
had failed to comply with the provisions of the Transportation Act,
1920.
884
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The position of the Labor Board in Decision No. 91, issued on
March 2, 1921, was to the effect that the carrier had violated De-
cision No. 2 in certain respects therein enunciated. The evidence
shows that the carrier upon receipt of said Decision No. 91 restored
the rates of pay provided in Decision No. 2, but that it did not
reimburse the employees account of the monetary loss suffered dur-
ing the months of January and February, 1921, account of the
violation of Decision No. 2.
The dispute now before the board for decision involves request
of employes for reimbusement for the wage loss occasioned by action
of the carrier, which the Labor Board decided was in violation of
Decision No. 2.
The carrier has submitted in connection with its contention lengthy
legal argument to the effect that Decision No. 91 was a proceeding and
determination under section 313 of the transportation act, 1920,
and that the carrier has respected that decision to the extent of re-
storing the former wage from the date of Decision No. 91; further,
that there is no provision in the statute for the Labor Board mak-
ing a further decision that a determination under section 313 has
been itself violated; that when the board makes a determination
under section 313 that a previous decision under section 307 has
been violated and publishes the decisions under section 313, that is
the end of the matter so far as action by the board is concerned;
further, that there is no provision for further and continued de-
termination that the previous decision has been violated, and that
there is no such thing as a violation of a decision under section 313,
because it is not a further direction, but merely a determination
that the previous decision has been violated.
Opinion. The position of the carrier and the evidence submitted
has been carefully considered. The Labor Board has in so many
orders, decisions, and announcements, of which the carrier is aware,
expressed its opinion as to the intent of Congress in enacting Title
III of the transportation act, 1920, and of the authority vested in
the Labor Board by said act, that is not considered necessary to
reiterate its position as to the extent of its proper power under the
said act in this decision.
The Labor Board in Decision No. 91 fully stated its reasons for
deciding that the action of the carrier in deducting amounts from
the earnings of the employees was in violation of Decision No. 2.
It is the opinion of the Labor Board that when any changes of
wages or contracts or rules previously in effect are contemplated
or proposed by either party, conference must be had as directed by
the transportation act, 1920, and by rules of procedure and decisions
promulgated by the board; where agreements are not reached the
dispute must be brought before the Labor Board and no action taken
or change made until authorized by said board.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the action on the part
of the carrier in reducing the rates of pay of the classes of employees
involved in this dispute was in violation of Decision No. 2 and the
transportation act, 1920. The employees affected shall therefore be
reimbursed to the extent they suffered a wage loss during the months
of January and February, 1921, account of this violation.
5
885
DECISIONS.
DECISION NO. 1330-DOCKET 1889.
Chicago, Ill. October 28, 1922..
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper basis of pay for over-
time and calls for employees in clerical and station service, during,
the period July 1, 1921, to March 1, 1922.
Statement. The carrier named above was a party to Decision No.
119, but was not included in Decision No. 630, owing to the existence
of a dispute regarding the representation of clerical employees. A
ballot taken in accordance with Decision No. 225 of the Labor Board
indicated that the organization party hereto represented the em-
ployees in clerical and station service, and an agreement was nego-
tiated between the representatives of the carrier and the organization
on the basis of Decision No. 630. This agreement is effective March
1, 1922. A dispute has arisen as to the proper basis of pay for over-
time and calls during the period July 1, 1921, to March 1, 1922.
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 reads as follows:
The Labor Board directs as follows, effective July 1, 1921, with the under-
standing that if the rules promulgated by the Labor Board to be effective July
1 are more favorable to the employees, adjustment in compensation due to the
employees will be made by the carrier:
1. All overtime in excess of the established hours of service shall be paid for
at the pro rata rate: Provided, That this will not affect classes of employees
of any carrier which have reached an agreement as to overtime rates, nor
classes of employees of any carrier who by agreement or practice were receiv-
ing a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of any general order
of the United States Railroad Administration relating to wages and working
conditions. Inasmuch as this board has not as yet given consideration to any
dispute on overtime rates, this order should not be construed to indicate the
final action and decision of the Labor Board on disputes as to overtime rates
which have been or may be referred to the board.
2. In lieu of any other rule not agreed to in the conferences held under Deci-
sion No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the United
States Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such time as such
rules are considered and decided by the Labor Board.
3. This direction shall not be understood to modify Decision No. 119 in any
respect other than specifically provided for herein.
4. Rules agreed upon by carriers and employees to be effective as of July
1, 1921.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the overtime provi-
sions of Decision No. 630 are more favorable to the employees than
the overtime provisions applied during the period July 1, 1921, to
March 1, 1922, the more favorable conditions shall be applied for
that period, and the employees compensated accordingly. Pay for
calls during the period named shall be made in accordance with
section 2 of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 herein quoted.
DECISION NO. 1331.-DOCKET 899.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question. Request of employees in clerical and station service for
reimbursement for one day's pay per week deducted from their
wages in the months of January, February, and March, 1921, on
886
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
which days they were required to work, and claim for compen-
sation for certain days during the same period that their assign-
ment was reduced below six days per week.
Statement.-On January 26, 1921, an order was issued by the
carrier reducing the assignment of certain clerical employees from
six to five days per week, and requiring certain clerical employees
to work a seven-day assignment with compensation for only six
days.
The employees contend that the action of the carrier in issuing
instructions as above described constituted a violation of the deci-
sions of the Labor Board, and rule 66 of the national agreement of
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Hand-
lers, Express and Station Employees.
Rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement reads, in part, as fol-
lows:
Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the reduction of days for the
employees covered by this rule below six per week excepting that this number
may be reduced in a week in which holidays occur by the number of such
holidays.
With reference to the request of the employees that all employees
should be compensated for the time lost as a result of the issuance
of the order of January 26, 1921, under the provisions of rule 66
above quoted, the carrier states that this request is in substance
and effect a request that the carrier pay its employees for time not
worked. The carrier contends that the Labor Board has no power
or jurisdiction to impose such a requirement, and that to do so would
be contrary to principles heretofore announced by the board to the
effect that compensation should be based on time worked.
The carrier states that the clerks' national agreement was not
legally in effect after September 1, 1920, as the statutory provision
for its continuance expired on that date, and the agreement was
not renewed by contract. The carrier contends that the assumption
of continuance of working conditions in effect during the period
of Federal control contained in Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board
did not continue the effectiveness of said agreement of January 1,
1920.
The carrier contends that there was not during January and
February, 1921, an outstanding decision of the board declaring
the rules and working conditions contained in the clerks' national
agreement to be reasonable; that hearings before the board for
the determination of what would be reasonable rules and working
conditions were not at that time concluded; and that therefore the
board had never made an order or decision in accordance with the
statute determining reasonable rules and working conditions. The
carrier further contends that the Labor Board has no power to
make any decision or rule affecting the legal rights of the carrier and
the employees under contract of employment in effect between them,
and that the continuance of its employees in the service after the
issuance of the order now complained of constituted an acquiescence
in such order and an abandonment of any claim for compensation
for time not worked or for greater compensation than afterwards
accepted by such employees when paid to them.
The carrier contends that the facts do not show any violation
of a decision of the Labor Board within the meaning of section 313
DECISIONS.
887
of the transportation act, 1920, and that such section has no appli-
cation to a departure from a fixed rate of pay specifically named in
the decision except after decision by the board that the determining
factors as defined by the statute, including wages in other indus-
tries and living costs, etc., are sufficiently the same as those when
the decision was made to make the rate of pay named in the decision
just and reasonable within the definition of the statute. The car-
rier contends that the violation referred to in section 313 does not
cover every departure from the rates or working conditions pre-
viously declared reasonable by the board, because the language of
the section authorizing the board to determine after hearing the
question “whether in its opinion" a violation of its decision has
occurred is not appropriate for many departures therefrom. The
carrier contends that in so far as its action may have constituted
a departure from any previous decision or ruling of the board, such
departure was just and reasonable and justified by existing con-
ditions, and not a violation in accordance with section 313.
With reference to the justness and reasonableness of its action,
the carrier states that the reduction in working time of forces was
put into effect because of the necessity for economizing due to the
fact that at that time the carrier's operating expenses were in excess
of its operating revenues; and as the carrier had no assurance as to
how long this would continue, it was, therefore, forced to reduce its
operating expenses. It is claimed that the course adopted of reduc-
ing the number of days worked was designed to avoid the hardship
which would be inflicted upon individuals by an absolute reduction
in the number of men employed.
The carrier further states that the recommendations of the manu-
facturers' committee of the national conference on unemployment,
convened by the President, includes a recommendation of part-time
work through reduced time or rotation of jobs and the reduction of
the work week to a lower number of days during the present period
of industrial depression, as some of the emergency methods which
may be adopted to meet the present conditions of unemployment;
furthermore, that the developments regarding unemployment since
the carrier's order in January justify the policy which it then
adopted to avoid, so far as possible, increasing the number of indi-
viduals unemployed, while at the same time effecting the necessary
economy.
The carrier further contends that the necessity and reasonableness
of taking steps to economize have been clearly shown by testimony
before the Labor Board, and subsequent orders and decisions of the
board have indicated that the rates of pay and working conditions
fixed when the orders now in question were issued by the carrier
were as a whole unreasonably and unduly favorable to the employees.
Opinion. The contentions of the carrier and the evidence sub-
mitted have been carefully considered. The Labor Board has in so
many orders, decisions, and announcements, of which the carrier is
aware, expressed its opinion as to the intent of Congress in enacting
Title III of the transportation act, 1920, and of the authority vested
in the Labor Board by said act, that it is not considered necessary
to reiterate its position as to the extent of its power under the said
act in this decision.
888
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The Labor Board, in Decision No. 91, fully states its reasons for
deciding that the action of the carrier in deducting amounts from
the earnings of the employees was in violation of Decision No. 2.
The board also construes the action of the carrier in reducing the
regular assignment of employees covered by the clerks' national
agreement below six days per week to be in violation of rule 66 of
the said agreement.
It is the opinion of the Labor Board that when any changes of
wages or contracts or rules previously in effect are contemplated
or proposed by either party, conference must be had as directed by
the transportation act, 1920, and by rules or decisions of procedure
promulgated by the Labor Board. Where agreements are not
reached, the dispute must be brought before the board and no action
taken or change made until authorized by the board.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the action of the carrier
in deducting pay for time actually worked from the wages of the
employees referred to in this dispute, and in reducing the number
of days of the weekly assignment below six days per week without
agreement with the interested parties was in violation of the orders
and decisions of the Labor Board, and rule 66 of the clerks' national
agreement herein quoted.
The employees affected shall therefore be reimbursed for the time
lost during the months of January, February, and March, 1921, as a
result of the carrier's order.
DECISION NO. 1332.-DOCKET 1166.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Erie Railroad Co.
Question. This decision is upon an application of train dispatch-
ers in the carrier's service for reimbursement for rest days which they
were required to work during the period January 30 to March 12,
1921, in violation of Decision No. 2, and refund of amounts so de-
ducted from their earnings as set forth in Decision No. 91.
Statement. On March 2, 1921, the Labor Board issued Decision
No. 91, in which it was decided that the carrier named violated De-
cision No. 2 by arbitrarily requiring train dispatchers to work seven
days per week for wages determined by the Labor Board to be just
and reasonable for six days' work per week, and by deducting from
the employees' earnings certain amounts as set forth therein. After
the issuance of said Decision No. 91, the carrier restored the weekly
rest day for train dispatchers, but has not compensated said dispatch-
ers for the relief days they were required to work in violation of the
rules in effect governing relief days, nor refunded to said train dis-
patchers the amounts deducted from their earnings as set forth in
Decision No. 91.
The employees contend that in response to inquiry as to reimburs-
ing the employees affected the carrier stated that it was contesting
the board's ruling and had no intention of making restitution in ac-
cordance with aforesaid decision.
The employees request that the carrier be directed to compensate
all train dispatchers for the extra day when they were required to
DECISIONS.
889
·
work by virtue of instructions suspending relief days and this re-
quest is based on their contention that Decision No. 2 and Decision
No. 91 have been violated.
With respect to this contention the carrier states that the assump-
tion of continuance of working conditions in effect during the period
of Federal control contained in the board's decision would not con-
tinue the effectiveness of any requirements of any certain number of
relief days for train dispatchers that were in effect under the instruc-
tions of the United States Railroad Administration.
The carrier also states that there was during February, 1921, no
outstanding decision of the board declaring any rule or working con-
ditions containing such requirement to be reasonable, that hearings
before the board for determination of what would be reasonable rules
and working conditions had not at that time been concluded, and
that, therefore, the board never made an order or decision in accord-
ance with the statute declaring reasonable rules and working condi-
tions.
In support of the justness and reasonableness of its action, the ear-
rier states that the cancellation of the practice made effective during
Federal control whereby train dispatchers were relieved one day per
week was put into effect because of the necessity for economizing,
which arose from the fact that at that time the carrier's operating
expenses were in excess of its operating revenue and the carrier had
no assurance as to how long this would continue, and was therefore
forced to reduce its operating expenses.
The carrier states that the course adopted of requiring train dis-
patchers to work seven days per week and in this way eliminate extra
payments for relief dispatchers was fully justified under the condi-
tions existing at that time, that the necessity and reasonableness of
taking steps to economize have been clearly shown by testimony
before the board, and that subsequent orders and decisions of the
board have indicated that the working conditions immediately prior
to the orders now in question issued by the carrier were as a whole
unreasonably and unduly favorable to the employees.
The carrier contends that the board has no power to make any
decision or rule affecting the legal rights of the carrier and the em-
ployees under contract of employment in effect between them, that
the continuance of its employees in the service after the issuance of
the order complained of constituted an acquiescence in such order
and an abandonment of any claim for greater compensation_than
afterwards accepted by such employees when paid to them, and that
its action did not constitute a departure from any previous decision
or ruling of the board or a violation under section 313 of the trans-
portation act, 1920.
Opinion. The position of carrier and the evidence submitted have
been carefully considered. The Labor Board has in so many orders,
decisions, and announceme.its, of which the carrier is aware, ex-
pressed its opinion as to the intent of Congress in enacting Title III
of the transportation act, 1920, and as to the authority vested in it by
said act, that it is not considered necessary to reiterate its position
as to the extent of its power under the said act in this decision.
The board in Decision No. 91 fully stated its reason for deciding
that the action of the carrier in deducting amounts from the earn-
890
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ings of these employees and requiring them to work their relief day
was in violation of Decision No. 2, and there has been no argument
advanced by the carrier in its presentation in the docket upon which
this decision is rendered to justify any change in the board's opinion
as expressed in said decision.
It is the opinion of the Labor Board that when any changes of
wages or contracts or rules previously in effect are contemplated or
proposed by either party, conference must be had as directed by the
transportation act and by rules or decisions of procedure promul-
gated by the board; where agreements are not reached the dispute
must be brought before the board and no action taken or change
made until authorized by the board. The Labor Board had not,
at the time the action of the carrier as herein described was taken,
decided upon the justness or reasonableness of the rules governing
working conditions continued in effect by decision No. 2, and no
change should have been made in same until action had been taken.
in accordance with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the carrier shall reim-
burse the train dispatchers, in whose behalf this application has been
filed with the board, for the amounts arbitrarily deducted from their
earnings and for the rest days which they were required to work
during the months of January, February, and March, 1921.
DECISION NO. 1333.-DOCKET 915.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-
way Co.
Question. Application of the displacement rule of the tele-
graphers' existing agreement to E. F. Schuyler, agent, Othello,
Wash., the youngest regularly assigned employee in the district, in
connection with the request of L. T. Keegan and C. H. Williams,
senior employees, whose positions had been abolished, to displace
E. F. Schuyler under the articles of the telegraphers' agreement.
Statement. The question shown above is the one presented to the
Labor Board ex parte by the employees for decision. However, it
appears that the contention of the carrier is that the position held
by Mr. Schuyler is considered an "agent-yardmaster" position not
subject to the provisions of the telegraphers' agreement. The ques-
tion, therefore, for the board to decide is whether or not the posi-
tion comes under the telegraphers' agreement and is subject to the
rules thereof. The controversy arose over the refusal of the carrier
to permit senior operators, whose positions were abolished, to dis-
place Mr. Schuyler, agent at Othello, in December, 1920.
The employees state the position held by Mr. Schuyler was included
in the telegraphers' agreement by agreement between the represen-
tatives of the employees and carrier, that it was held by Mr.
Schuyler at the time of its inclusion therein, and that Mr. Schuyler's
seniority date was established as February 10, 1919, the date he
entered the service. The employees contend that the applicants for
the position were fully competent to handle the duties thereof, and
that the carrier's action in declining to permit the displacement was
in violation of Article IV of the telegraphers' agreement.
DECISIONS.
891
The carrier states that Othello was one of the stations included in
the telegraphers' agreement in compliance with Article IV of Sup-
plement 13 to General Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad
Administration by reason of the fact that the agent was required to
perform a certain amount of clerical work, and that employees hold-
ing the position previous to that time were allowed to retain it
and were given dates on telegraphers' seniority roster as of the date
they entered station service on the division where they were em-
ployed.
The carrier contends that it was within its right in declining to
permit the displacement of Mr. Schuyler, as the application of the
telegraphers' agreement to the position of agent at Othello contem-
plates the duties of station agent, and in no manner is the position
of agent-yardmaster referred to therein, nor covered by agreement
with this or any other class of employees.
Opinion. It appears that the position held by Mr. Schuyler was
included in the telegraphers' agreement as a result of the incorpora-
tion therein of the provisions of Supplement 13 to Gene: al Order
No. 27 of the United States Railroad Administration. The agree-
ment between the carrier and employees in telegraph service contains
the usual provision requiring 30 days' notice by either party to the
agreement of desire to change any provision thereof.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the carrier desires to
exclude the position of agent at Othello from the provisions of the
agreement with employees in telegraph service it must proceed in
accordance with the agreement, and that the position shall therefore
be subject to the provisions of the agreement unless or until it is
taken out in the manner provided for therein or as provided by the
transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1334.-DOCKET 916.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Application of seniority rule of the telegraphers' agree-
ment to the position of agent at Melstone, Mont., held by W. H.
Wallace.
Statement. The question shown above is the one presented to the
Labor Board ex parte by the employees for decision, but the dispute.
is in reality the application of the telegraphers' agreement to the
position named.
The employees contend that the position of agent at Melstone is
listed in the agreement between the carrier and employees in tele-
graph service and subject to the provisions thereof, and that action
of the carrier in declining to permit telegraphers with greater senior-
ity to displace Mr. Wallace constitutes a violation of Article IV of
the said agreement.
The carrier states that Melstone is one of the stations included in
the telegraphers' agreement in accordance with Article IV of Supple-
ment 13 to General Order No. 27 issued by the United States Rail-
road Administration, by reason of the fact that the agent was re-
quired to perform a certain amount of clerical work. The carrier
20936°-23--57
892
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
contends that the position is in reality that of "agent-yardmaster "
and not subject to the provisions of the agreement with the teleg-
raphers or any other class of employees, and that it was not acting
in violation of the telegraphers' agreement in refusing to permit the
displacement of Mr. Wallace.
Opinion. It appears that the position held by Mr. Wallace was
included in the telegraphers' agreement when Supplement 13 to
General Order No. 27 was incorporated therein. At the hearing con-
ducted by the Labor Board the representative of the carrier admitted
that the position was included in the schedule during the period of
Federal control, but contends that this was not with the consent of
the carrier, and that the position is properly designated as "
yardmaster" and not subject to the agreement with the telegraphers
or any other class of employees.
agent-
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if for any reason the
carrier desires to exclude the agency at Melstone from the teleg-
raphers' agreement it must proceed in accordance with the provi-
sions of the said agreement, and that the position shall be subject to
the provisions thereof unless or until it is removed therefrom in
accordance with the terms thereof or in the manner provided in the
Transportation Act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1335.-DOCKET 917.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding assignment to position of agent
at Malden, Wash., bulletined for bids on August 28, 1920, as "agent-
yardmaster."
Statement. The question shown above is the one presented to the
Labor Board ex parte by the employees for decision. However,
at the hearing conducted by the board it developed that it is the
carrier's contention that the position in dispute does not come within
the scope of the telegraphers' agreement and this is the question
for the board to decide.
The employees state that the agency at Malden was bulletined
August 28, 1920, as "agent-yardmaster." Applications for the posi-
tion were received from several employees holding seniority on the
telegraphers' roster, but an employee holding no seniority under the
telegraphers' agreement was assigned to the position.
The employees contend that the applicants for the position were
competent to handle the duties thereof and that the failure of the
carrier to assign one of them to said position constitutes a violation
of Article IV of the telegraphers' agreement.
The carrier states that the agency at Malden is one of several
included in the telegraphers' agreement in compliance with Article
IV of Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27 issued by the United
States Railroad Administration by reason of the fact that the agent
was required to perform a certain amount of clerical work. The
carrier contends, however, that since this position was included
in the telegraphers' agreement the duties have been materially
changed by the addition thereto of the supervision of the yard work.
DECISIONS.
893
and the employees engaged therein and that these duties are not
contemplated in any way by the agreement; on the contrary, it is
a position properly designated as "agent-yardmaster" and not sub-
ject to the provisions of the agreement with the telegraphers or
any other class of employees.
Opinion. It appears that the position of agent at Malden was in-
cluded in the agreement between the carrier and employees in tele-
graph service through the incorporation in the said agreement of
Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27. Since that time the yard
work formerly handled by the dispatcher's office (moved from
Malden to Spokane) and for a short period by a yardmaster, hast
been added to the agent's duties.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the carrier desires
to exclude the position of agent at Malden from the provisions of
the agreement with employees in telegraph service it must pro-
ceed in accordance with the agreement, and that the position shall
be subject to the provisions of the agreement unless or until it is
taken out in the manner provided for therein or as provided by
the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1336.-DOCKET 931.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-
way Co.
Question.-Displacement of W. H. Campbell from the position of
agent at Cle Elum, Wash., and the assignment of W. R. Harring-
ton to the position reclassified as agent-yardmaster, in violation
of the articles of the telegraphers' agreement.
Statement. The question shown above is the one presented to
the Labor Board ex parte by the employees for decision, but the
dispute is in reality the application of the telegraphers' agree-
ment to the position named.
The employees contend that the position of agent at Cle Elum is
listed in the agreement between the carrier and the employees in
telegraph service and subject to the provisions thereof, and that
the action of the carrier in permitting Mr. Harrington to displace
Mr. Campbell without bulletin, as was done in this case, consti-
tutes a violation of Article IV of the said agreement.
The carrier states that Cle Elum is one of several stations in-
cluded in the telegraphers' agreement in accordance with Article
IV of Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27 by reason of
the fact that the agent was required to perform a certain amount
of clerical work. The carrier further states that with the falling off
of business in 1920, it was decided to combine the positions of
agent and yardmaster and place the agent in charge of the yard
work as well as the station work, and abolish the position of yard-
master. The carrier contends that the position created as a result
of this change is properly designated as "agent-yardmaster" and
not subject to the provisions of the agreement with the telegraphers
or any other class of employees, and that it was not acting in violation
of the telegraphers' agreement in assigning Mr. Harrington to
this position.
894
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion. It appears that the position of agent at Cle Elum was
included in the telegraphers' agreement when Supplement 13 to
General Order No. 27 was incorporated therein. Since that time
certain duties heretofore performed by the yardmaster have been
added to the duties of the agent. The agreement contains the
usual clause providing for the service of 30 days' notice by either
party of desire to change its provisions.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the carrier desires
to exclude the position of agent at Cle Elum from the provisions
of the agreement with employees in telegraph service it must pro-
ceed in accordance with the agreement, and that the position shall
be subject to the provisions of the agreement unless or until it is
taken out in the manner provided for therein or as provided by the
transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1337.-DOCKET 1511.
Chicago, Ill. October 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding alleged violation of rule 77 in con-
nection with the rearrangement of messenger runs between Willard
and Pittsburgh and between Willard and Cleveland.
Statement. Prior to April 20, 1921, the carrier maintained a group
of messengers on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co's. trains 67 and 68
at monthly salary of $150.90, with terminals at Willard and Pitts-
burgh. During the same period the carrier maintained a group
of messengers operating the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co's. trains
34, 25, 36, and 37 at monthly salary of $138.48, between Willard and
Cleveland. These groups were discontinued April 19, 1921, and,
effective April 20, a group of messengers was established, running
between Cleveland and Pittsburgh and operating the same trains at a
monthly salary of $158.40.
The employees contend that the changing of the groups of messen-
gers on the Willard-Pittsburgh and Willard-Cleveland routes, as de-
scribed above, was not in accordance with the spirit and intent of
rule 77 of the agreement between the carrier and the employees,
reading as follows:
Reduction in crews or increase in hours of service from assignment in ef-
fect February 15, 1920, shall not be made with a purpose of offsetting the in-
tent of these rules, but nothing in these rules is understood to prevent ad-
justment of runs in short turn-around service for the purpose of avoiding pay-
ment of overtime that would accrue under these rules without reducing the
number of employees. Such runs may be rearranged provided that employees
are not taken off or reduced in number.
The employees further contend that in the rearrangement of the
runs above described, which resulted in reducing the respective
groups of messengers by one employee and adding hours and milage
to the remaining employees, rule 77 of the agreement was violated.
The employees state that the change was not made for the purpose
of avoiding overtime, but claim it was made for the purpose of reduc-
ing the number of messengers, and request that the runs be readjusted
to conform with the assignments in effect prior to April 20, 1920,
adding thereto one employee and reimbursing the remaining em-
DECISIONS.
895
ployees for such extra service as they were required to perform as
a result of the said reduction.
The carrier denies that in making the changes in the runs above
described it acted in conflict with either the language or intent of
rule 77, and further denies that there was any reduction in crews or
increase in hours from assignments in effect February 15, 1920. The
carrier states that the new runs established April 20, 1921, were en-
tirely different and new assignments between different terminals, and
contends that the readjustment of the runs was not made for the
purpose of offsetting the intent of the rules of the agreement, but on
the contrary was to conform to the decrease in traffic and provide for
the more economical and efficient handling of the positions. The
carrier contends that the employees' contentions relate wholly to
the hours of employees, whereas positions and not individuals are
involved. The carrier further contends that its action was proper
and not in conflict with rule 77 or any other rules of the agreement
relating to this class of service.
Decision. The evidence presented to the Labor Board does not in-
dicate that the changes referred to herein were made for the pur-
pose of offsetting the intent of any rule of the agreement.
Claim of the employees is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1338.-DOCKET 2420.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding right of the carrier to make reduc-
tion in the number of messengers assigned to messenger runs between
Clarksdale and Yazoo City, Miss.
Statement. Prior to February 15, 1920, four messengers were
operating in train service on the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Rail-
road between Clarksdale and Yazoo, on trains 522, 523, 524, and
525. About March 14, 1922, one position on the run in question was
abolished and it is now operated with three men over the same rail-
road between the same terminals and on the same trains as above
stated.
The employees state that the runs have been operated since Feb-
ruary 15, 1922, exactly as they were prior to that date and that there
has been no change in the time card schedule of the trains or the
working conditions.
It is the contention of the employees that the reduction of one mes-
senger and increase in hours of the remaining three messengers on
the runs specified herein is in violation of rule 77 of the agreement
between the carrier and the employees, reading as follows:
Reduction in crews or increase in hours of service from assignment in effect
February 15, 1920, shall not be made with a purpose of offsetting the intent of
these rules, but nothing in these rules is understood to prevent adjustment of
runs in short turn-around service for the purpose of avoiding payment of over-
time that would accrue under these rules without reducing the number of em-
ployees. Such runs may be rearranged provided that employees are not taken
off or reduced in number.
896
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The employees request that the runs be reestablished with the four
messengers operating between the two points mentioned and that the
three messengers who have been assigned to these runs since March
22, 1922, be paid a salary commensurate with the number of increased
hours they have been compelled to work since the change was made.
It is the contention of the carrier that the change in the runs re-
ferred to is not in conflict with rule 77, above quoted, as the change
was not made for the purpose of offsetting the intent of the rules of
the agreement. The carrier contends that the prohibition contained
in rule 77 as to reduction in crews or increase in hours applies only
when such reduction or such increase is made "with the purpose of
offsetting the intent of these rules," and that the employees have ut-
terly failed to show any such purpose on the part of the carrier.
The carrier also contends that the employees' statement with refer-
ence to change in time-card schedules or working conditions is in-
correct and that on the contrary the train schedules have been short-
ened and terminal time reduced and that it was on this account that
the carrier found it possible to take off the fourth man and revert to
the same conditions that existed on this run prior to January 5, 1920.
The carrier further contends that there is no rule requiring it to add
a fourth man to the group, and that to do so would be wasteful, un-
economical, and unnecessary.
Decision. The evidence presented to the Labor Board does not in-
dicate that the reduction in crews and increase in mileage described
herein was made for the purpose of offsetting the intent of the rules
of the agreement.
Claim of the employees is, therefore, denied.
DECISION NO. 1339.-DOCKET 2179.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Question.-Request of employees for rule covering checking in
and out for shop and roundhouse laborers.
Statement.—The following rule has been requested by the repre-
sentatives of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers to be incorporated into an agree-
ment between their organization and the Central Railroad Company
of New Jersey:
Employees who are required to check in and out on their own time will be
allowed 10 minutes each day regardless of the number of hours worked.
The argument advanced by the employees in connection with their
request for this rule follows:
Employees covered by this agreement who are required to check in and out
on their own time are rendering service to the management. In many instances
they are working side by side with other employees who have received pay for
such service, and stand in line with them awaiting their turn to file past the
clock or whatever device is used for checking.
We contend there should be no discrimination among employees in any de-
partment when required to check in before starting their work and check out
after quitting their day's work. We further contend that where employees are
DECISIONS.
897
required to check in and out they must report considerably earlier in order to
assure themselves that they will not be docked for reporting late on their
respective jobs; and there are instances where such employees are docked be-
cause shop trains are late and other circumstances over which the employees
have no control, which prevents them from reporting on their jobs on time,
which would have been avoided if they had not been compelled to check in.
We maintain that where employees are required to report early enough to
check in before the whistle blows for starting time and compelled to remain
after quitting time long enough to check out, they should be paid for such
service.
We further contend that inasmuch as there has been a similar rule decided
by the Labor Board in favor of employees with other organizations, it shows a
disposition to discriminate between different classes of employees. We there-
fore urge that this rule be included in our new agreement.
The argument of the carrier against the incorporation of this rule
follows:
The rule proposed by the employees is for shop laborers only, inasmuch as
maintenance of way employees, from the nature of their duties, are not re-
quired to check in and out with time clocks or similar methods. The railroad
company does not consider this a proper rule for the class of employees men-
tioned. It requires pay for time not worked, and violates principle 12 of De-
cision No. 119, which specifically provides that for eight hours' pay eight hours'
work should be performed by all railroad employees, except engine and train
service employees.
The allowance proposed in this rule was not considered proper under any
decisions made by the wage board under the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration decisions for this class of labor, neither is it incorporated as part of
Decision No. 501 issued by the United States Railroad Labor Board for the
same class of employees.
At shops and engine houses the checking system is a necessity, due to the
large number of men employed, to properly determine the hours worked. The
duties of the railway shop laborers are of such a character that no preparation
is required in advance of the commencing of their work; neither are any duties
required of them after their work stops. When the whistle blows they are
ready to start work without any preparation; they have no tools to look after,
no machinery to start or put in condition, and at the completion of their work
when the whistle blows they are through.
The time checking in and out should be considered as much a part of the
employees' time going to and from their place of employment as the time used
to travel to and from their home to the place of employment. Employees do
not make any claim that they should be reimbursed for such traveling time,
recognizing that the railroad is not obligated in any way to pay them for such
time. A claim for checking in and out would be as just as a claim for pay-
ment for time used in traveling from their home to their place of employment.
The management feels that payment of time as covered by this proposed rule
is not just, either to the carrier or the employees.
Decision. The request of the employees for the incorporation of
this rule in the agreement referred to is denied.
DECISION NO. 1340.-DOCKET 2186.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of C. E. Rounsavall, for-
merly employed as section foreman, dismissed from the service of
the Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co. on January 3, 1922.
Decision. Request for reinstatement is denied.
898
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1341.-DOCKET 2249.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System).
Question. (a) Shall the rules and working conditions agreed
upon prior to July 1, 1921, in accordance with Decision No. 119,
together with rules and working conditions in Decision No. 707,
constitute an agreement between the employees in the signal depart-
ment, represented by the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of Amer-
ica, and the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System)?
(b) Shall this agreement bear the signatures of the authorized
representatives of the carrier and the organization?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence submitted in connection
with this case shows that in May, 1921, a committee of the Brother-
hood Railroad Signalmen of America, representing the signal de-
partment employees employed by the Southern Pacific Company
(Pacific System), met representatives of the carrier in an effort to
agree upon rules and working conditions in conformity with De-
cision No. 119. Certain rules were agreed upon; certain others, upon
which no agreement was reached, were submitted to the Labor Board
for decision. Among the disagreed rules was a proposed caption or
title page. The employees take the position that the following should
be the caption of the agreement:
It
Agreement between the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (Pacific System) and
the employees of the signal department represented by the Brotherhood Rail-
road Signalmen of America.
The carrier proposed the following caption:
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System). Rules governing working conditions
and hours of service for signal department employees in the maintenance of way
department, effective July 1, 1921.
The employees further contend that these rules and working con-
ditions constitute an agreement, and that they should be properly
captioned and bear the signatures of the authorized representatives
of the carrier and of the organization.
The carrier takes the position that it is not within the letter nor
the spirit of the transportation act, 1920, that a carrier, which has
a set of rules governing working conditions with a given class of
employees, part of which rules were arrived at by conference or
agreement, should be required to sign a written contract or agree-
ment with representatives of the employees' organization.
Opinion. The evidence clearly shows that the carrier recognized
the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America as an organization
duly authorized to represent its signal department employees, and
further that it has negotiated rules with a committee affiliated with
that organization. The board has taken cognizance of the statement
made by representatives of the carrier to the effect that, because of
the fact that certain rules were not agreed upon in conference and
were decided by the Labor Board, the rules do not constitute an
agreement in their entirety and should not be so considered. The
board does not feel that this position is well taken.
DECISIONS.
899
The Labor Board further does not feel that the carrier should
protest against the inclusion of the name of the organization in the
caption of the agreement, as it is clearly indicated that the carrier
does recognize the organization as duly representing the classes of
employees in the signal department. With respect to the affixing of
signatures to the agreement, the Labor Board does not feel that the
carrier's position with respect to this phase of the dispute is entirely
consistent. The Labor Board now has before it a copy of an agree-
ment between the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) and the
Shop Crafts' Protective League, and it is to be noted on the con-
cluding page thereof that numerous signatures appear, both for the
carrier and for the employees.
Decision. The Labor Board decides upon the question submitted
that the caption of the agreement in question shall read:
Agreement between the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) and the em-
ployees of the signal department represented by the Brotherhood Railroad
Signalmen of America.
The Labor Board further decides that the completed rules and
working conditions shall bear the signatures of the duly authorized
representatives of the carrier and the duly authorized representa-
tives of the employees, parties to said agreement.
DECISION NO. 1342.-DOCKET 2255.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Question. Leave of absence and free transportation for general
chairman, United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and Railway Shop Laborers.
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection.
with this case shows that R. F. Hill has been acting in the capacity
of general chairman, representing the above-named organization,
since March, 1920. It is shown that he was granted two months'
leave of absence-namely, March and April, 1920-and was also
furnished with system card transportation for the year 1920. Mr.
Hill served in the capacity of bridge and building foreman from
February, 1913, to June 1, 1920, with the exception of the two months'
leave of absence referred to. On June 3, 1920, the following letter
was addressed to Mr. Hill by the supervisor of bridges and buildings:
Since you have decided to retain the office of general chairman of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers of the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway, it has been decided
that you can not hold the office as foreman of a bridge gang. You may, how-
ever, work in any of the bridge gangs you see fit to work as a bridge carpenter,
receiving bridge carpenter's wages.
If you see fit to accept this offer and there is any particular gang you want
to work in and you will be kind enough to let me know what gang that is, I
will arrange for you to go to work with them at once, as I have appointed Asa
Simpson as foreman of the pile drivers.
Please be kind enough to turn over to Mr. Simpson all of the company
papers and working instructions that you have.
900
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The following is quoted from Mr. Hill's reply dated June 5, 1920:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 3, with reference
to reducing me from bridge foreman to carpenter, giving me preference to any
gang that I preferred to work in. Will say that I have complied with your
request as to turning over all correspondence, etc., to Mr. Simpson. I
decline to accept the position as carpenter, taking the stand that as bridge
foreman and a member of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers in good standing, and being lawfully
elected to the office of general chairman of this organization and having
the proper credentials, I contend that I have a perfect right to hold my
position as bridge foreman while acting as general chairman of this or-
ganization according to our agreement.
On June 25, 1920, Mr. Hill met the engineer of the maintenance
of way together with the supervisor of bridges and buildings, at
which time Mr. Hill made a formal request for reinstatement to
the position of bridge and building foreman with privilege of six
months' leave of absence and free transportation over the system.
On June 30, 1920, the supervisor of bridges and buildings advised
Mr. Hill that leave of absence as bridge and building foreman for
six months with free transportation could not be arranged, since
he, Mr. Hill, had already been reduced to carpenter; further, that
if Mr. Hill expected to remain in the service of the carrier as a car-
penter and hold his transportation, he would have to work enough
time to keep his name on the pay roll, otherwise the transportation
he then held would be taken up. On July 1, 1920, Mr. Hill turned
in his annual transportation which was valid for the year 1920.
The file shows that Mr. Hill has made repeated efforts to induce
the carrier to furnish him with free transportation as evidenced by
letters submitted. The carrier, however, has taken the position that
Mr. Hill is not an employee and that it would be strictly against the
law to allow him free transportation.
The representative of the carrier at oral hearing before the Labor
Board stated that in view of the alleged fact that Mr. Hill is not
an employee of said carrier, there is no dispute before the Board
as contemplated in the transportation act, 1920, and asks that the
case be dismissed. In the course of the oral hearing the representa-
tive indicated that the reason for demoting Mr. Hill from the posi-
tion of bridge and building foreman to carpenter was that they did
not feel that an employee in a supervisory capacity should act in
the capacity of general chairman representing the employees, and
upon being advised that he contemplated remaining as general chair-
man of the employees they felt justified in assigning him to the
position of carpenter.
·
Considerable legal argument was advanced by representative of
the carrier purporting to show that they could not legally grant the
free transportation requested.
Opinion. The evidence does not indicate that there is any dispute
regarding the right of Mr. Hill to represent the employees in ques-
tion in the capacity of general chairman. The evidence further
shows that Mr. Hill has been continuously engaged in this capacity
since June 3, 1920, the date on which he received a notice of his de-
motion.
Decision. It has been a recognized and time-honored practice of
practically all carriers having working agreements with their em-
DECISIONS.
901
ployees to grant leaves of absence (ofttimes indefinite with full re-
tention of seniority rights) to general chairmen representing large
groups of employees in order that they might perform the duties
incumbent upon that position.
The Labor Board, therefore, decides that the carrier was not justi-
fied in refusing further leave and free transportation to R. F. Hill,
and that he should be restored to the seniority roster in accordance
with his standing immediately prior to June 3, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1343.-DOCKET 2373.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the displace-
ment of D. Avilla as laborer, Sir Johns Run coal tipple.
Statement. Written and oral evidence shows that the service age
of Mr. Avilla dates from October, 1916, the last date on which he
was employed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. Prior to
the time this dispute arose, it is shown that he was employed as
a track laborer on the territory adjacent to the Sir Johns Run coal
tipple, in which capacity he served until June, 1917, when he was
transferred to the coal tipple. In January, 1918, E. E. Compton,
who entered the service of the track department on this section
in April, 1915, was transferred to the coal tipple as laborer. It is
shown that Mr. Avilla was offered the position of foreman at the
coal tipple, which position was accepted by him for a short while
when he fell back to the position of laborer. The position was
then offered to and accepted by Mr. Compton. In June, 1921, the
force at the coal tipple was reduced, Mr. Compton being assigned
as a laborer, thereby displacing Mr. Avilla, who was offered a posi-
tion as track laborer. He refused to accept that position at the time,
but later exercised his seniority to the position of laborer in the
track department.
་
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Avilla held seniority
over Mr. Compton at the coal tipple, and should not have been dis-
placed; that the rules then in effect provided that seniority would
be restricted to the subdepartment in which employed, and the coal
tipple is a subdepartment within the meaning of that rule; that
in refusing to accept the position of foreman Mr. Avilla only lost
his seniority rights as a foreman and did not lose his rights as a
laborer; and, further, that Mr. Avilla should be restored to the
position of laborer at the coal tipple and compensated for all time
lost.
The carrier takes the position that this coal tipple is not a sub-
department as contemplated in the rules then in effect; that em-
ployees in the track department and at the coal tipple were con-
sidered on one seniority roster and the forces were interchanged as
necessity required; and, further, that in view of the fact that Mr.
Compton held a higher seniority standing than Mr. Avilla, he was
properly entitled to the consideration shown.
902
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier further contends that employees promoted to foremen
should be privileged to displace junior laborers, regardless of their
seniority as laborers.
The evidence of the carrier indicates that Sir Johns Run coal
tipple is located at about the middle of the section, and that the
force employed has ranged from one to six men; that no separation
has been made in the consideration and application of seniority
in the past, and that the supervisor's district in this case has been
considered the seniority district; and that positions of track laborers
and coal-tipple laborers have been interchangeable, to which ar-
rangement the carrier contends no objection has been previously
raised. The carrier contends that in offering Mr. Avilla a position
as track laborer, which was later accepted by him, they have con-
formed to the rules.
Opinion. The Labor Board does not concur in the position of the
carrier, wherein it is contended that men accepting the positions of
foremen are entitled to prior protection when forces are reduced,
regardless of their seniority as laborers. Section (d), Article
III of the maintenance of way agreement reads as follows:
Employees declining promotion shall not lose their seniority, except to the
employee promoted and only in the next higher rank of service.
A senior laborer refusing to accept the position, resulting in a
junior laborer accepting the position, does not affect the seniority
status of the senior laborer as a laborer.
The Labor Board, however, is of the opinion that the character-
istics of, and the requirements necessary, as well as the number
of men employed at the Sir Johns Run coal tipple and the method
of interchanging employees which has been followed in the past, does
not justify the consideration of such coal tipple as a subdepartment
within the meaning and intent of the rules.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the particular ques-
tion in dispute that the carrier was justified in the action taken,
and therefore sustains its position.
DECISION NO. 1344.-DOCKET 2374.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Western Maryland Railway Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in regard to the caption or
title page of agreement entered into between the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and
the Western Maryland Railway Co.
Statement. The evidence in this case shows that pursuant to the
issuance of Decision No. 119, a conference was held between repre-
sentatives of the above-named parties relative to the formulation of
rules and working conditions. It is shown that during said confer-
ence certain rules were agreed upon, while certain others were not
agreed upon, the disputed rules being submitted to the Labor Board
for decision.
The caption proposed by the carrier reads:
J^^)
Agreement between Western Maryland Railway Co. and the employees repre-
sented by the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
DECISIONS.
903
way Shop Laborers establishing rules and working conditions governing em-
ployees in the maintenance of way department as specified.
The caption proposed by the employees reads:
Agreement between Western Maryland Railway Co. and employees thereon
represented by the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers establishing rules and working conditions governing
employees in the maintenance of way department as specified.
The employees contend that it is very essential that the word
"thereon" should be used in the title page for the purpose of more
clearly emphasizing the fact that the agreement covers employees
working on the carrier's property, and state that they can see no
adequate reason why it should not be used to more clearly define the
fact that said employees are working on the railway designated in
the caption of the agreement.
The representative of the carrier states that he is unable to under-
stand the insistence of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers on what he terms an apparently
trivial question, except on the theory that by inserting the word
"thereon" after the word "employees," the employees believe that
the rules will become binding on men doing maintenance of way work
on the Western Maryland Railway, whether they are employees of
the carrier or not employees thereof. The carrier takes the position
that it could not undertake to make any rules which would be bind-
ing on contractors who may do work on the Western Maryland Rail-
way, nor was it the intention of the carrier in proposing or agree-
ing to the rules in question that they should bind contractors or any
employees save those of the carrier.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the caption as proposed
by the carrier shall be incorporated in and considered a part of the
agreement in question.
The Railroad Labor Board has clearly indicated its position with
respect to the question of contracting work in Decision No. 982 and
numerous subsequent decisions. Should any question arise relative
to this subject which can not be satisfactorily adjusted in conference,
the matter should be referred to the Labor Board in conformity with
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1345.-DOCKET 2377.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Gulf Coast Lines.
Question. Hours of service and meal period for engine watch-
men employed at Anchorage, La.
Statement. The evidence submitted in this case shows that the
Gulf Coast Lines employ three engine watchmen at Anchorage,
each of whom is assigned to 8 hours per day, exclusive of the meal
period, which makes a spread of 8 hours and 20 minutes from
the time of first reporting for duty until released from duty at the
end of the day.
It is the contention of the employees that prior to, during, and
subsequent to Federal control, and up to July 1, 1921, all employees
904
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
of this carrier employed in positions requiring continuous service
have always been allowed 20 minutes or more, if necessary, for
meal period, without deduction in pay; that these engine watchmen -
do not leave the premises of the carrier during the lunch period,
nor do they in any manner stop, obstruct, or neglect any of the duties
required of them; that they carry their lunches; and that there is
always sufficient time in which to eat while waiting for steam or
for engine to fill with water or oil.
The employees further contend that after the engine watchmen
have completed the 8 consecutive hours of service in which the
20-minute lunch period has been allowed, they have completed their
day's work, and the carrier has no right to hold them on duty an
extra 20 minutes without paying extra compensation for this ad-
ditional time. The employees call attention to section (a-2), Article
V of Decision No. 501, reading:
For regular operations requiring continuous hours, 8 consecutive hours with-
out meal period may be assigned as constituting a day's work, in which case not
to exceed 20 minutes shall be allowed in which to eat, without deduction in pay,
when the nature of the work permits.
It is claimed that section (a-2) of Article V is applicable in this
case, and that the overlap of 20 minutes imposes an unnecessary
hardship on these employees and is in violation of the above-
quoted rule.
It is the statement of the employees that the carrier now requires
these employees to lap over 20 minutes on each shift, as indicated
above. For example, John Jackson commences work at 8 a. m.,
works until 12 noon, is then compelled by bulletined order to take
a 20-minute lunch period, and then remain on duty until 4.20 p. m.
This overlap of 20 minutes imposes an unnecessary hardship on
the employees, and it is a violation of section (a-2), Article V of
Decision No. 501, which portion of that decision applies to this
carrier. The employees ask that the Labor Board render a deci-
sion to the effect that these engine watchmen shall be relieved of
further duty upon completion of their assigned eight hours, or
that they shall be compensated for the additional 20 minutes'
service required of them; also, that they be compensated for
all such additional time as they have been required to work in
violation of this rule and in violation of a similar rule in the
maintenance of way national agreement, effective prior to issuance
of Decision No. 501 and retroactive to July 1, 1921, when this prac-
tice was established by the carrier.
The carrier takes the position that in the application of Deci-
sion No. 501 the employees have been assigned by bulletin to
service as described above. It is the further statement of the
carrier that prior to Federal control men in this service were
paid a monthly salary and were assigned without regard to hours
of service, and that in no instance was their tour of duty less than
12 hours per day; further, that only eight hours' service is required
of these men, their meal period being given at the time prescribed
by bulletin, which, the carrier contends, is in strict conformity
with section (a-1), Article V of Decision No. 501, which states
except as otherwise provided in these rules, eight consecutive hours,
exclusive of the meal period, shall constitute a day's work.”
66
DECISIONS.
905
It is the contention of the carrier that section (a-2), Article V
of Decision No. 501, referred to by the employees, states that eight
consecutive hours " may be" established, but it does not state
or require that eight consecutive hours be established on three-
shift positions, and that due to the conditions of employment at
Anchorage, it is more satisfactory to the carrier to handle these posi-
tions in the present manner; that no hardship of any nature is im-
posed upon these men by reason of said arrangement, and that it
is its contention that no violation has been made by reason of
such assignment.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that in accordance with
section (a-2), Article V, of Decision No. 501, the employees in
question should be granted a meal period, not to exceed 20 minutes,
without any deduction in pay therefor, and not required to lap
shifts or make up such time at the close of the work day. This
arrangement shall become effective as of the date of this decision.
DECISION NO. 1346.-DOCKET 2378.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of employees that A. L. Bostic is entitled to
promotion to position of section foreman on the Greenbrier division
of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1347.-DOCKET 2379.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers v. Lehigh Valley Rail-
road Co.
Question.-Proper classification and rating of certain employees in
power plant, Packerton, Pa., car shop.
Statement. The evidence shows that there are four employees in
the power plant at Packerton classified as laborers. The rate paid
these employees in June, 1921, prior to the issuance of Decision No.
147, was 52 cents per hour. Upon receipt of Decision No. 147, the
carrier construed section 8 of Article III as applying to the men in
question and therefore decreased them 10 cents per hour, establishing
a rate of 42 cents per hour.
It is the contention of the employees that the men in question are
performing the work of and should be considered under the term
(( coal passers" and decreased 6 cents per hour under the provisions
of Decision No. 147. The employees state that:
The duties of the men are to assist the firemen and to shovel coal, to help
the firemen clean fires, and to assist in maintaining the steam pressure on
the boilers. Their full time is taken up in this work during their whole tour
of duty, which is eight hours per shift.
906
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
""
The carrier takes the position that the men are not "coal passers
as none of their time is consumed in passing coal, and that the pre-
ponderant duties of these four particular men are to cool ashes and
wheel same away. The carrier calls attention to the classification of'
employees promulgated by the Labor Board, and especially to that
portion relating to coal passers (steam plant) Symbol OST-11,
grade 1, steam station engineman group, page 114, which it is claimed
excludes the laborers in question from that definition.
Decision. The evidence is somewhat conflicting as to the facts in
this case.
The Labor Board decides that a joint investigation shall
be made by representatives of the respective parties to determine
definitely the work performed. If it develops that the employees
are performing service as indicated by the employees in the para-
graph herein quoted, the Labor Board decides that the rate applicable
to coal passers shall be applied. If, on the other hand, the investi-
gation develops that the employees do not pass coal and perform
other service enumerated in that paragraph, the rating shall not be
changed.
DECISION NO. 1348.-DOCKET 2413.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. Atlantic Coast Line Rail-
road Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of C. P. Childs, formerly
employed as car inspector at Port Tampa, Fla., but who was dis-
charged from the service December 23, 1921.
Decision. The request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1349.-DOCKET 2474.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics v. Boston &
Maine Railroad.
Question.-Disputed rules as a result of negotiations conducted
between the above-named parties covering supervisors of mechanics
in the bridge and building department beneath the rank and title
of assistant supervisor of bridges and buildings.
Statement. Negotiations were conducted between representatives
of the above parties at which time certain rules governing working
conditions were agreed upon affecting the classes specified in the ques-
tion. Other rules were not agreed upon and they were submitted
to the Labor Board for decision-the principal rules in dispute being
with respect to the payment for overtime, calls, etc.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the rules as incorporated
in Decision No. 501, where corresponding to the rules in dispute,
shall be included in and be considered a part of the agreement be-
tween the above-named parties.
Other rules in dispute, where there is no corresponding rule in
Decision No. 501, are remanded for further negotiations.
DECISIONS.
907
DECISION NO. 1350.-DOCKET 2476.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Question. The dispute involves a question as to the proper mean-
ing and intent of Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2 to Deci-
sion No. 119 for the period July 1, 1921, to January 1, 1922.
Statement.-Evidence in this case shows that a dispute exists rela-
tive to the application of overtime rates to employees represented
by the above-named organization for the period July 1, 1921, to
January 1, 1922. The evidence further shows that prior to the
application of any wage order of the United States Railroad
Administration hourly-rated employees involved herein were paid
time and one-half after 10 hours of service.
The employees contend that in view of the fact that the punitive
rate was allowed after the recognized standard measure of a day's
work (which was 10 hours per day) prior to the application of any
wage order by the United States Railroad Administration, such puni-
tive rate should be allowed after the recognized standard measure of
a day's work (which was eight hours per day) for the period July
1, 1921, to January 1, 1922.
The carrier takes the position that the provisions of Addendum No.
2 and interpretation thereof provided that the carrier revert back
to practice in effect prior to the issuance of any general order of the
Railroad Administration relating to wages and working condi-
tions, which was the payment of penalty overtime rates to hourly-
rated employees after 10 hours.
Decision. The application of the carrier is in conformity with
the meaning and intent of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 and
Interpretation No. 2 thereof for the period in question—namely,
July 1, 1921, to January 1, 1922.
DECISION NO. 1351.-DOCKET 2506.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Question. Request for leave of absence and free transportation of
general chairman of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of way
Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
Statement. Subsequent to and in accordance with the provisions
of Decision No. 119, negotiations were entered into between repre-
sentatives of the maintenance of way organization and the Kansas
City Southern Railway Co. relative to rules and working conditions.
The maintenance of way committee at that time was considered as
being the duly authorized representative of the supervisory forces
on that property, and it was understood during those negotiations
that the rules agreed upon would be applied to them.
20936°-23-58
A
908
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
J. W. Warren, the complainant in this case, was the general chair-
man who assisted in the negotiation of certain rules. The rules upon
which no agreement was reached were submitted to the Labor Board
in accordance with the procedure outlined by the Board.
Subsequent to these negotiations the foremen on the Kansas City
Southern railroad indicated to the carrier that they desired a sepa-
rate agreement and submitted to the carrier a petition bearing the
signatures of the majority of the supervisory forces in the bridge and
building department.
It is shown that the carrier entered into negotiations with the com-
mittee representing the foremen and negotiated certain rules with
them, and that the maintenance of way organization was not officially
apprised of the action being taken by the management. The carrier
advised the Labor Board of the agreement entered into with the fore-
men, which agreement provides that leaves of absence must be
renewed each 30 days. They advised Mr. Warren, the general
chairman of the maintenance of way organization, who had been
previously granted leave of absence for six months and which did not
expire until July 1, 1922, that his previous leave had been canceled
and that in conformity with the rules adopted for the government
of foremen (of which he was one) that it would be necessary that he
renew his leave each 30 days.
Mr. Warren took the position that the agreement entered into
with the foremen was illegal, and further contended that he had
secured a leave of absence which did not expire until July 1, 1922,
and refused to be governed by the rule in the foremen's agreement,
whereupon the carrier considered him out of the service and would
not grant him free transportation.
The question with respect to the legality of the foremen's agree-
ment is now before the Labor Board for consideration. The carrier
takes the position that Mr. Warren should have accepted the fore-
men's agreement rule under protest until the board had definitely
acted upon its legality.
Opinion. The evidence shows that Mr. Warren was duly elected
general chairman of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and was recognized
as such by the carrier. The Labor Board has consistently held that
employees shall have the right to select their own representa-
tives, and therefore feels that Mr. Warren is entitled to a
continuation of the understanding reached as a representative of the
employees coming under the scope of the agreement negotiated by
the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers, and that he should not be denied that right
even in the event a decision of the Labor Board should declare that
the foremen are entitled to an agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that J. W. Warren is en-
titled to leave of absence and free transportation while acting in the
capacity of general chairman of the United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers on the Kan-
sas City Southern Railroad.
DECISIONS.
909
DECISION NO. 1352.-DOCKET 2618.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics v. Missouri
Pacific Railroad Co.
Question. Proper method of fixing monthly compensation of cer-
tain supervisors of electricians under jurisdiction of superintendent
of telegraph.
Statement. The evidence submitted in this case shows that in
December, 1917, five men were carried on the pay rolls of the Missouri
Pacific Railroad Co. as electrical inspectors namely, J. A. Pilger,
J. B. Waters, O. J. Hoeschulte, G. W. Gray, and E. H. Bradshaw-
all being under the supervision of the superintendent of telegraph
and rated at $95 per month. The following paragraph shows the
wages paid these employees since that time and the wage orders
under which the rates were adjusted.
It is the contention of the employees that the increases and de-
creases provided for monthly-rated employees by decision of the
Labor Board should have been predicated upon the rate in effect
March 1, 1920-namely, $202.50. In other words, that to the rate
of $202.50 should have been added the increase of $26.52 provided in
Decision No. 2 for monthly-rated employees, making a rate of
$229.02; from the rate of $229.02 should have been deducted the
decrease specified in Decision No. 147-namely, $16.32, establishing
a rate of $212.70, against the rate of $199.55 being applied by the
carrier.
The carrier takes the position that upon the issuance of Supple-
ment 4 to General Order No. 27 by the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration, the minimum of $155 per month was applied to these
employees, which remained in effect until Interpretation No. 11 to
Supplement 4 was issued. At this time a request was made that these
employees be rated in accordance with Interpretation No. 11 re-
ferred to, which was granted, and the employees were allowed a dif-
ferential of 5 cents per hour over the men supervised and the monthly
rate was predicated on 263 hours per month or 3,156 hours per year.
It is shown that in the application of the shopmen's national agree-
ment, effective May 1, 1919, the same principle was followed, estab-
lishing a rate of $202.50, which rate remained in effect until the
issuance of Decision No. 2. Upon receipt of this decision, the car-
rier applied an increase of $26.50, making a rate of $229, but upon
receipt of Interpretation No. 3 to Decision No. 2, the carrier applied.
the increase that had been followed in establishing the rate, further
increasing the monthly rate to $236.70. Upon the issuance of De-
cision No. 147, the carrier deducted $0.08 x 263, or $21.05, establish-
ing a rate of $215.65. Upon receipt of Decision No. 222 and its
addenda, the carrier established a new monthly rate for the employees
in question predicated upon 2,920 hours per year and on the hourly
rates provided in Decision No. 147.
Opinion. The Labor Board has taken cognizance of the fact that
the basis of payment followed by the carrier during the period of
Federal control was not questioned; further, that no question arose
during the effectiveness of Decision No. 2 and Interpretation No. 3,
910
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
under which decision and interpretation a more favorable rate of
pay was established than would have been established under the em-
ployees' contention.
Decision. The claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1353.-DOCKET 2719.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis
Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of J. Pew, formerly em-
ployed as car repairer at Buffalo repair branch, who was discharged
from the service on December 8, 1921.
Decision. The request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1354.-DOCKET 1883.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of employees operating steam power plant on
drawbridge over Genesee River at Charlotte, N. Y., for classification
and rate of stationary engineers.
Statement. The New York Central Railroad Co. operates a draw-
bridge over the Genesee River at Charlotte, which is swung by steam
power. The plant consists of two boilers carrying 80 pounds pres-
sure, each boiler being used alternate months, and one 2-cylinder
50-horsepower engine.
There are three men in charge of this bridge, each working eight
hours every calendar day in the year. The duties of these men con-
sist of operating the engine, in opening and closing wedges, and
swinging the bridge, firing the boiler which uses approximately 1
ton of coal every 24 hours, washing the boiler once a month, replac-
ing water glasses, and such other incidental work as is necessary to
keep the plant in working order.
The bridge is operated on an average of 300 times a month in
summer, and 106 times a month in winter.
The employees claim that these men are stationary engineers,
while the carrier holds that they are drawbridge operators.
Employees' position. The employees contend that the Charlotte
drawbridge, like most of the other drawbridges on the New York
Central Railroad, is operated by steam power. There are three
8-hour shifts for the bridge operators, and three 8-hour shifts for the
deckmen. These deckmen have nothing whatsoever to do with the
control or the handling of the bridge, but merely flag the trains over
the bridge, keep the lamps trimmed and burning, and the bridge
clean. The operators do all minor repairs, and do their own firing;
in fact, they are responsible wholly for the opening and closing of
DECISIONS.
911
the bridge and therefore should be classified as stationary en-
gineers. We respectfully call your attention to Decision No. 24,
issued by the United States Railroad Administration, referring to
Spuyten Duyvil drawbridge which is operated and worked in exactly
the same manner as the Charlotte drawbridge.
Carrier's position. It is the position of the carrier that the em-
ployees operating Charlotte drawbridge are drawbridge operators
and not stationary engineers.
These men have been classified and paid as drawbridge operators
since the issuance of Supplement 8 to General Order No. 27, and no
question as to their classification was raised until the issuance of
Decision No. 2 of the United States Railroad Labor Board.
When Decision No. 2 was received, these employees were increased
under section 7 of Article III $17.34 per month, while stationary
engineers were increased under Article VIII $26.52 per month.
Under Decision No. 147 these employees were decreased as pro-
vided in section 7 of Article III $17.34 per month, while stationary
engineers were decreased under Article VIII $16.32 per month.
The work these employees do is very similar to that of pump
engineers at the various water stations, and can not be properly com-
pared with the work of steam stationary engineers.
The work consists of operating steam machinery used in opening
and closing the bridge. They do not perform, nor are they compe-
tent to perform the work of stationary engineers whose preponderant
duties are to operate stationary steam engine turbines, air or gas
compressors, pumps, and other auxiliary power apparatus in a steam
station plant.
Decision. The Labor Board has taken cognizance of the classifi-
cation and rating applied to somewhat similar position at other
points, as well as to the service performed by the employees in ques-
tion, and decides that the duties outlined in the submission entitle
these employees to the classification and rating of stationary engi-
neer. This change shall be made effective March 1, 1922.
DECISION NO. 1355.-DOCKET 1944.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. The question in dispute is in respect to the dismissal
of A. P. Cunis, section foreman, for alleged nonprotection of motor
car which was demolished June 22, 1921.
Statement.-Written and oral evidence in this case shows that Mr.
Cunis was employed as section foreman on section No. 22, Bertram,
Iowa, for several years, and that he gave satisfaction as foreman
while in that position. Some time prior to June 22, 1921, Mr. Cunis
was advised by the roadmaster that William Long, foreman on the
adjoining section, had some rails to change out, and was instructed
to assist Mr. Long when called upon. On June 22, Mr. Long called
upon Mr. Cunis to assist him. It was necessary for them to get the
rails at a point a short distance east of Bertram and take them to
912
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Otis, which is several miles west of Bertram. The rails, it is shown,
were loaded, and on arrival at Bertram Mr. Cunis made inquiry at
the train dispatcher's office as to the movement of the trains. The
information so received, according to statement of Mr. Cunis, was
communicated to Mr. Long. It is the statement of the employees,
and not denied by the carrier, that Mr. Cunis suggested that one
of his gang be sent back to flag, but that Mr. Long told him that
they were properly protected, and discouraged the idea of sending
another man back.
It is shown that when at a point 3 miles west of Bertram these
motor cars were struck by a freight train and demolished.
An investigation was held, after which Mr. Long was dismissed
from the service. Mr. Cunis continued in service for 20 days there-
after and was dismissed for alleged violation of rule 1158 (1), rules
for the government of the operating department, reading:
A person operating a track car will be held responsible for all accidents
and must protect himself and others against accidents. He must not expect
others to protect themselves.
Opinion. Summarizing the case, it appears that Mr. Long, on
whose territory the accident occurred and who was in general charge
of the work, without question told Mr. Cunis that he had made
arrangements for flagging. There is no question but that Mr. Cunis
made inquiry of the train dispatcher and was aware of the approach-
ing train, which information he apparently conveyed to Mr. Long,
who advised that proper protection had been provided. There was,
no doubt, some question in Mr. Cunis' mind as to whether or not
proper protection had been provided when shortly before the accident
he suggested sending a man back to flag, but which suggestion was
discouraged by Mr. Long.
The rule of the carrier seems to be very plain as to the foreman's
responsibility with respect to equipment under his charge. This
particular case involves a peculiar circumstance not specifically
covered by the rule. The accident occurred on another section and
the work to be performed was nominally in charge of another fore-
man. The carrier takes the position that the consolidation of gangs
does not relieve any foreman of his responsibility as to the equipment
in his charge. This case presents certain phases not specifically cov-
ered by any rule or agreement. The carrier holds both men equally
responsible for the accident and has accordingly discharged both
of them from the service.
The question arises as to whether or not Mr. Cunis should have
seen to it himself that the property in his charge was protected,
rather than depend upon the word of Mr. Long. In the absence of a
definite rule or understanding, it might be said that Mr. Cunis was
acting as any other man would have done when assigned to the terri-
ritory of another foreman and considered nominally under his charge.
It must be the prerogative of the carrier to hold foremen respon-
sible for the equipment assigned to them and to administer proper
discipline when, through carelessness or willfulness, property is dam-
aged or destroyed. Taking the long view of the situation, Mr. Cunis
was responsible for the equipment assigned to him and should have
seen that it was properly protected. On the other hand, the situation
is somewhat changed when taken in conjunction with Mr. Long's
DECISIONS.
913
statements and advice that proper protection had been provided.
This, however, was a matter between Mr. Long and Mr. Cunis, and
not a matter between Mr. Cunis and the carrier.
The principle of safeguarding the carrier's property should be up-
held, but in view of the extenuating circumstances entering into this
case, the Labor Board feels that the following is a just and reason-
able decision.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that A. P. Cunis, section
foreman, shall be disciplined to the extent of time lost since the date
of his dismissal and that he shall be restored to his former position.
with seniority unimpaired.
DECISION NO. 1356.-DOCKET 2246.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question.-Shall R. P. Stanford, formerly employed as coal-chute
foreman, Clovis, N. Mex., who was dismissed from the service, be
reinstated with seniority unimpaired and paid for all time lost?
Statement.-Written and oral evidence submitted in this case
shows that on January 15, 1920, Mr. Stanford was assigned as coal-
chute foreman at Clovis and served in that capacity until some time.
in September, 1920, when he requested and was granted a vacation.
It is shown that before Mr. Stanford was granted the vacation the
carrier required that he secure some one to fill his place during his
absence. Accordingly Mr. Stanford selected a Mr. Simpson to oc-
cupy the position, Mr. Simpson having been previously employed in
other capacities with the carrier.
On Mr. Stanford's return from his vacation he was advised that
the employee selected to fill his position-namely, Mr. Simpson-
had proven unsatisfactory, and that it was necessary to displace
him; further, that investigation conducted during his absence had
developed that he (Mr. Stanford) was not a satisfactory foreman,
it being charged that he absented himself from duty frequently with-
out proper permission, and that he was untidy and careless in the
upkeep of the plant and displayed a lack of interest in his work.
The carrier indicated to Mr. Stanford that in view of the charges
he would not be returned to the position of foreman, but would be
given a position as laborer, which Mr. Stanford refused to accept:
Opinion. The Labor Board has carefully analyzed the evidence
in this case and is of the opinion that the carrier has not advanced
sufficient substantiated reasons for dispensing with this man's service
as coal-chute foreman in the manner as outlined.
At the oral hearing conducted in connection with this case the
general chairman representing the employees assumed partial re-
sponsibility for the long delay experienced in disposing of this mat-
ter. The question as to payment for time lost should therefore be
a matter of adjudication between representatives of the carrier and
representatives of the employees.
914
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that Mr. Stanford shall be
reinstated to the position of coal-chute foreman at Clovis, N. Mex.,
with seniority unimpaired and paid for time lost, less any amount he
may have earned in other employment, and subject to adjudication
between the interested parties as outlined in the above opinion.
DECISION NO. 1357.-DOCKET 2248.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Request of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers for agreement cover-
ing rules and working conditions affecting maintenance of way
employees and shop and roundhouse laborers.
Statement. On April 18, 1922, there was filed with the Labor
Board by the chief executive of the above-named organization an
ex parte submission wherein it is claimed that the organization
referred to represents a majority of the maintenance of way em-
ployees and railway shop laborers and is therefore entitled to an
agreement governing rules and working conditions.
The following is quoted from statement submitted by the repre-
sentatives of the employees:
On or about April 28, 1920, our representative, Mr. J. C. Pressen, presented
to the Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad Co. a proposed schedule of rules
governing hours of service and working conditions, together with a request
for an increase in wages. The management in its reply to the schedule pre-
sented by Mr. Pressen advised that if this matter was properly presented to
the United States Railroad Labor Board in Chicago, the Wabash, Chester &
Western Railroad Co. would be governed by the decision of that Board.
Accordingly, the matter was referred to your honorable board for decision.
Under date of May 16, 1921, your board rendered its Decision No. 108. This
decision covered disputes between organizations of employees of carriers on
approximately 79 shortline roads, the Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad
Co. being a party to this dispute.
Under date of April 13, 1921, the undersigned addressed a communication
to Jesse Diamond, general manager of the Wabash, Chester & Western
Railroad Co. at Pinckneyville, Ill., advising him of the conditions as they
existed and of the actions of the employees, and of the unsuccessful efforts
on the part of the representatives to adjust this controversy, and at the same
time requested this general manager to grant us a conference for the purpose
of negotiating an agreement between the carrier and the employees. This
letter was mailed at Chester, Ill., under special delivery, and no reply was
received. thereto.
On April 26, 1921, the undersigned addressed a communication to the
Harris Dillavou Diamond Co., 514 Wainwright Building, St. Louis, Mo., the
executive heads of the Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad Co., appealing
to those gentlemen for a conference. This letter was sent under registered
cover-return receipt demanded. To this date the representatives of the
employees have utterly failed in their efforts to secure a conference from
the Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad Co. officials.
The representative of the carrier at oral hearing conducted in
connection with this case took the position that there is no necessity
for an agreement, for the reason that the employees are treated
fairly and that no discrimination is made as between employees
showing equal ability, etc. The representative of the carrier further
DECISIONs.
915
contends that there is no controversy between the railroad and its
employees; furthermore, that there is no organization of the em-
ployees referred to on the railroad, and that the complainant organi-
zation does not represent anyone on that property. The carrier,
therefore, requests that the case be dismissed.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Labor-
ers can produce bona fide evidence to the carrier that employees on
this property have designated that organization to represent them
in rules negotiations, that said carrier shall arrange to hold con-
ference with the designated representatives of said organization.
If, at said conference, the representatives of the United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers
can produce proof that they are duly authorized by a majority of
the employees in the departments referred to, negotiations shall
be conducted in an effort to agree upon rules and working con-
ditions covering the employees involved, all disputes to be sub-
mitted to the Labor Board in conformity with section 301, trans-
portation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1358.-DOCKET 2337.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Pere Marquette
Railway Co.
Question. (a) Rules and working conditions applicable to bridge
and building department, and (b) representation of employees of the
Pere Marquette Railway.
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented to the Labor
Board in connection with this case shows that pursuant to the issu-
ance of Decision No. 119, the carrier entered into negotiations with
a committee representing the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, said conferences being concluded on June 22,
1921. This committee, it is shown, was recognized by the carrier
as the duly authorized representatives of the bridge and building
department employees. In these conferences certain rules and work-
ing conditions were agreed upon, while certain others were not agreed
upon and were submitted to the Labor Board for decision on the
prescribed form.
Information before the Labor Board also shows that subsequent to
the issuance of Decision No. 119, the carrier entered into negotiations
with the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and Railway Shop Laborers for the purpose of negotiating rules and
working conditions. It is shown that there was a disagreement as
to the scope of the rules so negotiated, it being the contention of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers that they represented all employees in the main-
tenance of way department, while the carrier took the position that
the bridge and building department employees were represented by
another committee and should therefore be eliminated from the scope
of said rules. Being unable to agree upon the scope, this question
was submitted as a dispute to the Labor Board.
916
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Under date of December 12, 1921, Decision No. 501 was issued
as a result of disputes submitted to the Labor Board pursuant to
the issuance of Decision No. 119. This decision decided disputed
questions as submitted by the carriers and the representatives of the
Ünited Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers and provides therein the following scope:
These rules govern the hours of service and working conditions of all em-
ployees in the maintenance of way department (not including supervisory
forces above the rank of foreman), shop and roundhouse laborers (including
their gang leaders), transfer and turntable operators, engine watchmen, pump-
ers, highway crossing watchmen, and all other employees performing work
properly recognized as work belonging to and coming under the jurisdiction
of the maintenance of way department, except as provided in decisions of the
United States Railroad Labor Board on disputes submitted under Decision
No. 119 for other crafts or classes.
They supersede all rules, practices, and working conditions in conflict
therewith.
The evidence shows that the carrier has placed in effect the pro-
visions of Decision No. 501 for all employees referred to therein,
including the bridge and building department employees, in lieu of
rules agreed upon in conference with committee of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and has also
applied the provisions of Decision No. 501 to rules upon which no
agreement was reached with the last named committee.
It is the contention of the complainant organization in this case.
that they represent a majority of the employees in the bridge and
building department and were so recognized by the carrier in enter-
ing into negotiations with committee of that organization. Further,
that the provisions of Decision No. 119 were complied with and a
dispute duly filed with the Labor Board in conformity with its in-
structions. The representatives of the employees take the position
that the carrier should not have applied Decision No. 501 to the
employees in the bridge and building department in lieu of rules.
agreed upon in conference and in place of the disputed rules, and
that the rules agreed upon in conference should be continued in
effect. Moreover, that no change should have been made relative
to the matters in dispute until the Labor Board had rendered a
specific decision on the question submitted by that organization and
the carrier.
The carrier states that it recognizes the committee of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America as the duly
authorized representatives of the bridge and building department
employees, but takes the position that the rules agreed upon in con-
ference would not in reality become an agreement until the disputed
questions had been disposed of by the Labor Board, and that there-
fore they felt within their rights in applying Decision No. 501,
which the Labor Board had decided was just and reasonable. The
carrier states that if the Labor Board renders a decision on the three
disputed rules such decision will be placed in effect, together with
the rules agreed upon in conference, but until such time it felt
justified in continuing the rules in effect.
Opinion. The Labor Board has consistently taken the position
that it will not decide questions as to the jurisdiction of organizations
nor as to representation of employees, and it will now refrain from
making an expression on these points.
DECISIONS.
917
There was duly filed with the Labor Board a dispute between the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers and the Pere Marquette Railway Co. as a re-
sult of conferences held pursuant to the issuance of Decision No.
119. This dispute, among others, involved the question as to the
scope of the agreement. Decision No. 501, which was issued as a re-
sult of the disputes submitted by the various carriers, embodied a
scope indicating the classes of employees that should be covered by
that decision and to whom the rules specified therein should be made
applicable. The board therefore feels that by the issuance of Deci-
sion No. 501 it clearly indicated in the scope thereof that bridge
and building department employees would be included in the agree-
ment between the parties to the dispute, resulting in the issuance of
that decision.
Decision. The Railroad Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) The carrier was justified in applying Decision No. 501 to the
bridge and building department employees and that said decision
shall be continued in effect unless and until changed in conformity
with the terminating clause thereof.
(b) The inclusion of the bridge and building department em-
ployees in Decision No. 501 shall not preclude the employees from
selecting their own representatives, with the provision, however, that
grievances, etc., shall be handled in conformity with the rules as
embodied in said Decision No. 501.
DECISION NO. 1359.-DOCKETS 981 AND 982.
Chicago, Ill., October 31, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost by em
ployees who refused to perform service on Sundays and holidays
and during the ninth and tenth hours on week days at pro rata rate
and who were considered out of the service.
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with these cases shows that the parties to these disputes were named
in Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board; that pursuant to the issuance
of said Decision No. 119, and in conformity with the provisions of
the transportation act, 1920, negotiations were entered into regarding
rules and working conditions affecting the so-called "shop crafts."
These negotiations resulted in a number of rules being agreed upon,
also a number upon which no agreement was reached. The disputed
rules were submitted to the Labor Board in conformity with the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920, and the instructions con-
tained in Decision No. 119 and addenda thereto. Among the dis-
puted rules was the rule providing for the payment of overtime
after the regular assigned hours and for service performed on Sun-
days and holidays.
On June 27, 1921, the Labor Board issued Addendum No. 2 to
Decision No. 119, effective July 1, 1921, which reads in part as fol-
lows:
1. All overtime in excess of the established hours of service shall be paid for
at the pro rata rate: Provided, That this will not affect classes of employees
918
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
of any carrier which have reached an agreement as to overtime rates, nor
classes of employees of any carrier who by agreement or practice were receiv-
ing a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of any general order
of the United States Railroad Administration relating to wages and working
conditions. Inasmuch as this board has not as yet given consideration to any
dispute on overtime rates, this order should not be construed to indicate the
final action and decision of the Labor Board on disputes as to overtime rates
which have been or may be referred to the board. (II, R. L. B., 535.)
The evidence indicates that on or about July 20, 1921, and while
the question in dispute was then pending before the board, the
carrier posted the following notice relative to the payment for over-
time and for Sunday and holiday service:
Previous instructions in regard to overtime are amended to extent that all
shopmen who receive time and one-half for overtime on Sundays and holidays
prior to Federal control will, effective July 1, be paid pro rata rates for first
10 hours and time and one-half after ten hours on Sundays and holidays.
Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision 119, dated
December 2, 1921, reads in part as follows:
Question.— (a) What is the proper compensation for time worked outside of
the established day of eight hours, July 1 to August 15, 1921, inclusive?
(b) What is the proper compensation for time worked by hourly-paid em-
ployees for service rendered on Sundays and the designated holidays, July 1
to August 15, 1921, inclusive?
*
*
*
X
*
*
*
Decision. (a) The overtime rate specified in the first paragraph of rule 6,
Decision No. 222, shall apply for time worked outside of the established day
of eight hours, July 1 to August 15, 1921, inclusive, except on roads and for
classes of employees having a more favorable method of payment prior to
the effective date of any supplement to General Order No. 27 promulgated by
the United States Railroad Administration, or who had reached an agreement
pursuant to Decision No. 119 providing a more favorable method of payment;
in either event the more favorable method of payment shall apply.
(b) The second paragraph of rule 6, Decision No. 222, shall apply for service
rendered by hourly-rated employees on Sundays and the designated holidays,
July 1 to August 15, 1921, inclusive, except on roads and for classes of em-
ployees having a more favorable method of payment prior to the effective
date of any supplement to General Order No. 27, promulgated by the United
States Railroad Administration, or who had reached an agreement pursuant
to Decision No. 119 providing a more favorable method of payment; in either
event the more favorable method of payment shall apply. (II, R. L. B., 612.)
Principle 7, Exhibit B of Decision No. 119, reads as follows:
The right of employees to be consulted prior to a decision of management
adversely affecting their wages or working conditions shall be agreed to by
management. This right of participation shall be deemed adequately com-
plied with if and when the representatives of a majority of the employees of
each of the several classes directly affected shall have conferred with the
management. (II, R. L. B., 96.)
Rule 6, Decision No. 222, reads:
All overtime continuous with regular bulletined hours will be paid for at
the rate of time and one-half until relieved, except as may be provided in
rules hereinafter set out.
Work performed on Sundays and the following legal holidays, namely, New
Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas (provided when any of the above
holidays fall on Sunday, the day observed by the State, Nation, or proclama-
tion shall be considered the holiday), shall be paid for at the rate of time and
one-half, except that employees necessary to the operation of power houses, mill-
wright gangs, heat-treating plants, train yards, running-repair and inspection
forces, who are regularly assigned by bulletin to work on Sundays and
holidays, will be compensated on the same basis as on week days. Sunday
DECISIONS.
919
and holiday work will be required only when absolutely essential to the con-
tinuous operation of the railroad. (II, R. L. B., 227.)
It is shown that prior to the promulgation of any general order
of the United States Railroad Administration relating to wages and
working conditions, the employees involved in this dispute were paid
time and one-half for service performed in excess of the estab-
lished hours of service on week days, and time and one-half for all
service performed on Sundays and holidays.
In conformity with notice previously referred to, which was
posted by the management on or about July 20, 1921, effective
July 1, 1921, pro rata rate was established for service performed
during the ninth and tenth_hours of continuous service, and pro
rata for all service performed on Sundays and holidays.
On August 5, 1921, the Labor Board wired F. D. Underwood,
president of the Erie Railroad Co., as follows:
The Railroad Labor Board is in receipt of telegram signed by officers of
system federation of shop men, Erie Railroad, indicating serious differences
regarding application of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119. As soon as
possible will you kindly advise what action the Erie Railroad has taken to
carry out the provisions of this addendum? The Labor Board requests the
Erie Railroad to suspend further action in this matter until the board
receives from you the information requested herein so as to give case proper
consideration. Confirmation of this telegram being sent by letter.
On the Sunday following the posting of the notice above re-
ferred to certain employees who had been previously notified re-
ported for Sunday work, but individually declined to work unless
they were paid the time-and-one-half rate. It is shown that the
management refused to pay the time and one-half, and that the
employees thereupon left the property. On the Monday morning
following, the employees reported at the usual hour, but were not
permitted to go to work-the position of the management being
that they had voluntarily left the service.
In regard to the establishment of pro rata rate for the ninth
and tenth hours of continuous service, the evidence shows that a
number of the employees worked and were paid the pro rata rate,
while certain other employees refused to work unless they were paid
the time-and-one-half rate after eight hours, which the management
declined to pay. The management considered their refusal to per-
form the work constituted a voluntary suspension of work equiva-
lent to resignation from the service. It is indicated that the men
reported for work at the usual hour on the following day, but
were not permitted to go to work on the grounds that they had
voluntarily resigned from the service.
The employees contend that rule 6 of the national agreement was
not agreed to between the management and the representatives of
the men in the recent negotiations held pursuant to the issuance of
Decision No. 119, and that Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119
retains in effect rule 6 and the other rules disagreed upon until a
decision is handed down by the Labor Board upon the rules in dis-
pute; further, that principle 7 of Decision No. 119 was ignored by the
management when they changed the conditions of the men without
first attempting to reach an agreement.
The employees make further contention that prior to the period of
Federal control, time and one-half was paid for Sunday and holiday
920
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
service, and after the recognized basic day, which practice was con-
tinued by Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, and that the em-
ployees involved in this dispute should be reinstated with seniority
unimpaired and paid for all time lost account of their alleged removal
from the service for refusing to work Sundays and holidays and
during the ninth and tenth hours of continuous service for straight
time between July 1, 1921, to August 15, 1921, when Decision No. 222
was made effective.
The management takes the position that under their interpretation
of Addendum No. 2. to Decision No. 119, they were justified in chang-
ing the basis of overtime payment as hereinbefore outlined. It is
stated by the management that prior to Federal control of railroads
pro rata rates were paid for the ninth and tenth hours of continuous
service and time and one-half thereafter, and that they, therefore,
considered that Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 gave them the
right to reestablish that practice. The carrier admits that time and
one-half was paid to certain classes of employees for all service per-
formed on Sundays and holidays prior to the period of Federal con-
trol. They claim, however, that this practice was established because
the Erie Railroad was not paying the so-called standard rates to
mechanics and that time and one-half was given as a sort of com-
promise in lieu of standard rates.
The carrier states that in view of these allowed facts, it construed
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 as not calling for time and one-
half for overtime for the employees involved in this dispute until
after the tenth hour on Sundays and holidays.
The carrier contends that Decision No. 222, issued August 11, 1921,
which provided for the rate of overtime continuous with regular
bulletin hours and for service performed on Sundays and holidays,
was not issued as an interpretation of Addendum No. 2 to Decision
No. 119, and contends that the carrier's construction of that adden-
dum was correct under its wording; further, that Interpretation
No. 1 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, which calls for
time and one-half after eight hours, July 1, 1921, to August 15, 1921,
was not issued until December, 1921, after these cases were at issue,
and that in any event their contention is that neither Decision No.
222 nor Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119
has any application to employees who, it is alleged, left the service by
refusing to work.
The carrier further contends that the men involved in this dis-
pute are no longer employees of the Erie Railroad Co.-such em-
ployees, according to the management's position, having resigned
voluntarily from the service-and that, therefore, there is no action
the Labor Board can take except to dismiss the complaint as not
within its jurisdiction under the statute.
Opinion. An analysis of the testimony and evidence in connec-
tion with this controversy shows that prior to the period of Federal
control the employees involved in this dispute were paid time and
one-half after 10 hours of continuous service and time and one-half
for all service performed on Sundays and holidays. Addendum
No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was issued June 27, 1921. Several ques-
tions were submitted to the Labor Board as to the meaning and in-
tent of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 indicating a difference
DECISIONS.
921
of opinion as to the proper application of that addendum. Decision
No. 222 issued August 11, 1921, was retroactive to July 1, 1921, and
definitely settled the question in controversy from the date of its
issuance.
The Labor Board reiterates that it does not uphold the refusal on
the part of the employees to perform service where properly in-
structed; nor does the board uphold the arbitrary action on the part
of the carrier whereby certain established conditions are changed
resulting in a financial loss to the employees, unless and until a con-
ference is held in an effort to arrive at a uniform understanding.
The board does not feel that the attitude of the men justified the
management in taking the position that they had voluntarily re-
signed from the service, on which grounds they were not permitted
to go to work on the following day when they reported at the usual
hour. Therefore, in view of all the circumstances surrounding this
case, the decision of the board is as follows:
Decision. The Labor board decides that the employees involved
in these disputes shall, upon application, be restored promptly to
the service with seniority rights unimpaired, but without pay for
time lost.
Sunday or holiday work performed between July 1 and July 20,
1921, shall be paid for under the then existing rule, namely, time
and one-half.
DECISION NO. 1360.-DOCKET 2233.
Chicago, Ill., November 13, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
New York Central Railroad Co. (West of Buffalo).
Question. This controversy involves the question of establishing
piecework at the Elkhart, Ind., locomotive shop.
Statement. This case was first brought to the attention of the
Labor Board on February 13, 1922, by a communication from A. S.
Ingalls, general manager, New York Central Railroad Company
(West of Buffalo), to which communication was attached a copy of
the carrier's contention with respect to the question of piecework
at Elkhart, and it was requested that it be appended to a joint
submission made on January 5, 1922. On April 26, 1922, a com-
munication was addressed to Mr. Ingalls by the secretary of the
board advising that the joint submission, dated January 5, 1922,
to which reference had been made, had not been received. On May
6, 1922, he (Mr. Ingalls) replied that the joint submission had been
filed with the board since April 26, 1922. On May 11, 1922, the
board again advised Mr. Ingalls that the joint submission had not
been received up to that time.
On May 17, 1922, B. M. Jewell addressed a communication to
the Labor Board asking that the contents thereof be considered in
lieu of the joint submission of January 5, 1922, and he attached a
formal application for decision. The organization apparently dis-
approved the joint submission made by the carrier and system fed-
eration No. 103. The submission of Mr. Jewell did not have specific
reference to Elkhart, but embraced the question of piecework as
922
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
it applied to several other shops on the roads comprising the New
York Central lines. The original joint statement of facts was
apparently based upon the condition at Elkhart, and the contentions
of the carrier, filed with their communication dated February 13,
1922, were predicated entirely upon that point, previous conferences
having been held regarding that particular controversy.
In view of the manner in which this case has been submitted and
other relevant factors entering into the dispute as it affects the
shop employees at Elkhart, the Labor Board feels that a separate
decision should be rendered with respect to this particular shop.
Accordingly, the following statement and decision have been pre-
pared.
History of controversy.-There has been duly filed with the Labor
Board a dispute between the parties aforementioned as to the right
of the carrier to install the piecework system of payment in its
locomotive shop at Elkhart. Written and oral evidence presented
indicates that some time prior to December 30, 1921, the carrier
received a written petition signed by a substantial majority of the
Elkhart shop employees in which they expressed a desire that the
shop be placed on a piecework basis. In December, 1921, a con-
ference was held between P. E. Crowley, vice president of the car-
rier, and T. A. Rodgers, president of System Federation No. 103,
and T. R. Hart, general chairman of the Brotherhood Railway
Carmen of America, at which conference the question of installing
piecework at Elkhart was discussed. At the conference so held it
is indicated that the representatives of the employees took the posi-
tion that the signatures had been obtained through coercion in that
the carrier had suggested to the employees that if the petitions were
not signed the shop would be closed or leased to contractors. The
representatives of the carrier deny that any coercive methods were
used to persuade the men to sign these petitions.
It is the statement of the carrier, and not denied by the repre-
sentatives of employees, that after some discussion in Mr. Crowley's
office it was agreed between Mr. Crowley, in behalf of the carrier,
and Messrs. Rodgers and Hart, in behalf of the organization, that
the general manager of the lines west of Buffalo should personally
go to Elkhart and place the matter before the employees in an open
meeting, and if a majority of them then decided that they desired
the piecework basis, that such an arrangement would be agreeable;
but if, on the other hand, the majority desired the hourly basis, that
that system would prevail. The following paragraph_is_quoted
from letter dated December 20, 1921, addressed to Mr. Ingalls,
general manager of the lines west of Buffalo, and signed by Mr.
Crowley, which the carrier contends-and this contention is not
denied by the employees-was dictated by Mr. Crowley in the
presence of Messrs. Rodgers and Hart:
To clear up any misunderstanding, will you please go at your earliest
convenience to Elkhart, and invite every man in the shops to attend a meeting
during working hours, where the men will be given an opportunity to express
their views, and if at this meeting you find that the majority of the employees
in Elkhart shops desire to work piecework, the committee has agreed that the
request of the men should be granted. If, on the other hand, the majority
favor the present method of payment, that is, hourly or daily rates, that
system shall prevail.
DECISIONS.
923
1
It is shown that in conformity with the above-referred-to com-
munication and agreement alleged to have been reached in Mr.
Crowley's office, Mr. Ingalls conducted an open meeting at Elkhart
shop, and in the presence of representatives of the employees (local
federated committee), as well as representatives of the carrier, the
employees were asked to indicate their preference either for daywork
or piecework, by dividing themselves into groups. The result was
that 180 favored daywork, and 215 favored piecework (this after
excluding 38 foremen). Under date of December 25, 1921, Mr.
Rodgers addressed a communication to Mr. Crowley reading as
follows:
I am in receipt of information that the provisions of the letter as dictated
by you to Mr. Ingalls, general manager, lines west, have not been carried out
as agreed between you and myself; that is, that providing a proper canvass
was taken without coercion, I would abide by the result. The following is
quoted from a letter at hand:
"Mr. A. S. Ingalls then took the platform, telling the men that he had four
offers to contract out the shop. He made remarks about men's seniority rights
and free transportation, which would be lost to them if the shops were con-
tracted out. He then told all the men to stand to one side and asked any man
who was in favor of the daywork system to step over to the other side of the
platform. This necessitated all men doing so to pass in front of the full
supervisory forces which, we claim, was another method of coercion. After
this was done, they then counted the men in each group. In voting these
men, they voted laborers, storeroom employees, office help, and foremen. They
chalked off the foremen, but you can readily see the coercion which was used
by having the foremen mixed up with the men in a proposition like this."
In view of the above-mentioned facts, I consider the agreement violated, due
to the method persued by the company's representation, having agreed in good
faith to your proposal, refraining from wiring any of the local or system
representatives about that proposed meeting.
Therefore, I will have to declare the agreement between us void under the
circumstances.
The carrier arranged for a conference to be held at Elkhart on
December 30, 1921, a copy of the minutes of said meeting being filed
as an exhibit. The minutes so filed show that the representatives of
the employees took the position that the employees at Elkhart had
been coerced by statements of Mr. Ingalls with reference to con-
tracting the work if piecework was not reestablished. The repre-
sentatives of the employees further contend that the men were fur-
ther intimidated or coerced by the presence of certain officials in
front of whom it would have been necessary to pass if they voted
for daywork. After a full discussion by both sides to the contro-
versy, Mr. Crowley proposed that the employees of the shop crafts
be immediately called together and that thereupon a vote by secret
ballot be taken. It was proposed that the ballot be taken in such a
manner that neither the carrier nor the officers of the labor organiza-
tions would know how the individual voted. Mr. Crowley stated
that if the count of the ballot showed a majority in favor of piece-
work, then piecework would be continued, but that if the count of
the ballot showed a majority in favor of daywork, then day work
would be installed. Mr. Rodgers, representative of the employees,
declined to agree to this procedure, taking the position that the
question should be voted as a system proposition in accordance with
rule 1, and suggesting that the matter be referred to the Labor
Board.
20936°—23- -59
924
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion.-T. A. Rodgers, holding the position of president of
System Federation No. 103, was the highest duly authorized repre-
sentative of the federated shop employees on the New York Central
Railroad, and was so considered by the carrier in the handling of
matters affecting shop employees.
T. R. Hart, holding the position of general chairman of the
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, was the highest duly
authorized representative of the carmen on the New York Central
Railroad and was so considered by the carrier in the handling of
matters affecting carmen.
Messrs. Rodgers and Hart, in conference with Mr. Crowley, defi-
nitely agreed in behalf of the organization and in behalf of the
carrier that the general manager of the lines west of Buffalo should
personally go to Elkhart shop and place the matter before the
employees in an open meeting, and that the wishes of the majority
then expressed would determine whether daywork or piecework
would be worked. This agreement was carried out in conformity
with the understanding previously reached, resulting in a majority
of the employees at Elkhart favoring the piece work system, and it
was accordingly installed. In other words the duly authorized rep-
resentatives of the employees agreed to the principle of balloting to
determine the wishes of the employees. The Labor Board does not
find that the carrier used coercive or persuasive methods in deter-
mining the wishes of the men, but that it carried out literally the
agreement reached between Mr. Crowley, representative of the car-
rier, and Messrs. Rodgers and Hart, the duly authorized repre-
sentatives of the employees.
Notwithstanding the fact that the agreement previously reached
had been carried out, the carrier indicated its willingness to permit
the men to cast a secret ballot for the purpose of determining
whether or not a majority really desired piecework, which proposi-
tion was flatly rejected by the president of System Federation No.
103, he taking the position that such a vote should be taken for the
system and not for individual points, this latter position being con-
trary to the admitted understanding in Mr. Crowley's office.
With respect to the presence of certain representatives of the car-
rier constituting an element of coercion, it is but fair to state that
the representatives of the organization were also present. Mr.
Rodgers, being president of System Federation No. 103, was under-
stood by the Labor Board as having authority to negotiate and
handle matters to a conclusion as they affected employees coming
within the jurisdiction of said system federation, and it was no
doubt with this understanding that the meeting was arranged in
Elkhart. The employees were free to express their desires, and in
view of the fact that the method of canvassing the situation was
mutually agreed to between duly authorized representatives of the
respective parties, the result should stand.
On November 2, 1922, the Railway Employees' Department, A. F.
of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), filed with the Labor Board a peti-
tion asking that Docket No. 2233 be reopened and another hearing
held thereon, setting up as the ground of said request that Mr.
Rodgers, president of the system federation, did not have the author-
ity to make the agreement with the carrier hereinbefore shown to
DECISIONS.
925
have been made. It is admitted on the face of said petition that
Mr. Rodgers was the proper official to make such an agreement, but
it is contended that under the rules of the organization he must first
have been authorized by the system federation advisory board before
he could make such an agreement, and that he was not so authorized.
The Labor Board holds that the facts thus shown by petitioners
do not constitute sufficient grounds for a rehearing.
The president of the system federation being the officer that had
control of the negotiations for the employees and the making of
the contract and being put forward by the employees' organization
for that purpose, it was not incumbent on the carrier to make
inquiry as to whether the advisory board had given instructions to
said president as to this specific matter. It would be impractical
to require the carrier to make investigation as to such inside mat-
ters so peculiarly within the knowledge of the organization, and
it would be correspondingly unfair to permit the employees to
discredit their recognized representative and invalidate his agree-
ments.
The petition to rehear this dispute is therefore dismissed for
lack of merit on its face.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides that the installa-
tion of the piecework system of payment at Elkhart, Ind., was in
accordance with the expressed wishes of a majority of the em-
ployees at that point and in conformity with the agreement be-
tween the duly authorized system representatives of the respec-
tive parties previously entered into and that the carrier is there-
fore justified in maintaining the piecework system of payment at
that point.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissent from the decision of the majority for the
following reasons:
Beginning with Decision No. 119 and, subquently, in Decisions
Nos. 153, 154, 155, 173, 174, 205, 218, 219, 220, 225, 227, 259, 291, 357,
412, 418, 419, 425, 456, 476, 477, 503, 504, 514, 525, 618, 1064, the
Labor Board has held to the principle promulgated in Decision No.
119, reading:
15. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft or class.
Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall
apply to all employees in such craft or class. No such agreement shall in-
fringe, however, upon the right of employees not members of the organization
representing the majority to present grievances either in person or by repre-
sentatives of their own choice. (II, R. L. B. 87.)
Illustrative of the application of the principle above quoted,
Decision No. 153 is herewith reproduced:
Question. The parties in this case undertook to proceed, under the direc-
tions of Decision No. 119, with the negotiation of an agreement as to rules
and working conditions. At the outset the question arose between the par-
ties as to whether an agreement should be made with each of the six shop
crafts or with the Federated Shop Crafts representing said six crafts.
Statement.-The carrier contends that it had the right to insist that a sepa-
rate agreement should be made with each of said crafts. The employees con-
tend that the agreement should be a joint one, covering the rules and working
926
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
conditions for all six crafts and that the Federated Shop Crafts should con-
duct the negotiations for said agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the work of the six shop crafts
and the conditions under which it is performed are so similar in their main
characteristics as to make it practicable and economical to treat said crafts as
constituting such an organization or class of employees as is contemplated in the
transportation act, 1920, and in Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board for the
purpose in question, and that said six shop crafts may negotiate and enter
into said agreement jointly through the Federated Shop Crafts, if they so
elect, provided said system federation represents a majority of each craft or
class. (II, R. L. B., 157.)
In the opinion in Decision No. 218 the board states:
The carrier had no legal authority to divide its system into regions and re-
quire the employees to elect regional representatives. The transportation act
contemplates that the employees of the class directly interested on an entire
system shall select representatives. It is easy to see how an arbitrary regional
division of the employees by the carrier might be as unjust as it is unlawful.
(II, R. L. B., 207.)
In the decision section of Decision No. 218 the board designated
the "employees eligible to vote" as follows:
1-a. All machinists, apprentices, and helpers, as defined in and coming.
under the provisions of Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3), issued by the
United States Railroad Labor Board under date of July 20, 1920, in the service
of the carrier, including Altoona Works, and including all employees coming
under the provisions of this decision who have been laid off or furloughed and
are entitled to return to the service, under the seniority rules, when the force
is restored to what is generally recognized as constituting a normal force, if
accessible, shall be furnished a ballot and be permitted to vote.
1-b. All boilermakers, apprentices, and helpers, same definition and condi-
tions as set forth in preceding 1-a to apply.
1-c. All blacksmiths, apprentices, and helpers, same definition and conditions
as set forth in preceding 1-a to apply.
1-d. All sheet-metal workers, apprentices, and helpers, same definition and
conditions as set forth in preceding 1-a to apply.
1-e. All electrical workers, apprentices, and helpers, same definition and
conditions as set forth in preceding 1-a to apply.
1-f. All carmen, apprentices, and helpers, same definition and conditions as
set forth in preceding 1-a to apply.
*
*
*
Six sets of ballots and envelopes shall be printed, a separate and distinct
ballot for each craft as per the following, and only the craft named thereon
shall be permitted to use the ballot:
*
*
*
*
The vote shall be taken by crafts, each craft to include mechanics, appren-
tices, and helpers.
(Ibid.)
This ballot required the following information to be furnished by
the voter:
Place employed
Craft_
Actually working.
Laid off or furloughed.
Name of voter_
(Ibid.)
And by Addendum No. 1 to Decision No. 218 the board ordered that
Decision No. 218—
*
be modified to the extent that the representatives of the carrier
and the employees
* be authorized to make such changes in said plan
of election as are necessary to preserve the absolute secrecy of the ballot.
(II, R. L. B., 566.)
Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto disposed of the disputed
rules resulting from the negotiations conducted under the provisions
j
DECISIONS.
927
of Decision No. 119. Rule 1 of Addendum No. 3 to Decision No. 222
reads:
Eight hours shall constitute a day's work. All employees coming under the
provisions of this agreement, except as otherwise provided in this schedule of
rules, or as may hereafter be legally established between the carrier and the
employees, shall be paid on the hourly basis.
This rule is intended to remove the inhibition against piecework contained
in rule 1 of the shop crafts' national agreement and to permit the question
to be taken up for negotiation on any individual railroad in the manner pre-
scribed by the transportation act. (II, R. L. B., 567.)
In the hearing conducted by the board, June 9 and 10, 1922, J. F.
McGrath, appearing for the employees, said in part:
Mr. Chairman, we contend and we hope to prove that in the reestablish-
ment of the piecework system on the New York Central lines the management
has done so by successfully applying a policy of discrimination, coercion,
starvation, and discharge of its employees-a policy which history teaches us
was successfully applied by the autocratic powers of the Dark Ages on the
common people.
First, they started to apply the policy of starvation by throwing n'en out of
employment for long periods of time before they started to inaugurate the
policy of coercion amongst them.
We expect to submit evidence to this board to show that all of this was
done in violation of the transportation act and decisions rendered by this
board, and in violation of the agreement which was in effect on that property
by an order of this board.
The history of the case is that in December, 1920, the New York Central
Railroad Co. began to reduce its shop forces.
In February, 1921, the company closed all its car shops, keeping them closed
until October, 1921. Then they were opened gradually. The majority of the
carmen were kept unemployed for 10 or 11 months.
From February, 1921, to date, New York Central has sent thousands of cars
to outside shops for repairs. The Illinois Car Equipment Co., Ryan Car Shops,
Buffalo Steel Car Co., American Car & Foundry Co., and the Merchants Dis-
patch Transit Co. are some of these outside contract shops.
In July, 1921, several of the employees at the car shops at Corning, N. Y.,
interviewed Mr. Donohue, general car foremen of the Pennsylvania division
of the New York Central, and were told by him that unless the Corning shops
opened under piecework it would not reopen at all. As a result a petition was
started in favor of piecework and many men signed. The shop had been
closed nine months.
Similar petitions were circulated at Buffalo and Avis shops, where the em-
ployees had also been idle nine months.
Some time early in September, Vice President Crowley, of the railroad, told
two of the officers of the New York Central System Federation that 80 per
cent of the men at Buffalo had signed a petition to have the shops opened on
a piecework basis.
October 8, 1921, Addendum No. 3 to Decision No. 222 was issued by the
Railroad Labor Board, effective October 16, 1921. This decision covered
piecework and permitted the question "to be taken up for negotiation on any
individual railroad in the manner prescribed by the transportation act.”
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
Some time during October, 1921, after the employees had been idle many
months, a meeting was called at West Albany car shops attended by about
500 employees. The normal force there was. about 1,400. Mr. Carsons, an
official, addressed the meeting, saying that he wished to open the shops on a
piecework basis, and refused to answer any questions or let any employees
say anything adverse to piecework. An informal ballot was then taken and
about 425 voted to accept piecework and 75 against. A committee different
from the local carmen's shop committee was appointed to negotiate piecework
prices.
Now, I just want to call the attention of the board right there to the fact
that in this meeting a representative of the management of this railroad
selected a special committee to handle this question as per his own views of
how it should be handled. We had at this point a regularly constituted ac-
928
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
credited committee to handle grievances as per the laws of the system federa-
tion, which had handled all grievances at this point prior to this time, as per
the rules under which they were working.
The employees accepting piecework gave the management to understand that
they were only working piecework under protest. This was in line with the
policy of the Railway Employees Department, as per instructions sent to
all men, as we have at all times instructed our membership to work under
protest, and to avoid any stoppage of service in our effort to comply with
the transportation act. On numerous occasions and on various railroads the
management has at different times, as is well known to the board, inaugurated
policies of discrimination against the men. We advised our men that under
no consideration should they leave the service until such time as their
grievances were handled in compliance with the provisions of the transportation
act, as we understood them, which meant they should continue to work
under those conditions until such time as this Labor Board had decided that
issue.
Prior to this, minor supervisors made a house-to-house canvass among the
employees, telling them that if they would accept piecework the shops would
reopen on that basis, and that if they did not accept piecework they would
not be called back to work when the shops were reopened.
On October 31, 1921, Vice President Crowley proposed to President Rodgers
of the system federation that the railroad would be willing to open its prin-
cipal car shops on piecework, the prices to be the 1917 schedule plus 25 per
cent, subject to possible revision by a joint committee. At that conference he
also told the general chairman of the carmen that the railroad company was
also entertaining a proposition to contract the work or lease its car shops.
As Mr. Crowley stated at a subsequent conference on November 7th, "I con-
sidered it my duty, before leasing the shops or contracting the work, to call
in the men and tell them about it.”
The representatives of the employees took the company's proposition under
advisement. November 7, 1921, a conference was held between Vice Presi-
dent Crowley, General Manager Fripp and the general superintendent of
rolling stock, representing the railroad, and the officers and several of the
executive board members of the system federation, together with Mr. Cross-
white, general vice president of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America.
At the opening of this conference, after Mr. Crowley's statement that the
conference was to get an answer to the company's proposition, Mr. Rodgers
stated (see p. 2 of the record):
"After talking the matter over amongst ourselves, we felt, as representing
all the men on the New York Central, having a majority of all crafts, that
we could not accept any such proposition, and if there were any negotiations
to go on, we would have to take it up in accordance with Decision No. 222,
that is Addendum No. 3 to Decision 222, in regard to the inhibition being
removed from piecework, in accordance with rule 1."
*
*
*
From the foregoing it is very clear that the employees were willing to
negotiate with the management in accordance with the board's Addendum No.
3 to Decision No. 222, but that management instead insisted upon the em-
ployees giving a flat answer to management's open-or-shut proposition. At
no time since has Mr. Crowley or any of the other representatives of man-
agement proposed negotiating with the duly authorized representatives of
the majority of employees on Addendum No. 3.
At this point we desire to quote a part of the board's Decision No. 119,
as follows:
"Naked presentation as irreducible demands of elaborate wage scales carry-
ing substantial increases, or of voluminous forms of contract regulating work-
ing conditions, with instructions to sign on the dotted line, is not a performance
of the obligation to decide disputes in conference if possible."
We desire to quote a further extract from the record of this conference
(pp. 19 and 20):
،،
'Mr. CROSSWHITE (representing the employees). The petition which you
received, what per cent of the men affected by the piecework would that be?
Mr. CROWLEY (representing the carrier). In those particular shops, as I
recall, it was about 80 per cent in Buffalo, and Mr. Thompson says 90 per
cent in Corning.
"Mr. CROSSWHITE. I mean of the whole system.
DECISIONS.
929
"Mr. CROWLEY. I do not know.
"Mr. CROSSWHITE. It was not a majority of the men over the entire system
that were petitioning?
Mr. CROWLEY. No; I think not. Those shops would not represent a ma-
jority of the men:
"Mr. CROSSWHITE. These shops signed, a majority of that particular shop,
but not as a system proposition?
"Mr. CROWLEY. No; I think it is safe to say they would not represent a
majority of the men on the system."
At this conference, in reference to the meeting on October 31, with Mr.
Crowley, on the matter of piecework, Mr. Crosswhite said to Mr. Crowley:
"You stated at that time to Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Hart that you would
open up the shops on the piecework basis, and if not that you would con-
tract the work. That was not, I believe, contained in your first statement
this morning.
"Mr. CROWLEY. No; it was not, but that was a part of our understanding."
*
·
*
*
At this November 7 conference Mr. Rodgers definitely told Vice President
Crowley that the system federation could not accept the company's propo-
sition to establish piecework. Inasmuch as the conference was not considered
a negotiation under Addendum No. 3 to Decision No. 222 there was prac-
tically no discussion of the merits or demerits of piecework and none as to
particular prices. There was much discussion of the petitions and their
validity, of coercion and fairness, of relative economy of operation of contract
shops and railroad shops, and other minor matters. The upshot was that
the employees refused to accept piecework, while the company proposed to in-
stall it out of "fairness," as Vice President Crolwey put it, to the signers of
the petition.
During week of November 20, 1921, the New York Central car shops at
West Albany, Oswego, Corning, and Avis were reopened on a piecework
basis.
November 30, 1921, G. E. Carson, district master car builder of the rail-
road, held a meeting at the car shop at Kingston, N. Y. He told the em-
ployees that it was not a union meeting; that they would have to accept
piecework at once or the shop would close down and the work sent to
contract shops or the shop itself be let to a contractor.
*
*
*
Mr. MCGRATH. On December 5, 1921, George Thompson, district master
car builder, called together the employees of the Englewood (Chicago) shops
and demanded an immediate vote on piecework. There was a representative
of the employees' organization present at their request, but Mr. Thompson
refused to let him address the employees, and told him, 'This is my meeting,
and if you want to talk to these men you will have to get a hall, as you will
not be permitted to talk to them here, for this is my meeting.'
In response to a written protest from the local committee at this point,
Mr. Thompson wrote a letter dated February 13, 1922, file No. 80, under New
York Central letterhead, in which he said:
"If you gentlemen were present at the time I addressed the meeting of
shop workers on this matter, you will recollect that I informed those present
who were not in favor of the proposition of going on a piecewrk basis to
withdraw from the meeting room, and stated that those who remained would
be taken as employees who desired to go to work on the piecework operation
of the shops."
*
*
Mr. McGRATH. Early in December, 1921, Foreman Willspough and other
foremen at Elkhart locomotive shops told the employees that the shops would
be closed December 31, and that it would be better to work piecework under
the New York Central management than under a contractor.
On December 8 the federated shop committee at that point, in conference
with H. E. Warner, the shop superintendent, requested Mr. Warner to stop
the propaganda for piecework. According to the minutes of that conference
Mr. Warner stated:
"The thing is that we are going to shut down, and as near as I can find out,
the 31st of the month. I don't know whether they will open up on piecework
or not, but I won't stop the foremen from talking piecework, or myself.”
Later during the talk he said:
930
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
“I have heard it will close the 31st of December, but I don't know whether
it will open up at all or not. The supposition is that it will close down the
31st and when it does open up it will be under contract."
The company offered the 1917 piecework schedules plus 25 per cent. Several
of the older employees joined in the agitation for piecework. Subsequently
they were made piecework inspectors. The employees at that point had suf-
fered a six to eight month lay off at this time. A petition in favor of piece-
work was signed by a large number of men at that point. The petition was
circulated by several employees, none of them union officers or representatives.
On December 17, piecework was started with 98 men at this shop.
*
*
Now, we have an affidavit we will have read by Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN (reading):
To whom it may concern:
ELKHART, IND., January 16, 1922.
I wish to state the manner by which piecework was introduced to me.
Frank Stead, who is now piecework inspector, came to me stating he had
been sent by Mr. Warner, superintendent of the shop, to find out how the men
felt toward piecework. Mr. Stead told me Mr. Warner stated that unless
the men of the shop worked piecework they were facing another lay off such as
they had in 1921.
John Libby, foreman of the air-brake department, approached me in this
manner: He stated-and was worried-that he, the same as I, would have no
more job than a rabbit after the first of the year if we did not sign for piece-
work. He informed me that he approached me in order to help keep my job;
that he absolutely had to make it 100 per cent for piecework. I did not sign.
He came to me at different times in the course of two days. In order to get
rid of him, I told him that if he had no respect for his principle, I had for
mine. Owing to the fact that he did not make it 100 per cent, he is not holding
his job as air-brake foreman at this time.
Frank Ivans, who was gang foreman on the pit side, did not make his gang
100 per cent. He, the same as Mr. Libby, was removed from his position.
Darry Donahue approached me in this manner: He stated that he had a
paper which I was to sign. If I didn't sign it, the shop would be closed or
would be operated by a contractor. Upon asking him where he got this infor-
mation, he said, "From Mr. Foster, master mechanic at Elkhart shop." I
asked him what was on the paper and he stated that he did not know until
he read it himself; that he would have to read it himself.
After this, Frank Stead and Mr. Libby come to me and said they had to
make it 100 per cent for piecework, but that I was the one who was holding
off and spoiling it.
B. K. Fuller, machinist, stated that he admired my nerve considering the
chances I was taking. Mr. Fuller was at that time president of the federated
committee. Just then the 4 o'clock whistle blew and Mr Warner's clerk in-
formed Mr. Fuller he was wanted in the office, and he left with the clerk.
At this time Mr. Haskins, foreman on the pit side, came in and told me
that Mr. Batchman, the general foreman, wanted to see me at the pit side
office, and I told him the whistle had blown and it was quitting time. I did
not see Mr. Batchman at that time.
Mr. Batchman came to me the next day and asked if I realized it meant
5,000 mouths would go hungry if I didn't sign for piecework; that they were
trying to make the shop 100 per cent for piecework, but that I and a few others
were holding off.
JOSEPH COURTEMANCHE.
*
*
*
*
*
AFFIDAVIT.
*
KANKAKEE, ILL., December 8, 1921.
There was a meeting called here to-day at the car barns of the New York
Central Railroad Co. by the master car builder of the fourth district. Meeting
called 11 a. m., for all employees who were working December, 1920, when
the shop was closed. The meeting was called to order and addressed by George
Thompson, master car builder of the fourth district, who presented to us a
proposition from the New York Central management. He informed us that
DECISIONS.
931
they desired to reopen the shops on a piecework basis, bearing a 25 per cent
increase over the 1917 schedule, and appoint a committee from each side to
revise the above-mentioned schedule. He was asked by the chairman of our
local committee if he would reduce his proposition to writing and give us
the customary five days to make an answer, which was refused.
He then stated that all men who were not favorable to the proposition should
retire, which was done in an orderly manner, and 95 per cent of the men
left the room. When the men were retiring from the room Mr. Thompson
said: "Wait a minute, boys," which request the men did not heed.
We were immediately informed that if we did not accept the proposition
we would be dismissed from the company's service. We then, after 30 minutes'
deliberation which was accorded us by our general foreman, went into session
and after some deliberation it was decided that a committee of three be elected
to wait on Mr. Thompson and tell him that the men would accept his propo-
sition under protest, and his answer was: "Nothing doing; I can't give you
any more or any less than the proposition I have given you." He then stated
that they could run the railroad without opening this shop, and that they were
in a position to contract their work to outside parties which they would do
at once if we didn't accept their proposition.
The committee then retired and reported back to the men at our head-
quarters. After some discussion and deliberation it was then agreed that each
man go and vote as he thought best under the conditions we have stated. The
vote was 85 to accept, 1 to reject. A committee was then selected to meet with
the company's committee to revise the above-mentioned schedule and other
matters pertaining to piecework conditions.
Mr. Thompson also stated that all rules agreed upon between the committee
and representatives of the employees and all rules handed down by the wage
board would be strictly adhered to in the opening of this shop.
All men at this point are strictly against piecework, but only accepted the
proposition because of the threats made by the company. If they didn't ac-
cept they would be expelled from the companys' service, and, further, a great
many of the men here have been out of work for over 11 months and their
families were in want, and also because we had no authority to quit work,
and did not wish in any way to interfere with the transportation act, 1920.
P. S.-At the time this meeting was called there were a good many of the
men out of work and had been since December, 1920, and a bulletin was posted
December 3 to lay off 20 more men on December 9, 1921, and 5 men were let
go on December 3, 1921.
E. I. M. TANNEHILL.
I. LUE TAMMEN.
ED. E. SIPPEL.
E. SORENSON.
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of Decen:ber, A. D. 1921.
GEORGE A. PARKINSON, Notary Public.
My commission expires April 14, 1925.
That is submitted, Mr. Chairman, in the form of an affidavit, with the
notary seal attached.
Mr. HORN: Here is another affidavit, Mr. Chairman:
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
County of Kankakee, ss:
AFFIDAVIT.
On this 10th day of December, A. D. 1921, personally appeared before me,
a notary public in and for the city of Kankakee, in the county and State
aforesaid, George Jansen, of the said city of Kankakee, who, being duly
sworn according to law, deposes and says that Mr. George Thompson, master
car builder, was in the city of Kankakee on the 8th day of December, A. D.
1921; that said Mr. Thompson told the employees of the New York Central
Railroad Co. repair shop that they could either accept a piecework proposition
at the New York Central Railroad Company's repair shops at Kankakee
or quit.
He further deposes and says that he offered to accept a piecework propos-
ition under protest, or until such time as your honorable board could review
the case and render a decision relative to this class of work, which proposi-
932
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tion Mr. Thompson refused to even listen to; and made the remark, "If you
do not accept my proposition, you may consider yourself discharged."
Affiant further deposes and says he has been employed at these shops for
the period covering three years.
GEORGE JANSEN. [SEAL.]
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of December, A. D. 1921.
B. W. ALPINER, Notary Public.
AFFIDAVIT.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
County of Kankakee, ss:
C. H. Wobler, of the city of Kankakee, in the county and State aforesaid,
being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he has been em-
ployed at the New York Central Railroad Company's repair shop at Kankakee
for the past three years as blacksmith.
Affiant further deposes and says that on Thursday, December 8, 1921, Mr.
George Thompson, master car builder, was at Kankakee, and at a meeting
of employees of said shop informed the employees that they could either
accept a piecework job or quit.
Affiant further deposes and says that he offered to accept a piecework
proposition under protest, or until such time as your honorable board could
review the case and make a decision relative to this class of work, but Mr.
Thompson refused to accept this proposition with the remark, "If you do not
accept my proposition, you may consider yourself discharged.”
Further, affiant sayeth not.
C. H. WOBLER, [SEAL.]
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of December, A. D. 1921.
B. W. ALPINER, Notary Public.
(Transcript of Proceedings, Docket 2233, pp. 2–51.)
The above quotations from the record in this case are but illus-
trative of what took place at every point where the carrier sought
to establish piecework, and careful consideration should be given to
the letter of December 25, 1921, addressed to Vice President Crowley
by Mr. Rodgers, president of the system federation, reproduced in
this decision.
Granting that Mr. Rodgers did agree—although without authority
to do so under the laws of the system federation-that a vote of the
employees at Elkhart should be taken to decide whether or not they
were favorable to piecework, it is clearly shown and not denied by
the carrier that Mr. Rodgers, on learning how this vote was con-
ducted and the classes permitted to vote, notified the carrier that the
understanding had not been carried out in good faith, and in view
of this fact the agreement became null and void.
The evidence shows-
(1) That mechanics' helpers and apprentices working in the
engine house at Elkhart were not permitted to vote, although carried
on the same seniority list as other locomotive shop employees at
Elkhart, a number of them being assigned to the engine house tem-
porarily as a result of the reduction in force.
(2) That furloughed employees were not permitted to vote,
although their right to return to work under the terms of the agree-
ment is unquestioned.
(3) That office employees, including at least two girls, were per-
mitted to vote.
(4) That storeroom employees were permitted to vote.
(5) That molders and molder helpers were included and permitted
to vote, although not parties to the agreement with, nor represented
DECISIONS.
933
by the Federated Shop Crafts, neither did they work in the locomo-
tive shop or engine house.
The record shows that no craft vote was taken; that certain of the
employees were notified that a mass meeting would be held in the
shop at 10.30 a. m.; that this meeting would be addressed by Mr.
Foster, district superintendent of motive power, and Mr. Ingalls,
general manager; that representatives of the employees were present
but not permitted to address the men; that immediately on the con-
clusion of Mr. Ingalls' address the men, women, and some 38 fore-
men were voted in the following manner: Mr. Ingalls stood on a
planer and the employees who favored daywork were required to
step to one side, 180 being counted in this group; then those favoring
piecework were counted, a total of 253 being in this group. Objec-
tion was made to counting the foremen and their votes were subse-
quently eliminated. This left 215 favoring piecework, including
clerks (men and women), laborers, storeroom employees, and
molders.
The record shows that the carrier, while professing a willingness
to permit the Federated Shop Crafts to decide the question of piece-
work versus daywork by secret ballot, declined to join with the em-
ployees in submitting this question for decision.
The employees during the month of February, 1922, decided to
take a vote on this question. A ballot was prepared (copy filed
with the Labor Board during the hearing) which, in conformity
with the decisions of the board, permitted the individual employees
to cast an absolutely secret ballot. The secrecy of this ballot was
questioned by the carrier, and this resulted in the ballot being intro-
duced and the method of voting explained, which removed all doubt
as to its secrecy.
The results of this vote were submitted as evidence and are here-
with reproduced. Each craft includes mechanics, apprentices, and
helpers of the respective crafts:

Machinists.
Boiler makers.
Blacksmiths.
-
Sheet-metal workers.
Electrical workers.
Carmen...
Totals.
Day-
Piece-
work.
work.
2,272
1,082
391
282
312
4,056
8,395
286
བྲཧྨ༄ཆ།ཧྨ
119
42
4
10
84
The employees state that this vote represented approximately 80
per cent of the employees eligible to vote.
Of this number 7,349
were actually in the service, and 1,332 were furloughed.
It is interesting to note that only 286 employees voted in favor
of piecework on the entire system when given the protection afforded
by a secret ballot, which the board has so many times decided to
be the proper method of procedure.
The majority will no doubt support their decision (the minority
under the rules of the Labor Board will not be permitted to make
answer), but irrespective of what they may say, the outstanding
indisputable facts are that the methods adopted by the carrier were
!
934
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
not in accord with any recognized principle of justice and fair play,
both of which it is assumed were the guarantees accruing to railroad
employees under the provisions of the Transportation Act, 1920, and
the decisions of the Labor Board.
A. O. WHARTON.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
DECISION NO. 1361.-DOCKET 2242.
Chicago, Ill., November 13, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Question.--Are the contracts which the Western Maryland Rail-
way Co. has let for the operation of its railway shops in violation
of the transportation act, 1920, and of the wage and rule decisions
of the Labor Board, and do said contracts remove from the jurisdic-
tion of the board the employees who, under said contracts, are
performing service for the carrier?
Statement. The evidence before the Labor Board shows that the
Western Maryland Railway Co. entered into the following con-
tracts for the operation of its shop facilities:
(1) Contract between the Western Maryland Railway Co. and
George E. Fowble for the operation of its shop facilities, etc., at
Union Bridge, Md., dated August 15, 1921.
(2) Contract between the Western Maryland Railway Co. and
Charles J. Wolfe, of Baltimore, for the operation of shops, facili-
ties, etc., at or adjacent to the terminals, facilities, or points named
in said contract-namely, Port Covington, Hillen Station, Baltimore,
and Emory Grove, Md., dated January 6, 1922.
(3) Contract between the Western Maryland Railway Co. and
William K. Hossack, of Elkins, W. Va., for the operation of shops,
facilities, etc., at or adjacent to the terminals, facilities, or points
named in said contract-namely, Elkins, Bellington, Durbin, and
Hendricks, W. Va., dated January 23, 1922.
(4) Contract between the Western Maryland Railway Co. and
the Dickson Construction & Repair Co. for the operation of shops,
facilities, etc., at Ridgely and Maryland Junction, W. Va.; Hagers-
town, Md.; Chiefton, W. Va.; Bowest, Pa.; Thomas, W. Va.; Hen-
dricks, W. Va.; Hanover, Pa.; Highfield, Md.; and intermediate
points (excluding Baltimore and Union Bridge, Md., and Elkins,
W. Va.), dated March 4, 1922.
On March 23, 1922, the chief executive of the Railway Employees'
Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), addressed a
communication to the Labor Board reading in part as follows:
The Federated Shop Craft employees of the Western Maryland Railroad Co.
have, after full compliance with the laws of their respective organizations,
decided upon a suspension of work, effective Saturday, 10 a. m., March 25, 1922,
as a result of the carrier having participated in an action for which it is solely
responsible, and which has resulted in the cancellation of working rules and
rates of pay established by agreement resulting from negotiations between
representatives of the carrier and the employees, and decisions of the Labor
Board on questions not agreed upon in said negotiations.
DECISIONS.
935
On March 24, 1922, the following telegram was dispatched to the
chief executive of the Western Maryland Railway Co. by the Labor
Board:
The board has the following advice from Mr. Jewell: "The Federated Shop
Craft Employees of the Western Maryland Railway Co. have, after full com-
pliance with the laws of their respective organizations, decided upon a suspen-
sion of work, effective Saturday 10 a. m., March 25, 1922, as a result of the
carrier having participated in an action for which it is solely responsible,
and which has resulted in the cancellation of working rules and rates of pay
established by agreement resulting from negotiations between representatives
of the carrier and the employees and decisions of the Labor Board on ques-
tions not agreed upon in said negotiations
***
The chief executive of the carrier wired the Labor Board under
date of March 26, 1922, as follows:
Your wire 24th: Western Maryland Railway Company has not violated
transportation act or orders of Labor Board. None of our employees are out
of service; some employees of Dickson Construction & Repair Co. are on strike
which that company is handling satisfactorily.
On June 6, 1922, the Labor Board addressed a communication to
the chief executive of the Railway Employees' Department embody-
ing the following:
It appears to the Railroad Labor Board that disputes have arisen between
certain carriers and their shop employees, growing out of the alleged unlawful
contracting of shop work on said carriers, that said disputes have not yet been
formally submitted to the board, and that each and all of same threaten inter-
ruption of traffic. The board, therefore, under the authority conferred upon
it by the transportation act, assumes jurisdiction of said disputes and sets
them for hearing Monday, June 26, 1922, along with the other contract cases
set for hearing on the same day.
The Western Maryland Railway Co. was listed in this communica-
tion. On June 7, 1922, the carrier was advised that the Labor Board
had assumed jurisdiction and that oral hearing would be conducted
on June 26, 1922. The board called attention to that portion of the
letter from the chief executive of the employees, dated June 1, 1922,
wherein he advised that on March 16, 1922, the Western Maryland
Railway Co. had contracted out all of its shops to the Dickson Con-
struction & Repair Co.
An oral hearing was conducted on June 30 and July 1, 1922, at
which time the representatives of the Railway Employees' Depart-
ment filed protest against the Western Maryland Railway Co. en-
tering into the contracts above enumerated. It is shown that in each
instance a notice was posted advising the employees that their posi-
tions with the carrier would be abolished; further, that if they so de-
sired they could remain in the service of the contractor. The em-
ployees submitted evidence showing that an effort had been made to
secure conference with representatives of the carrier, but that the
carrier took the position that the men were no longer employees of
the carrier, but were employees of the contractors.
On March 11, 1922, it is shown that the following notice was posted
at Hagerstown shops:
WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY Co.
NOTICE.
Effective 12.01 p. m., March 16, 1922, all positions in the maintenance of
equipment or mechanical department of Western Maryland Railway Co. and
936
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
its leased and operated lines below the positions of mechanical engineer and
master car builder (with their personal office forces) are abolished.
The work heretofore assigned to the positions abolished will thereafter be
performed under contract by Dickson Construction & Repair Co.
G. T. WIESECKEL,
Superintendent, Maintenance of Equipment.
On the same date namely, March 11, 1922 the following
appeared on the bulletin board at Hagerstown:
DICKSON CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR Co.
NOTICE.
All those now employed by Western Maryland Railway Co. in the main-
tenance of equipment or mechanical department in the positions abolished
March 16, 1922, in accordance with the notice published by the railway com-
pany, March 11, 1922, who wish employment of a similar nature on and after
March 16, 1922, may apply to the contractor.
DICKSON CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR COMPANY,
Contractor.
The evidence shows that efforts were made on the part of the
employees to secure conference with the chief executive of the car-
rier, but without success. On March 23, 1922, the following letter
was addressed to each of the four contractors:
The undersigned committee have been authorized by your employees-who
are members of the following organizations: International Association of
Machinists; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders
and Helpers of America; International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop
Forgers and Helpers; International Alliance of Amalgamated Sheet Metal
Workers; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Brotherhood Rail-
way Carmen of America; United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers; Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of
America; International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers-to say
to you that unless you pay the rates of pay promulgated by the United States
Railroad Labor Board in their Decision No. 147 affecting the above-mentioned
classes of employees and put into effect the rules and working conditions as
agreed upon between the Western Maryland Railway Co. and the various com-
mittees representing the above classes of employees, plus the rules and working
conditions as promulgated in orders issued by the United States Railroad
Labor Board affecting the above-named classes of employees, by 10 a. m.,
March 25, 1922, they will withdraw from your service.
You can reach the undersigned committee at the Colonial Hotel, Hagerstown,
Md., until 10 a. m., March 25, 1922.
Yours very truly,
H. J. CARR, Chairman,
J. M. BURNS,
W. D. ROBERTS,
L. W. GIVAN,
Committee.
The president of the Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of
L. (Federated Shop Crafts), by letter dated March 23, 1922, notified
the Labor Board that the strike had been called and the reasons for
such action. (The communication referred to is hereinbefore
quoted.) It is the statement of the employees that substantially
all of the employees involved left the service of the carrier and the
four contractors.
The principal reasons advanced by the employees in support of
their position are in conformity with reasons advanced by them in
numerous other cases involving the question of contract-namely
and particularly the case involving this organization and the Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad, Decision No. 982, which briefly summarized
DECISIONS.
937
that said contracts were entered into to evade compliance with the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920, and the rules and wage
decisions of the Labor Board.
The carrier takes exception to the introduction on the part of the
employees of contracts other than that of the Dickson Construction
& Repair Co. The carrier quotes a portion of the letter from the
representative of the employees to the board, dated June 1, 1922, on
which basis it understood that the Labor Board had assumed juris-
diction. That portion of the letter of June 1, 1922, referred to,
reads:
The Western Maryland Railway Co. contracted out all of its shops to the
Dickson Construction Co., effective March 16, 1922, and the shop crafts and
other employees affected by this contracting system are now on strike, which
strike became effective March 25, 1922.
The carrier also makes reference to a letter, dated June 7, 1922,
from the secretary of the Labor Board, reading:
For your information, Mr. Jewell, under date of June 1, directed the board's
attention to the fact that the Western Maryland Railway Co. had on March
16, 1922, contracted out all of its shops to the Dickson Construction Co.
It is the position of the carrier with respect to the contract with
the Dickson Construction & Repair Co. that no dispute exists.
between the carrier and its employees or subordinate officials thereof
involving salaries, wages, grievances, rules, or working conditions;
and further that under the provisions of the transportation act,
1920, the disputes of the character over which the Labor Board is
granted jurisdiction, which may be heard by its own motion, are
those which, in the opinion of the board, are likely substantially to
interrupt traffic.
The following is quoted from the carrier's position:
First. That any existing dispute involving the operation of its shops at
Hagerstown, Md., and elsewhere on its line, is a dispute between the con-
tractor engaged in operating such shops and the former employees of such
contractor.
Second. That the strike ordered at said shops on March 25, 1922, was a
strike by the employees of said contractor against said contractor, and that
notice of said strike was given by said employees, as employees of said con-
tractor, to the contractor and not to the railway company.
Third. That if the striking employees were at the time of the order for
said strike employees of the railway company, and if said strike, notwithstand-
ing the employees' official statement to the contrary, was a strike against the
railway company and not against the contractor, then the striking employees,
by reason of calling said strike and participating therein, have failed to
comply with the rules and decisions of the Labor Board, and by their action
and by such rules and decisions of the Labor Board have withdrawn from
that board jurisdiction of the dispute in respect of which said strike was
ordered.
Fourth. That no facts exist which warrant a reasonable opinion that the
dispute in question is likely substantially to interrupt commerce, but, on the
contrary, the actual facts are that at no time since the ordering of said strike,
and notwithstanding the coercive and illegal methods employed by the strik-
ers, has the railway company failed to handle its traffic and business, and at
the present time such traffic and business, including the operation of the
shops of the railway company at Hagerstown and other points upon its line,
is being handled without delay or loss to shippers or to the public.
·
For each of the reasons above stated, the Labor Board is without jurisdic-
tion to enter upon a hearing of any dispute, as alleged to exist, between
Western Maryland Railway Co. and its shop employees, and therefore no
hearing upon any such dispute should be had by the Labor Board and no
argument of the same heard or considered by it.
938
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion.-The Labor Board has carefully analyzed this case and,
while different in certain of its phases, the general principle of
contract involved in this dispute is identical with that contained in
Decision No. 982 and numerous other decisions which the board has
subsequently rendered. The board has noted the objections raised
by the carrier with respect to the inclusion of the three contracts
other than with the Dickson Construction & Repair Co. and has
decided that these contracts are properly a part of this dispute.
The language contained in the board's communication dated June
6, 1922, clearly admits these cases as a part of the general dispute
and they will therefore be so considered.
The Labor Board is not impressed with the desperate dilemma
into which the carrier professes to have cast these employees. The
carrier says that the men are employees of the contractors and
not of the carrier and that they are therefore not under the juris-
diction of the Labor Board, but that if they were employees of
the carrier at the time they went on strike they have withdrawn
from the jurisdiction of the board by reason of their strike and
can now have no standing before the board. The Labor Board
has already decided the first question thus raised by the carrier by
holding in numerous cases that the employees in a railway shop
operated under such a contract are, within the contemplation of
the transportation act, 1920, employees of the carrier and subject
to the jurisdiction of the board.
This brings the board to the consideration of the new question as
to whether the employees lost their right to present their contention
against these shop contracts owing to the fact that they discontinued
work under the contracts. In other words, the carrier contends
that it can close down its shops, put its employees under a con-
tractor, arbitrarily reduce their legally established wages, and de-
prive them of the railway shop rules embraced in an agreement of
the parties and in the decisions of the board, although said wages
and rules had previously been put into effect by the carrier, and
the 30-day notice provided by the agreement and the requirements
provided by Congress in the transportation act for negotiating such
changes in wages and working conditions had not been complied
with. Then, having thus violated its obligations, legal and moral,
to the men, the carrier takes the position that the men can not
present their grievance to the Labor Board, because they have re-
fused to work for the so-called contractors under the diminished
wages and mutilated working rules imposed by this process. No
court or tribunal animated by the principles of equity should give
ear to such a contention as that made by the carrier in this case.
These contracts were merely subterfuges by which the carrier
arbitrarily changed the wages and working conditions of these
employees without compliance with the provisions of the law. If
it be said that the decisions of the board embodying the wages and
rules taken away from these employees were not legally binding on
the carrier, it must be remembered that these decisions had been
accepted and put into effect by the carrier and had thus, in effect,
become agreements between the parties which could not be ter-
minated except in accordance with the express provisions of the
DECISIONS.
939
agreements themselves as well as the transportation act, 1920. Any
effort upon the part of the carrier to change these accepted and
effective decisions would have constituted a new dispute, which the
statute imperatively directs shall be brought to the Labor Board
for adjustment. In these cases, the employees sought conferences
with the carrier, but they were denied this right. If it be insisted
that the men should have continued work under the contracts and
should have brought ex parte disputes to the board, let it be noted
that the carrier claimed that it had shut down its shops and denied
that the men were its employees. At that time, the board had not
yet held that men so situated were as a matter of law employees of
the carrier, and the employees of course had no means of knowing
that the board would so hold.
If this had been a case in which the carrier had violated a deci-
sion affecting some ordinary matter of wages or rules, there would
have been no question as to the duty and necessity of the employees
to remain at work until the question in dispute could be adjudi-
cated by the Labor Board. In this case, however, the carrier had
taken steps which purported to close its shops, transfer its employees
to a new employer, remove them from the application of the trans-
portation act, 1920, and obliterate their wage and rule agreements.
This was equivalent to a lockout. This was done under a claim of
legal right, and the employees apparently acquiesced in the carrier's
view of the matter that the shops had been closed, and that they
had been thrown out of employment. The Labor Board can not
afford to strain at a technicality and say that these men, with their
entire status as railway employees apparently destroyed by a delib-
erate act of the carrier, should not be heard to complain before the
board because they stopped work under the contractor. With the
principle once thoroughly established that the carrier's effort to
expel them from its employment in the way described was illegal
and ineffectual, the duty of the employees might be different in the
view of the board.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the several contracts entered into between the Western
Maryland Railway Co., George E. Fowble, Charles J. Wolfe, William
K. Hossack, and the Dickson Construction & Repair Co. for the
operation of its railroad shops and the performance of certain work
enumerated in said contracts are in violation of the transportation
act, 1920, in so far as they purport or are construed by the carrier
to remove said employees from the application of said act, and that
those provisions of the contracts affecting the wages and working
rules of said employees are in violation of Decisions Nos. 2, 119, and
147 of the Railroad Labor Board.
(b) That the shop employees of said contractor are under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and subject to the application of the
transportation act, 1920, and decisions of the Labor Board.
(c) The carrier is directed to take up with any employee the mat-
ter of reinstatement upon the application of the interested employee
or his representative.
20936°-23-60
940
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned feel impelled to dissent from the opinion and
decision adopted by the majority of the Labor Board in this case
for the reasons shown in the following statement:
In this case the facts show that these employees on whose behalf
this application was made have and had before the making of this
application gone on a strike, voluntarily removing themselves from
the service.
The strike was ordered before the matter was brought to the atten-
tion of the board by Mr. Jewell's advice of March 23, which noti-
fied the board of the strike, but did not invoke the board's action.
The strike went into effect on March 25, 1922, and the men left the
service without waiting for or invoking action by the board and
pending the board's correspondence with the parties. In fact, no
application has been filed, but the board took jurisdiction on June 6,
1922, on the ground that the dispute was one likely to interrupt inter-
state commerce.
After the former employees on whose behalf action is now
invoked by a protest made on the hearing had left the service, their
places were filled by others who have since been doing the work
required. It is shown that over 700 men were employed and have
been rendering satisfactory service. Written petitions, signed and
acknowledged by more than 350 of these employees, representing
that they were employed and accepted service in good faith and
asking that these relations be not changed, interfered with, or de-
stroyed by the board, have been filed in their behalf. Their rights
are involved and are entitled to consideration.
If the employees here represented had remained in the service
and continued at work so as to prevent an interruption of the
operation of the carrier, and had submitted the case to the board
for the protection and enforcement of their rights, the same relief
would have been granted to them as has been awarded in like
cases to other employees. But we are of the opinion that by going
on a strike, refusing to do the work required, and voluntarily re-
moving themselves from service, thus compelling an interruption
of the operation of the carrier unless their places were filled by
other employees, the parties on whose behalf this application is
filed have removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the Labor
Board and the protection of the transportation act, 1920.
The purpose of that act was to prevent an interruption of the
operation of any carrier, and especially in the interest of the general
public. That act declares in the most positive terms that all parties
shall "exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available means
to avoid any interruption to the operation of any carrier growing
out of any dispute." It says that such a dispute shall be settled, if
possible, in conference between representatives of the parties. It
further says that if any dispute is not so settled it shall be referred
to and decided by the board. This language precludes any action
by either party until this course is taken.
The Labor Board was created for the very purpose of settling these
disputes and preventing an interruption of transportation.
It was
intended to prevent acts by either or both parties that would result
DECISIONS.
941
in such interruption. It matters not that the carrier was first in
fault in such case; it is the duty of the other party to comply with
the positive mandates of the act and bring the matter before the
board for decision.
The employees by taking the matter into their own hands to
settle it by a strike have violated the spirit, purpose, and express
directions of the act; they have removed themselves from the juris-
diction of the board and prevented it from granting any relief.
The provisions of the act and the regulations of the Labor Board
were entirely ignored. If such action can be sanctioned or condoned
the very conditions sought by the act to be removed and prevented
will be encouraged and brought about. The employees in question
voluntarily removed themselves from the class entitled to be heard.
If the matter had been merely a question of equity between the
carrier and the employees affected by the contract, we might have
been able to agree with the majority, but in our view, with all due
respect to the conclusions of the majority, this was not and is not
the real question. The decision involves the much more vital ques-
tion of public interests, public policy, and the enforcement of the
transportation act, 1920-the carrying out of its spirit and purpose,
to which, in our opinion, the equities between the parties must yield.
The decision, in our opinion, also wrongfully affects and destroys
the rights of the new employees who accepted employment in good
faith. It is contrary to previous announcements and decisions of
the Labor Board.
In Order No. 1, dated April 19, 1920, the Labor Board, among
other things, said in substance that parties who seek to bring a dis-
pute before the board or secure a hearing must show that they "have
been and are complying with the requirements and provisions of
the law."
In Decision No. 1, dated April 20, 1920, the application was dis-
missed because the employees had gone on a strike before submitting
the matter to the board.
On October 29, 1921, the Labor Board issued a decision, bearing on
a strike which had been threatened but called off-except on one
line-after a hearing, in which it said among other things:
**
when such action does result in a strike, the organization so acting
has forfeited its rights and the rights of its members in and to the provisions
and benefits of all contracts theretofore existing, and the employees so striking
have voluntarily removed themselves from the classes entitled to appeal to this
board for relief
(II, R. L. B., 328.)
*
In the resolution passed by the board July 3, 1922, it was, among
other things, said:
Resolved, That if it be assumed that the employees who leave the service
of the carrier because of their dissatisfaction with any decisions of the Labor
Board are within their rights in so doing, it must likewise be conceded that
the men who remain in the service and those who enter it anew are within
their rights in accepting such employment; that they are not strikebreakers
seeking to impose the arbitrary will of an employer on employees; that they
have the moral as well as the legal right to engage in such service of the
American public to avoid interruption of indispensable railway transporta-
tion, and that they are entitled to the protection of every department and
branch of the Government, State and National.
We think that the decision adopted by the majority is in effect a
reversal of these decisions, orders, and announcements, or at least
942
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
a very unfortunate modification of them. And we especially regret
the effect on the rights of the new employees, who may be presumed
to have relied on the positions taken by the Labor Board.
We note the position of the majority that the action taken by the
carrier was in effect a lockout, but in our opinion this is more tech-
nical than real and rather a play upon words. As a matter of fact,
all the employees were continued in exactly the same service by the
change until they voluntarily left. Other employees in other lines
and under like conditions have continued in the work and have been
granted relief on the ground that the change was ineffective as to
their status as employees of the carrier; that they still remained
such and were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the act and
the protection of the board.
In the opinion of the undersigned these principles are so vital to
the proper enforcement of the transportation act, 1920, that we feel
we must express our dissent, and hope that the majority will return
to the former position of the Labor Board on these questions.
R. M. BARTON.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
HORACE BAKER.
DECISION NO. 1362.-DOCKETS 999, 1000, AND 1259.
Chicago, Ill., November 13, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Erie Railroad Co.
Question.-Was the management justified in removing employees
from the service who refused to submit to physical examination?
Statement. Written and oral evidence presented in connection
with this case shows that the rules promulgated by the United States
Railroad Administration and incorporated in the so-called "national
agreement" covering shop crafts were applied by the Erie Railroad
Co. to the employees involved in this dispute, and that said agreement
was considered in full force and effect during the period of Federal
control of railroads, including the guaranty period, and was in effect
except as modified and agreed to by the carrier and employees or as
modified by decisions of the board on disputed questions submitted
subsequent to Decision No. 119 and addenda thereto.
Rule 46 of the above-referred-to agreement is herewith quoted:
Applicants for employment will be required to make statement only as to their
ability and address of relatives, except when their duties require them to dis-
tinguish signals or do flagging, when they shall be required to pass the usual
eyesight and hearing tests.
Rule 27 reads as follows:
When it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force at any point or in
any department or subdivision thereof shall be reduced, seniority, as per rule 31,
to govern; the men affected to take the rate of the job to which they are
assigned.
Five days' notice will be given men affected before reduction is made, and
lists will be furnished local committee. In the restoration of forces, senior
laid-off men will be given preference of reemployment, if available, within a
reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former position; local committee
will be furnished list of men to be restored to service; in reducing force the
ratio of apprentices will be maintained.
DECISIONS.
943
On July 9, 1921, Messrs. Adams, Follansbee, Hawley, and Shorey,
general attorneys for the Erie Railroad System, addressed the follow-
ing communication to the Labor Board:
The Erie Railroad System-including the Erie Railroad Co.; Chicago & Erie
Railroad; New Jersey & New York Railroad; New York, Susquehanna & West-
ern Railroad; and the Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad-submits to this board
for determination whether there would be a violation of the orders of this
board, in particular Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, in requiring physical
examination of:
1. All shop employees who have not been physically examined heretofore, and
2. All applicants for employment or reemployment as shop employees who
have not previously undergone such physical examination, the examination in
each case to be conducted pursuant to form 2198 hereto attached.
It is contemplated opening at once many shops all over the Erie Railroad Sys-
tem, employing and reemploying a large number of men. It is considered neces-
sary for the welfare and safety of all employees and for the company that every
man so employed shall have passed a physical examination, and therefore
this is an emergency question which should be given immediate and preferred
attention by this board.
The Erie Railroad System claims the right to demand certain reasonable
standards of physical fitness for all employees, following in this respect the
practice of the United States Government and large manufacturers throughout
the country.
It is not desired to physically examine those employees who have already
taken the physical examination, but it does desire to physically examine those
employees who have not at any time taken the physical examination. It is
claimed that on behalf of the Federated Shop Crafts that such physical exam-
ination would be in violation of rule 46 of the national agreement made by
the United States Railroad Administration in September, 1919, which rule, it
is further claimed, is binding on the Erie Railroad System. Said rule 46 reads
as follows:
"Applicants for employment will be required to make statement only as to
their ability and addresses of relatives, except when their duties require them
to distinguish signals or do flagging, when they shall be required to pass the
usual eyesight and hearing tests."
The Erie Railroad System respectfully submits to this board the question
whether the institution of a physical examination as above set forth would
violate any of the rules of this board or of said rule 46.
If your board should determine that the requirement of a physical examina-
tion is in violation of said rule 46 of the national agreement, the Erie Railroad
System asks for the abrogation of said rule 46.
A dispute has arisen between the carriers and their employees with reference
to this question, as will more clearly appear from the application heretofore
filed before this board on to wit: June 28, 1921, under subhead 0-43.
On July 13, 1921, the Labor Board, in reply to the above-quoted
communication, stated in part:
The Labor Board, therefore, replies to the questions as follows:
In the negotiations conducted under the provisions of Decision No. 119 be-
tween the Federated Shop Crafts and the Erie Railroad System, no agreement
was reached on the subject matter provided for in rule 46 of the existing
agreement. The board, after very careful study and due consideration of the
entire subject matter resulting from the negotiations conducted under its
Decision No. 119, issued Addendum No. 2 thereto, under date of June 27, 1921.
This addendum clearly sets forth that where no agreement was reached, the
rules previously in effect would be continued in effect until such rules are
considered and decided by the board. The board proposes to carry out the
provisions of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 just as soon as it is possible
and practicable to do so. Pending its final decision the provisions of Adden-
dum No. 2 shall govern.
The parties to this dispute were listed in and considered parties
to the dispute resulting in the issuance of Decision No. 119. Pur-
suant to the issuance of said decision, conferences were held between
944
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
representatives of the respective parties herein named for the pur-
pose of negotiating or attempting to negotiate rules and working
conditions. This conference resulted in a number of rules being
agreed upon and a number being disagreed upon, the disagreed rules
being referred to the Labor Board for decision. Among the disputed
rules submitted to the Labor Board for decision was rule 46 above
quoted. The position of the employees in connection with this dis-
puted rule is that employees should not be required to take a physical
examination when entering the service, while the carrier contends
that this right should be accorded them.
Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 reads in part as follows:
1. All overtime in excess of the established hours of service shall be paid
for at the pro rata rate: Provided, That this will not affect classes of em-
ployees of any carrier which have reached an agreement as to overtime rates,
nor classes of employees of any carrier who by agreement or practice were
receiving a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of any general
order of the United States Railroad Administration relating to wages and
working conditions. Inasmuch as this board has not as yẹt given consideration
to any dispute on overtime rates, this order should not be construed to indi-
cate the final action and decision of the Labor Board on disputes as to over-
time rates which have been or may be referred to the board.
2. In lieu of any other rules not agreed to in the conferences held under
Decision No. 119, the rules established by or under the authority of the United
States Railroad Administration are continued in effect until such time as
such rules are considered and decided by the Labor Board. (II, R. L. B., 535.)
Instructions were issued by the carrier during the month of May,
1921 (prior to the negotiations above referred to), that all employees,
except enginemen and trainmen, should pass a required physical
examination before reemployment, including all employees who were
out of the service due to reduction in force, who had been employed
since January 1, 1918.
On August 3, 1921, another notice was posted to the effect that all
employees then in the service who had entered the service subse-
quent to January 1, 1918, would be required to take a physical
examination.
Some time prior to July 1, 1921, the shop forces on the Erie Rail-
road were reduced considerably, and some time subsequent to July 1,
1921, prior to the issuance of Decision No. 222, and addenda thereto,
the forces were increased and certain employees were notified to
return to work in accordance with their seniority standing. When
these employees reported for work they were told that it would be
necessary for them to take a physical examination before they would
be reemployed. Upon refusal of those employees to take a physical
examination they were considered out of the service by the carrier.
Principle 7, Exhibit B, of Decision No. 119, reads as follows:
The right of employees to be consulted prior to a decision of management
adversely affecting their wages or working conditions shall be agreed to by
management. This right of participation shall be deemed adequately com-
plied with, if and when the representatives of a majority of the employees
of each of the several classes directly affected shall have conferred with the
management. (II, R. L. B., 87.)
The evidence does not show that the employees were consulted
prior to the time the instructions were issued requiring physical
examination.
Employees' position.—It is the contention of the employees that
rule 46 of the so-called national agreement was not agreed to in
DECISIONS.
945
the recent negotiations held pursuant to the issuance of Decision
No. 119; and that Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 retains in
effect rule 46 and other rules upon which no agreement was reached
until a decision was made by the Labor Board on the rules in
dispute. The employees further contend that principle 7, Exhibit
B of Decision No. 119, was ignored by the carrier when it changed
the conditions of the men without first attempting to reach an
agreement and that it was therefore not acting in accordance with
the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
Carrier's position.-In connection with employees who were actu-
ally in the service when the carrier's instructions were issued, the
carrier contends that rule 46 of the so-called national agreement
has no bearing on that portion of the case and therefore there was
no violation; and that rule 46 states that its provisions only apply
to "applicants for employment," and that the men involved in this
portion of the dispute were employees and not "applicants for
employment.
""
In regard to the employees laid off in force reductions, the carrier
contends that its action in this connection was in conformity with
that permitted by the United States Railroad Administration, and
cites a communication from representatives of the Director General
of Railroads reading in part as follows:
The third question raised in your submission as to whether or not it is a
violation of the rule to refuse employment to men of extremely advanced age
or in unfit physical condition, is not covered by this rule, as this rule does
not require applicants for employment to give their age or pass a physical
examination. It provides a method to be followed when applying for employ-
ment, but does not say who shall or shall not be employed.
The carrier stated that it construed the above as permitting it to
require employees to show to the satisfaction of the carrier that
they were physically able to perform their duties.
In further regard to the employees laid off on account of reduc-
tion in force, the carrier takes the position that certain men report-
ing for work when forces were increased were not employees with
seniority rights within the meaning and intent of rule 27 of the
national agreement for the reason that the shops were closed for an
indefinite period and the employees were at liberty to seek employ-
ment elsewhere, and that when the shops were reopened all men
hired were considered as new applicants for positions.
The carrier further contends that the question of physical exam-
ination is not in fact a working condition and that the determina-
tion of the qualifications for employment is a matter within the
prerogative of the carrier and not within the scope of the Labor
Board's authority to determine what are reasonable working rules
and conditions; also that the national agreement was never agreed
to by the Erie Railroad Co. and never became effective after Sep-
tember 1, 1920, as a legal contract with its employees.
The carrier contends that it has the unrestricted right to demand
certain reasonable standards of physical fitness for all employees,
following the practice of the United States Government and other
large manufacturers throughout the country.
In regard to the employees' claim for reinstatement with pay for
time lost, it is the position of the carrier that this is in substance
946
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
a request that the Labor Board order the carrier to pay for time
not worked and contends that the board has no power or jurisdic-
tion to impose such a requirement; further, that the employees
in question voluntarily left the service before submitting their
grievance to the Labor Board and are, therefore, not entitled to
relief by the board.
Opinion. The board feels that the construction placed by the
carrier upon the language as incorporated in rule 46 of the so-
called national agreement, if permitted to have been carried out,
would have practically, if not absolutely, nullified the meaning
and intent of that rule in so far as physical examination is con-
cerned. To say that the rule applied to employees making appli-
cation for employment and not to employees who may have been in
the service at the time the rule was written would have been
grossly unfair to the men in the service, and from the standpoint.
of practical application would no doubt have produced results
that would have been anything but desirable. To grant to new
employees more favorable conditions than granted employees who
may have been in the service for years is a condition, the board feels
certain, which was never contemplated by the United States Rail-
road Administration, and certainly not by any rulings of this board.
Therefore, the argument advanced by the carrier that rule 46
only applied to "applicants for employment "-which rule in effect
exempted such employees from taking physical examination-is il-
logical and impossible of practicable and satisfactory application.
In connection with the argument advanced by the carrier that
the requirement of physical examination is not a working con-
dition ""
but a prerogative of the carrier over which this board
has no jurisdiction, the board is unable to understand the carrier's
line of reasoning in this respect. Rule 46, herein referred to, was
a part of the so-called national agreement promulgated_by_the
United States Railroad Administration and applied on the Erie
Railroad. This agreement was continued in effect by Decision
No. 2, and Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 continued the
national agreement rules in effect in cases where no agreement
was reached in conference pursuant to the issuance of Decision
No. 119.
66
The argument advanced by the carrier is not consistent in certain
respects. As an illustration, in Docket No. 999 they take the po-
sition that certain employees laid off in force reductions were con-
sidered as new employees when the forces were again increased, and
that under rule 46 the carrier was permitted to require a physical
examination; while in Docket No. 1000 the carrier makes the state-
ment that it is its construction of the rule that it referred to em-
ployees making application for employment and not employees who
may have been in the service of the carrier.
The evidence clearly shows that this matter which affects the em-
ployment of large numbers of men was not handled in conformity
with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920, or subsequent
rulings of the Labor Board.
The carrier was not acting in conformity with the transportation
act, 1920, and Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 in discharging
men-which in effect is the result of their actions-account of their
DECISIONS.
947
refusal to take physical examination under the conditions herein
cited, at a time when rule 46 herein referred to should have been
considered in full force and effect, and which had been recognized
and followed previously.
The Labor Board feels that the action on the part of the carrier
was not just and reasonable and, therefore, decides as follows:
Decision.-Employees who prior to the issuance of Addendum
No. 6 to Decision No. 222 were requested to take physical examina-
tion, who were in the service at the time such request was made and
held out of service account of their refusal to take a physical exami-
nation, shall be reinstated with full seniority rights and paid for all
time lost, less any amount they may have earned in other em-
ployment.
Employees laid off account of a reduction in force, who prior to
the issuance of Addendum No. 6 to Decision No. 222 were notified
that forces would be increased and denied reemployment account of
their refusal to take a physical examination, shall be reinstated with
full seniority rights and paid for all time lost, less any amount they
may have earned in other employment.
This decision is on a dispute involving the alleged misapplication
of rule 46 of the national agreement and is not to be construed as an
interpretation of any rule subsequently issued.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We dissent from the position of the majority of the members of
the Labor Board for reasons mentioned in the following statement:
While the decision of the majority in this case has the support
of so-called national agreement rule 46, which reads as follows-
RULE 46. Applicants for employment will be required to make statement only
as to their ability and address of relatives, except when their duties require
them to distinguish signals or do flagging, when they shall be required to pass
the usual eyesight and hearing tests-
it is not considered just or reasonable to interpret this rule as
meaning that the employer should be required to accept applicants
without knowing their physical condition.
It is the inherent right of the carrier to know whether or not ap-
plicants for employment are qualified to safely and properly perform
the work required of them before taking them into its service. This
right is exercised by the Federal Government with respect to ap-
plicants for the Army, Navy, aviation, and other branches of the
service, as well as by many industries; safety of employees makes it
desirable and necessary that this be done.
Rules requiring physical examinations of applicants for positions
in train, engine, yard, and telegraph service, etc., are now in force
and have been for many years on a great number of railroads. Prior
to Federal control it was largely left to the discretion of the carriers
a's to what applicants for employment would be required to pass
satisfactory physical examinations. The prevention of fraudulent
claims in cases of personal injury, insurance, pensions, benefit or re-
lief associations, etc., are some of the factors which make physical
examinations necessary.
HORACE BAKER.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
948
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
SUPPORTING OPINION.

In consideration of the statements appearing in the dissenting
opinion, it is deemed appropriate to make the following reply:
The dissenting opinion refers to the "inherent rights of the em-
ployer." This expression marks back to the days of feudalism and
the "inherent rights" attitude then enforced by the lords and mas-
ters of that time. It is a matter of fact and common knowledge to
any student of present-day industrial development as to the merits
of the so-called physical examination as applied in connection with
railroad employment, excluding those engaged in train and engine
service or service of similar character, that the physical examination
is not essential or necessary to the successful or economical operation
of a carrier; particularly is this true of the shop forces.
Many of the largest railroads never in the past nor at the present
impose any form of physical examination as a prerequisite to em-
ployment other than an affirmation on the part of the applicant that
he is mentally and physically qualified to perform the duties of the
position sought.
The fallacy of requiring men to pass a physical examination as
a protection to fellow employees is farcical to say the least. A
prospective employee may be physically perfect and free from any
form of disease, contagious or otherwise, at the time of his exam-
ination, and immediately thereafter become exposed to or contract
the most malignant contagious malady. The most that can be said
for the physical test is that the applicant for employment at that
moment has no disqualifying ailment. The examination does not
nor can it afford insurance against the contracting of disease, con-
tagious or otherwise, immediately thereafter.
The evils arising from the employer-controlled physical test, as
applied to the seeker of employment, are many. It is a corollary to
the obsolete blacklist once so prevalent among that class of employers
who so strenuously object to labor unions; it was and is used as a
pretext to eliminate employees who became active in their effort to
unionize their fellow workers; men were denied employment because
the physical examination disclosed that the applicant had suffered
the loss of one toe, one finger, one eye, and a hundred and one
other defects that in no manner interfered with the applicant's abil-
ity to render satisfactory service without in the least imperiling the
safety of self or fellow workers beyond the usual hazards of the
occupation.
As a matter of fact and record, men have been denied employment
because of alleged physical imperfection, and the same men immedi-
ately thereafter made application for positions in the Navy or
Ariny and passed the rigid examinations necessarily and properly
required in service of this character during peace times.
The usual run of so-called benefits accruing from employer-
controlled employee pension systems and insurance and relief associ-
ations mean less than nothing to an employee who can be denied the
benefits thereof at the whim of the employer, and the experience of
the undersigned warrants the statement that practically all of these
so-called benefits are largely mythical and illusionary; and thousands
DECISIONS.
949
of workers, many of them aged or mutilated and relegated to the
industrial scrap heap, bear witness to this fact.
The dissenting opinion obviously supports the view that the pro-
visions of the contract then in effect should have been disregarded by
the Labor Board in its decision. The decision speaks for itself.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1363.-DOCKET 313.
Chicago, Ill., November 14, 1922.
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Order
of Railway Conductors.
Question.-Controversy respecting the application of paragraph
(a), Article VI, of Supplement 16 to General Order No. 27, on
freight runs between Cheyenne and Laramie, and Junction City
and Salina, Kans., and request by the carrier for relief from obli-
gations in the form of constructive mileage allowances imposed by
rulings of the United States Railroad Administration.
Statement. The freight-service district, with terminals at
Cheyenne and Laramie, covers 56.8 miles.
For many years prior to the issuance of Supplement 16 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27, effective date January 1, 1919, the train crews.
were allowed 85 miles for each single trip over the territory above
described, and 170 miles for a round trip. The enginemen have
been and are now allowed 100 miles for a single initial trip and
50 miles for a return trip, when both trips are commenced within
the limits of the same calendar day.
The freight-service district, with terminals at Junction City and
Salina, covers 46.8 miles.
For many years prior to the issuance of Supplement 16 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27, effective date January 1, 1919, the train crews
were allowed 60 miles per trip, or 120 miles for round trip, when
both going and return trips were commenced within the same 24-
hour period, and 100 miles per trip when but a single trip one way
was commenced within that period. The enginemen have been and
are now allowed mileage as described above.
66
In
Under a ruling of the United States Railroad Administration-
based upon paragraph (a), Article VI, of Supplement 16 to General
Order No. 27, effective January 1, 1919, reading as follows:
all road service, except passenger service and where under mileage
schedules a more favorable condition exists, 100 miles or less, 8 hours
or less (straight-away or turnaround) shall constitute a day's
work. Miles in excess of 100 will be paid for at the mileage rates
provided "-the carrier was required to allow trainmen in freight
service between the terminals in question 100 miles for each single
trip.
The decision of the United States Railroad Administration ap-
plied only to trainmen, and the carrier was advised that the mileage
allowances authorized therein for trainmen did not obligate the
same mileage allowance to enginemen, nor could such an allowance
be substantially authorized.
950
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Carrier's position.-The carrier contends that the allowance made
to trainmen is inequitable and excessive as compared with allow-
ances to enginemen or trainmen on contiguous or other districts
which pay actual miles only.
Employees' position. The employees contend that there can be
no allowance of less than 100 miles, or 8 hours, for any trip between
recognized terminals.
Decision.—The rule quoted above provides that 100 miles or less,
8 hours or less, shall constitute a day's work on straight-away
or turnaround runs in all road service, except passenger service.
This rule was incorporated in wage schedule for conductors and
trainmen of this railway.
The Labor Board decides that when conductors and trainmen are
relieved from duty on single trips, they shall be paid 100 miles in
each direction between Cheyenne and Laramie or Junction City and
Salina with overtime after eight hours. The carrier may establish
turnaround service between Cheyenne and Laramie and between
Salina and Junction City and pay conductors and trainmen mileage
for the round trip with a minimum of 100 miles and overtime
computed on the basis of 12 miles per hour.
DISSENTING OPINION No. 1.
We dissent from the decision of the majority of the Labor Board
in dispute covered by Docket No. 313, in which the carrier requested
relief from payment of conductors and other trainmen in through-
freight service for trips made between Cheyenne and Laramie, Wyo.,
a distance of 56.8 miles, and between Junction City and Salina, Kans.,
a distance of 46.8 miles, on basis of a minimum of 100 miles for each
trip in each direction which was imposed by the United States Rail-
road Administration, for the following reasons:
For many years prior to the establishment of the so-called 8-
hour day, the agreement entered into between the carrier and the
representatives of its conductors and other trainmen provided that,
"100 miles or less, 10 hours or less, shall constitute a day's work."
The same agreements carried specific provisions for fixed mileage
allowances for certain through-freight runs, which specified 85
miles in each direction for the 56 and a fraction miles between Chey-
enne and Laramie, and 60 miles in each direction for the 46 and a
fraction miles between Junction City and Salina.
وو
(6
""
When the so-called 8-hour day became effective under the pro-
visions of the Adamson law, the only material change made in the
rules of the agreement covering "basic day" and "overtime
overtime" was
changing from "10 hours or less to 8 hours or less as the num-
ber of hours which "shall constitute a day's work," and directing
that on runs of over 100 miles overtime will begin when the time on
duty exceeds the miles run, divided by 12 instead of by 10; and
further providing that overtime would be paid for on the basis of
time and one-half, which is in accord with the provisions of rules
promulgated by the United States Railroad Administration. It will
therefore be seen that the specific mileage allowances for certain
runs as they existed and still exist were agreed to and continued con-
DECISIONS.
951
current with recognized or so-called standard measure of a day's
work.
In the opinion of the undersigned, Supplement 16 or 25 to General
Order No. 27 did not affect or in any way change or abridge the
specific mileage allowances as agreed to between the carrier and its
employees, and the United States Railroad Administration was in
error when it ruled in effect that the specified allowances for cer-
tain runs covered by the agreement were eliminated. This is fur-
ther indicated by the fact that subsequently the United States Rail-
road Administration denied request of the carrier to apply the same
ruling to the engineers and firemen in through-freight service, re-
gardless of the fact that the carrier specifically pointed out that the
agreement between the Union Pacific Railroad Co. and representa-
tives of its engineers and firemen also contained specific mileage al-
lowances covering certain runs, including those between Cheyenne
and Laramie, and Junction City and Salina, similar to those in ef-
fect in agreement between the Union Pacific Railroad Co. and its
conductors and other trainmen, which makes readily apparent the
inconsistency of the ruling of the Administration.
When the specific mileage allowances for the runs in each direc-
tion between Cheyenne and Laramie were first agreed upon between.
the carrier and its conductors and other trainmen, the line was a
single-track railroad, since which time it has been double-tracked
and the grades and curvature somewhat reduced to the end that time
consumed by through-freight trains between the points named has
been materially reduced as compared with single-track movement
when agreement was first made.
As pointed out by the representatives of the carrier at the hearing,
the decision of the majority of the Labor Board in this case will force
the carrier to eliminate the Laramie terminal and thereby obviate
the excessive constructive mileage allowances, in order to bring about
economical operation of the property; it is stated that similar action
is also under consideration with respect to the Junction City-Salina
runs, the Labor Board, also the United States Railroad Administra-
tion having recognized the rights of the carriers to change terminals
whe necessary to economically and properly meet the requirements
of the service.
HORACE BAKER.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
DISSENTING OPINION No. 2.
The undesigned dissents from decision of the majority in Docket
313 for reasons set forth below:
The controversy covered in these papers actually contains but one
question-namely, Did or did not Supplement 16 to General Order
No. 27 eliminate certain provisions contained in the Union Pacific.
schedules, which provisions have, in the Laramie-Cheyenne case, ap-
peared in the various schedules executed as between the carrier on
one hand and the regularly constituted committees representing its
conductors and other trainmen on the other for the past 30 years,
and in the Salina-Junction City case for the past 10 years; and it is
sufficiently significant to here state that the latest schedule executed
952
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and still effective containing these provisions bears date of March,
1920?
Clearly the answer is, "No," for the reason that the 100 miles or
less, 8 hours or less day, of Supplement 10 was in effect on all parts
of the carrier's lines long before the issuance of Supplement 16, there-
fore the supplement introduced no new principle.
With just as much clarity it must be evident that since Supplement
No. 16 did not introduce on the carrier's lines the 100 miles or less, 8
hours or less day, but simply continued that which had been in effect
for years, it did not and could not have set aside the provisions gov-
erning mileage allowances between Cheyenne-Laramie nor Salina-
Junction City.
It is apropos to here suggest that the inconsistency of the United
States Railroad Administration ruling, which the majority of the
Labor Board now adopts, should not be lost sight of, i. e., after
erroneously deciding for the conductors and brakemen the question
of mileage allowances between Cheyenne-Laramie and Salina-June-
tion City, the administration declined the request of the carrier to
apply the same decision to the engineers and firemen's schedules,
which schedules contained similar provisions.
Question 63, Interpretation 1, to Supplement 25 to General Order
No. 27, and its answer continues this inconsistency, but at the same
time clearly justifies and supports the carrier's application for relief
from a burden which should never have been imposed.
The question and answer referred to is subjoined:
Question 63.-Where schedules provide that 125 miles or less, 10 hours or
less, shall constitute a day's work in certain ore service, should this rule be
abrogated if the same schedule provides 100 miles or less, 8 hours or less, shall
constitute a day in other freight service?
Decision.-Not affected.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
The dissenting opinions simply review the arguments made by the
carrier. The facts are, the rule in question was interpreted and ap-
plied by the United States Railroad Administration the same in this
case as on all other railroads under Federal control, and there was
no deviation from the principle that "Supplement 16 prescribes a
minimum day's allowance of 100 miles for eight hours."
Reference to conditions under which engineers and firemen work
and are paid has no bearing upon this case. Engine service employees
were covered by Supplement 15, and while the rule covering basic
day and overtime in freight service in this supplement is substan-
tially the same as that in Supplement 16 covering conductors and
trainmen, it appears that the engineers and firemen reached some
mutual agreement with this carrier as to the application of rules
governing them, and naturally they were not affected by the deci-
sions of the United States Railroad Administration applying to con-
ductors and trainmen.
ALBERT PHILLIPS.
DECISIONS.
953
DECISION NO. 1364.-DOCKET 2601.
Chicago, Ill., November 14, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-(a) Are employees in the track and bridge and build-
ing departments entitled to pay under Decision No. 501 for going to
and returning from work?
(b) Are supervisory employees entitled to overtime for the ninth
and tenth hours when force is assigned to work 10 hours per day?
(c) Is the carrier violating the provisions of Decision No. 501 in
assigning employees to work 10 hours per day?
Statement. Under date of August 15, 1922, E. F. Grable, grand
president of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em-
ployees and Railway Shop Laborers, addressed the following tele-
gram to the Labor Board:
Critical situation on Southern Pacific Atlantic Lines. Carrier arbitrarily
established 10-hour day-foremen getting 8 hours' pay for 10 hours' work.
Employees compelled to go to and from point of work on own time, which rule
carrier has arbitrarily established. Very nearly to last straw on this road and
our men pushing me for immediate strike sanction, which I must grant unless
carrier promptly compelled to deal with employees as human beings. Request
board bring pressure to bear on General Manager Waid, ordering immediate
reestablishment of conditions existing prior to July 1 except wages, on which
men willing to wait board's decision. Delay in rendering decision on Docket
No. 1946 on Pacific system undoubtedly encouraging this action by Atlantic
lines. Wire answer.
On August 17, 1922, the following wire was addressed to G. S.
Waid, vice president and general manager of the Southern Pacific
Lines in Texas and Louisiana, and E. F. Grable, representing the
employees, reading:
United States Railroad Labor Board has taken jurisdiction in dispute between
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers and Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana pertaining to
protest of employees against carriers establishing 10-hour day, foremen getting
8 hours' pay for 10 hours' work, and employees compelled to go to and from
point of work on own time; and sets case for hearing 2 p. m., Wednesday,
August 23, 1922. Pending hearing and final decision carrier and employees are
requested to maintain conditions status quo as of date prior to any changes
having been made in existing agreement by order of board.
The oral hearing scheduled for August 23 was postponed to and
held on August 26, 1922.
Evidence presented in this case shows that the following circular
was issued by the carrier on June 24, 1922:
To all Section Foremen, Extra Gang Foremen, Bridge and Building Foremen:
Effective July 1, 1922, the following classes of labor in the maintenance of
way department will work 10 hours per day until further advised:
“A”—Bridge and building gangs, including paint gangs and carpenter gangs.
"B"-Track extra gangs.
C"-Section men.
The above change in working hours is made at this time in order to take
care of the requirements of the service on account of seasonal conditions.
Kindly acknowledge receipt and understanding on foran below.
C. M. STAPLES.
954
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The following notices were also introduced by representatives of
the employees as evidence:
AUSTIN, TEX., July 24, 1922.
To All Section Foremen and All Bridge and Building Foremen:
Please refer to my circular No. 260, dated July 5, 1922, and change the rate of
student track foremen from 30 cents to 28 cents per hour, as the students are
covered by the same classification as the section laborers and should be
reduced 5 cents per hour.
Effective July 1, section and bridge and building foremen were put on a
10-hour day. Under paragraph (h), Article 5, of Decision No. 501, you are
paid a monthly rate as compensation for all services rendered and are not
subject to extra payments, except for certain special service that is not a part
of your regular duties and which is specified in the rule. Therefore you will
not be allowed extra pay for the two hours' work and your monthly salary of
which you were recently advised will apply.
P. M. WILLIAMS, Division Engineer.
F. G. FISK, Roadmaster.
A. ATWOOD, Roadmaster.
E. STARNATER, Roadmaster.
All Section Foremen:
Quote the following from Mr. L. B. McDonald:
SAN ANTONIO, July 1, 1922.
"In regard to placing gangs on your district on 10-hour day effective July 1,
please see that each foreman shows the 10 hours in the regular delays' or
hours' column instead of showing 8 hours in regular column and 2 hours'
overtime."
W. A. ENDERLE.
Several other notices similar to the ones quoted above were
introduced by the employees as evidence in this case.
Question (a).-It is the claim of the employees' representatives.
that pay should be allowed employees in the track and bridge and
building departments for time consumed in going to and returning
from their work. The representatives call attention to the rule
promulgated by the United States Railroad Administration and
incorporated in the so-called national agreement affecting classes
of employees herein referred to, which rule reads: "Employees'
time will start and end at designated assembling points for each
class of service."
The employees contend that the gangs should have a designated
assembling point at which the day would start and end, which
assembly point should be the tool house or camping outfit or some
other designated points. The employees introduced considerable
argument purporting to show that from the time of leaving desig-
nated assembly points until the time the employees returned they
are subject to the orders of the carrier and that the time so con-
sumed can not be considered as their own. They request that the
board decide that the employees' time will start and end at desig-
nated assembly point for each class of employees.
It is the contention of the carrier that section (c-1), Article V,
of Decision No. 501, supersedes that portion of the national agree-
ment bearing upon this question.
Section (c-1), Article V, of Decision No. 501, reads:
The starting time of the work period shall be arranged by mutual under-
standing between the local officers and the employees' committee based on
actual service requirements. (II, R. L. B. 469.)
*
DECISIONS.
955
The carrier further contends that the rule above quoted covering
starting time, when compared with the rule of the national agree-
ment and considered in connection with the principles enunciated
by the Labor Board in Decision No. 119, particularly principle 2,
which reads, in part―.
The board approves the principle of the eight-hour day, but believes it
should be limited to work requiring practically continuous application during
eight hours. For eight hours' pay eight hours' work should be performed.
(II, R. L. B. 87)—
makes it apparent that it was the intention to eliminate payments
for service not performed and that the employees are performing
no service when going to and from working points. Further, that
the contention of the organization that the employees should be
paid for going to and from work completely ignores the principle
that for eight hours' pay eight hours' work should be performed.
The carrier contends that immediately prior to Federal control,
and for a number of years in advance of that time, it was the prac-
tice on the railroads involved for maintenance of way employees
to go to and from work on their own time, furnishing the company
10 hours' work for 10 hours' pay, and that the reestablishment of
the practice of securing service for time paid for is in line with
proper operation and the principles laid down by the Labor Board.
Question (b).—In connection with question (6), shown above, it is
the employees' contention that supervisory forces required to work
with their gangs in excess of the established eight-hour day are en-
titled to the overtime provisions of Decision No. 501 in the same man-
ner as the employees supervised. The employees entered protest
against the action on the part of the carrier in posting notices to the
effect that forces would be assigned to 10 hours per day, and that the
foremen would be assigned to 10 hours per day, but would receive
no extra compensation for the ninth and tenth hours of service.
Employees call attention to that portion of the circulars wherein the
carrier instructs that the foreman record in his time books 10 hours in
the regular delays' or hours' column instead of showing eight hours
in the regular hours' column and two hours as overtime. Further,
that the provisions of Decision No. 501 clearly entitle these super-
visory forces to extra compensation when performing service with
their gangs, and that the only exception to this provision is where
such supervisory forces perform service "in excess of the working
hours or days assigned for the general force," which service is con-
sidered a part of their responsibilities or supervisory duties, such as
making reports, recording time, etc.
The employees take further exception to the carrier designating a
different starting time without "mutual understanding between the
local officers and the employees' committee," as contemplated in sec-
tion (c-1), Article V, of Decision No. 501, which action on the part
of the carrier is not denied.
It is the contention of the carrier in connection with this question
that the payment of compensation at overtime rates for service per-
formed in excess of eight hours is contrary to section (h), Article V,
of Decision No. 501, reading as follows:
Employees whose responsibilities and/or supervisory duties require service
in excess of the working hours or days assigned for the general force will be
compensated on a monthly rate to cover all services rendered, except that when
20936°-23-61
956
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
such employees are required to perform work which is not a part of their respon-
sibilities or supervisory duties on Sundays or in excess of the established work-
ing hours, such work will be paid for on the basis provided in these rules, in
addition to the monthly rate. Section foremen required to walk or patrol track
on Sundays shall be paid therfor on the bases provided in these rules, in
addition to the monthly rate. (II, R. L. B., 469.)
Further, that such construction is contrary to decisions rendered
by the Labor Board.
The following is quoted from the carrier's position:
The management was in full agreement with the chairman that the monthly
rate compensates for all service performed, except such incidental service as
patrolling track and the performance of work which is not a part of their re-
sponsibilities or supervisory duties, and allowed the foremen pay for the days
that they were not allowed to work their gangs. In other words, supervisory
foremen on these lines are paid a day's pay for each calendar day that they
are assigned, regardless of whether service is performed or not. This on basis
that they are on a monthly rate, which compensates for all service performed.
The carrier believes that section (h), Article V, of Decision No. 501, is clear
as written and that it was intended that the monthly rate for supervisory fore-
men in the maintenance of way department should compensate for all service
performed except for the performance of work which was not a part of their
responsibilities or supervisory duties. In further support of its position, the
carrier wishes to call the board's attention to its Decisions Nos. 593, 896,
and 979.
Question (c).-The employees take the position with respect to this
question that the carrier in reassigning the hours of the employees
violated the provisions of section (c-1), Article V, of Decision No.
501, by arbitrarily placing the arrangement into effect whereby the
starting time was changed without a mutual understanding between
the local officers and the employees' committee, as contemplated in
section (-1), Article V, of Decision No. 501, referred to. The em-
ployees take the position that the carrier in reality established a 10-
hour day, whereas Decision No. 501 specifically stipulated that 8
hours shall constitute a day's work.
The carrier takes the position that the information received by
it was to the effect that the majority of the employees in the
maintenance of way service desired to work 10 hours per day in order
to avoid loss of earnings under Decision No. 1028. This carrier
established the 10-hour assignment, effective July 1, and it holds that
the working of maintenance of way forces 10 hours per day is not a
violation of Decision No. 501 or any order of the United States
Railroad Labor Board. Further, that there is no agreement between
this carrier and the maintenance of way employees; that the wages
and working conditions of the maintenance of way employees are
covered by the Board's Decisions Nos. 501 and 1028.
The carrier states that it seems clear that Decision No. 501 con-
templates that maintenance of way forces would be worked 10 hours
per day during certain periods of the year as the decision provides
that, except for supervisory forces, the ninth and tenth hour would
be paid for at the pro rata hourly rate. The carrier further states
that it does not intend to work its maintenance of way forces 10
hours per day throughout the entire year, but during certain seasons
of the year, particularly during the long summer days, it is desira-
ble both from the viewpoint of the carrier and the employees to
work 10 hours; that this is particularly applicable to employees
DECISIONS.
957
located in the rural districts where they have no means of disposing
of their time after completing the day's work and for this reason
desire to work 10 hours.
Opinion. Question (a): The Labor Board has carefully analyzed
the evidence submitted and the positions taken by the respective
parties to this dispute, and while principle 12, Exhibit B, of Decision
No. 119, states that "for eight hours' pay eight hours' work should
be performed," it is felt that the characteristics of the service re-
quired in the maintenance of way and bridge and building depart-
ments justify certain latitude in the definition of "work" or service.
The nature of the work and the varying locations at which such
work is performed in these departments necessitate the designation
of points at which men may assemble prior to proceeding to their
point of work. After assembly and upon leaving such designated
assembling points, the board feels that it has been generally under-
stood and recognized that the employees were under the supervision.
of the foremen and that the foremen were considered as being on
duty and required to perform the functions incumbent upon that
position while proceeding to the point of work, such as the inspec-
tion of track and remedying any defect that might be detected while
in transit.
66
""
The board does not feel that the time consumed can be properly
considered the men's time as they are subject to service while
en route. The same principle applies to the return to the designated
assembling points at the close of the day.
Question (b): The Labor Board directs especial attention to that
portion of section (h), Article V, of Decision No. 501, reading,
"service in excess of the working hours or days assigned for the
general force" and "such work will be paid for on the basis pro-
vided in these rules in addition to the monthly rates."
In the promulgation of this rule it was recognized that there
would be incidental services necessary for the supervisory forces to
perform requiring their services in excess of the hours worked by
the general force, such as making reports, recording time, and
similar duties usually incumbent upon the position of foreman.
However, as specifically stated in the rule, this exception only re-
ferred to service in excess of the working hours or days assigned
for the general force, and which was considered a part of the em-
ployees responsibilities and/or supervisory duties."
66
99
Section (a-1), Article V of Decision No. 501, provides:
Except as otherwise provided in these rules eight consecutive hours, exclusive
of the meal period, shall constitute a day's work. (II, R. L. B., 469.)
This rule and other rules relative to overtime, etc., are equally
applicable to the supervisory forces, except in so far as the specific
exceptions are referred to in section (h) of Article V and which
have been hereinbefore referred to.
Hence, it can be properly said that when the "general force"
is required to work 10 hours per day the overtime rules are appli-
cable to said general forces and likewise to the supervisory forces
in charge for the ninth and tenth hours because of the fact that
these two hours do not represent time in excess of the hours or days
958
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
assigned for the general force. Incidental duties performed in
excess of 10 hours, however, such as making reports, etc., which are
considered part of the responsibilities or supervisory duties, are
excepted in the same manner as if on an eight-hour basis.
Question (c): The Labor Board, after a careful analysis of the
subject matter in dispute, promulgated Decision No. 501, in which
decision is incorporated the following rule "except as otherwise
provided in these rules, eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the
meal period, shall constitute a day's work.' There was also incor-
porated in this decision rules providing for the payment for service
performed in excess of eight hours per day and on Sundays and
holidays, which was not considered a part of the standard measure
of a day's work. This decision also embodied a rule which provided
a method for changing the starting time of the various classes of
employees covered thereby.
The evidence in this case clearly shows that the carrier did not
seek or hold conference with the duly authorized representatives of
the employees prior to the time certain of the changes complained of
were placed in effect. In other words, the starting time of certain
employees, which was formerly 8 a. m., was changed to 7 a. m. with-
out proper compliance with section (c-1), Article V, of Decision
No. 501. Instruction of the carrier with respect to formen being
assigned to 10 hours per day without additional compensation for
the two extra hours was not in conformity with the meaning and
intent of the provisions of Decision No. 501 as will be noted from
the foregoing opinion with regard to question (b).
The entering of 10 hours' time in conformity with the carrier's
instructions was an improper entry, as will also be seen from the
board's opinion expressed above. In the course of the oral hearing
conducted in connection with this dispute, the representatives of the
carrier indicated that the assignment of the employees to 10 hours
per day was prompted by the thought that the supervisory forces
could be worked these additional hours without extra compensation
therefor in addition to their monthly rate. The position of the car-
rier if predicated upon this thought was indeed unjust and unrea-
sonable and one which the Labor Board can not sustain.
The Labor Board recognizes that the carrier has a right under the
rules incorporated in Decision No. 501 to work its forces 9, 10, and
even a longer number of hours should an occasion arise necessitating
and justifying such an assignment, with the provision, however, that
the meaning and intent of the rules are adhered to.
Decision. Question (a): The Labor Board decides that employees'
time will start and end at designated assembling points for each
class of employees covered by the agreement governing maintenance
of way and bridge and building department employees.
Question (b): Supervisory forces shall be compensated on the same
overtime basis as the men supervised when the general force is re-
quired to work in excess of eight hours per day.
Question (c): The Labor Board decides that the carrier violated
the meaning and intent of section (c-1) and section (h), Article V,
of Decision No. 501, in establishing the 10-hour day as herein out-
lined.
DECISIONS.
959
DECISION NO. 1365.-DOCKET 223.
Chicago, Ill., November 15, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern
Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Application of Supplements 16 and 25 to General
Order No. 27, issued by the United States Railroad Administration,
and section 3, Article VII, of Decision No. 2, issued by the United
States Railroad Labor Board.
Statement. Before the issuance of Supplements 16 and 25, train-
men assigned to mixed, local-freight, through-freight, and work-
train service were paid a monthly guaranty. The employees con-
tend that those guaranties are perpetuated under wage orders and
supplements issued by the United States Railroad Administration,
and that money monthly guaranties should be increased under
Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board in the same proportion that
mileage and daily rates are increased under section 3, Article VII,
of Decision No. 2.
The carrier contends that the money monthly guaranties should
be converted into daily and mileage bases and that the money
monthly guaranties are eliminated.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the money monthly
guaranties applying to conductors and trainmen in through or
irregular freight-train service and mixed-train service are preserved
and shall be increased under Decision No. 2 of the board.
The monthly guaranty for regularly assigned way-freight and
work-train service shall be governed by Article VII of Supplement
No. 25 to General Order No. 27 of the United States Railroad
Administration.
DECISION NO. 1366.-DOCKET 2468.
Chicago, Ill., November 17, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System.
Question. Shall the carrier be required to recognize H. P. Mat-
thews as the system chairman and representative of the above-named
clerks' organization?
Statement. Mr. Matthews was an employee of the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System and was chairman of the clerks'
organization on said railroad.
He was dismissed from the carrier's service for cause, and a dis-
pute (Docket No. 638) was brought before the Labor Board by
said clerks' organization asking for his restoration to the carrier's
service. In settling this dispute in its Decision No. 373, the Labor
Board held that the dismissal of said employee was justifiable on
the evidence presented to the board and the petition for restoration.
to the service was denied.
Subsequent to the issuance of said decision, Mr. Matthews sought
to continue to act as the chairman and representative of said or-
960
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ganization, but the carrier declined to receive him as such on the
ground that the conduct which justified its discharge of him as
an employee likewise justified its refusal to receive him as the
representative of the organization.
The employees contend that they have the unrestricted right to
select their own representative; that the carrier has no right to
pass upon such selection and reject their representative; and par-
ticularly that the carrier's action in declining to deal with Mr.
Matthews as the representative of the organization is unjustified.
It is not necessary to recapitulate here the facts contained in De-
cision No. 373. Reference is made to the docket and decision in that
case for a fuller statement of the facts.
Opinion.-The Labor Board is of the opinion that the same facts
which made Mr. Matthews an undesirable employee make him an
undesirable representative of the clerks' organization, and that the
carrier is justified in its declination to receive him as such represen-
tative. The Labor Board is of the further opinion that the car-
rier's course and the employees' acquiescence therein will be condu-
cive to that harmonious relationship between the carrier and its em-
ployees which will be advantageous to both.
Conceding that ordinarily the employees have the unfettered right
to select their representatives without regard to the wishes of the
carrier, it is obvious that the facts in this case make it an exception
to the rule.
Decision. The action of the carrier is sustained, and the petition
of the employees is denied.

DISSENTING OPINION.
In dissenting from the decision of the majority it is my contention
that the employees have the same unrestricted right to elect repre-
sentatives of their own choosing as have the carriers in the appoint-
ment or selection of their officers.
In this case the objection to Mr. Matthews is primarily based upon:
(1) That Matthews had in his possession a copy of a letter written
by one official of the carrier to another official, bearing on a case
which Mr. Matthews, as a representative of the clerks' organization,
had before the management for adjustment; and
(2) Because Matthews declined to explain to the satisfaction of
the carrier, how he secured the copy of this letter.
It is not my purpose to defend either representatives of employees
or representatives of carriers who may surreptitiously or otherwise
secure information that may be deemed valuable to either of them.
Railroad officials and railroad employees know that it is not an
uncommon practice for carriers to employ, either directly or indi-
rectly, men commonly known as "spotters," and that such men are
employed for the primary purpose of reporting the proceedings of
the lodge and committee meetings conducted by the various railroad
labor unions. There are many cases on record where these “ 'spot-
ters"-members in good standing in their respective unions-have
been caught "with the goods on them" and as a consequence have
been expelled from membership in the union.
DECISIONS.
961
The question to my mind is simply this: Does the transportation
act, 1920, give the Labor Board jurisdiction-
(1) Over the officers and employees of the national, international,
and brotherhood organizations duly elected and authorized to rep-
resent railroad employees, said officers and employees not being in
the service of any carrier coming under the provisions of the act?
(2) Over the general and division officials of carriers coming
under the provisions of the act?-and
(3) Has the board the authority to directly or indirectly embody
in its decisions any provisions that will restrict the legal rights of
a carrier or an organization of employees in selecting officers to
conduct the business of the respective carriers of organizations of
employees?
Under the stress of an ever-accumulating amount of disputes sub-
mitted to the board for decision, I freely confess that I voted to
sustain the carrier in the dismissal of Mr. Matthews (Docket 638,
Decision 373), who was then an employee of the clerks' organization,
but I did so under what I am now convinced was a misapprehension
of the facts. I hold no brief for Mr. Matthews, and to the best of
my knowledge I have never met him.
This dissenting opinion is based solely upon an honest conviction
that the majority have assumed a jurisdiction never contemplated by
the transportation act, 1920, and one which if carried to a logical
conclusion would, in my opinion, make every act of every railroad
official and every officer and employee of the labor unions represent-
ing any of the various classes of railroad employees subject to the
decisions of the Labor Board.
A. O. WHARTON.
DECISION NO. 1367.-DOCKET 1319.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad.
Question.- Dispute regarding the right of the carrier named
above to absorb, effective July 1, 1921, express commissions formerly
paid station agents who handle express and which commissions
it is alleged constitute a part of salaries of said employees.
Statement.-On June 7, 1921, the carrier notified the general
chairman of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers as follows:
"Effective July 1 the express commissions will be paid to the railroad com-
pany and not to the various station agents."
The employees state that the agents have been receiving com-
missions of 10 per cent on all less carload and 5 per cent on all
carload express shipments and that these commissions were always
considered a part of the agent's compensation; that the order of
the carrier above referred to has resulted in 53 agents suffering
an average reduction in compensation of about 10 cents per hour or
$21.44 per month. The employees further state that in the negotia-
tion of the first agreement between the carrier and the employees in
telegraph service, effective March 19, 1916, a 10 per cent increase in
compensation was granted and in the distribution of the aggregate
962
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
amount the average monthly commission paid to each position in-
volved was given consideration and the increases in compensation
distributed accordingly, and that this practice was followed in con-
nection with further increases granted in April and November, 1917.
The employees contend that the action of the carrier is in viola-
tion of the agreement between the carrier and the employees in
telegraph service, the orders and decisions of the Labor Board,
and section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, and request that the
carrier be required to restore the payment of express commissions
to the employees concerned, effective July 1, 1921.
The carrier states that agents are paid a proper rate of pay for
the service performed and that in handling express they are acting
as the carrier's agents just the same as if they were handling freight
or tickets. The carrier further states that it has a contract with the
express company under the terms of which the express company is a
partner of the carrier and that the carrier pays its proportion of
the express agents' salaries and there is no justice in paying two
salaries to the same employee for the same work. The carrier also
states that when the agents are handling express they are not han-
dling tickets or freight, and if they are not able to do the work at
the station without help, additional help is provided.
The carrier contends that there is no justice in the complaint of
the employees; that many of the station agents at small stations are
now earning more money in proportion to the responsibility of their
positions than any of the other citizens in the town, and that to
continue to pay additional for handling express would in effect be
paying double for the performance of work provided for in their
regular compensation.
Opinion. The rates of pay of the employees herein referred to,
in effect at the time this dispute was submitted to the Labor Board,
were established by the application of the increases set forth in the
decisions of the United States Railroad Administration and the
Labor Board to the rates established prior to Federal control by
negotiation between the carrier and employees in telegraph service.
The carrier does not deny that express commissions were taken into
consideration in the establishment of the rates of pay incorporated
in the agreement with its telegraphers prior to Federal control; in
fact, the carrier's contention is practically an admission that the
discontinuance of the express commission was considered a reduction
in compensation.
The agreement between the carrier and the employees in telegraph
service, effective as to rates of pay May 1, 1920, and as to rules
October 1, 1920, contains the usual clause requiring 30 days' notice
in writing of the desire of either party to change it. This notice
was not served upon the employees, nor were conferences held or
sought with the employees prior to the issuance of the order of
June 7, 1921.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the action of the car-
rier in discontinuing the payment of express commissions to the
agents included in the agreement between the carrier and employees
in telegraph service was in violation of the provisions of the said
agreement, the orders and decisions of the Labor Board, and section
301 of the transportation act, 1920.
DECISIONS.
963
It is further decided that the carrier shall reimburse the employees
the amount of the express commissions that would have accrued to
them if the order of June 7, 1921, had not been issued, and shall
confer with the representatives of the employees for the purpose of
making such adjustment as may be desired in the compensation
accruing. to employees, with the understanding that if agreement
can not be reached the matter shall be submitted to the Labor Board
in accordance with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
In this connection, attention of both parties to this controversy
is directed to rule 20, Decision No. 757, issued by the Labor Board,
March 16, 1922.
DECISION NO. 1368.-DOCKET 2348.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the alleged violation of rule 82 of
agreement between the carrier and the employees in express service
in connection with rearrangement of runs between Bristol, Va., and
Washington, D. C.
Statement.-Prior to May 1, 1921, there were four messengers on
trains 41 and 42, Norfolk & Western Railway, between Bristol and
Washington, a distance of 376 miles, receiving a salary of $168.40
per month, and two helpers between Bristol and Lynchburg, Va., re-
ceiving a salary of $131 per month. On the date named these runs
were abolished and new runs were created, extending from Bristol
to Lynchburg on the Norfolk & Western Railway, trains 41 and 42.
The distance between these points is 204 miles and is covered by two
messengers receiving a salary of $139 per month. Under the new
arrangement only one helper is used between Roanoke and Lynch-
burg, Va., a distance of 52 miles, and he receives a salary of $114 per
month.
A controversy has arisen between the employees and the carrier
as to the propriety of the rearrangement under rule 82 of the agree-
ment.
The employees state that two messengers are now covering trains
41 and 42, more than 54 per cent of the distance previously covered
by four messengers, adding to each of the employees in question
approximately 15 miles per day more in distance, and one hour more
in actual time.
The employees further state that the employees affected by this
change have suffered a reduction of $16 per month, although the
work performed entails the same degree of hazard, responsibility,
and labor that existed prior to the date of the changes.
The employees contend that the rate established after May 1 for
the messengers on trains 41 and 42 between Bristol and Lynchburg
is not in conformity with rule 82 of the agreement, and in further
support of this contention they cite trains 13 and 14 operating be-
tween Bristol and Roanoke, a distance of 152 miles, which are covered
by two men at a salary of $154 per month, or approximately 52 miles
less per day than the run involved in this dispute.
964
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier states that rule 82 requires that the wages for new posi-
tions as created shall be in conformity with the wages for positions.
of similar kind or class; that at the time this run was established
there were existing messenger runs between Bristol and Lynchburg
of trains 1-11 and 2-12 which pay this identical salary; and that,
therefore, rule 82 was strictly complied with in establishing the
salary for new runs between the same terminals on the same rail-
road on the basis of existing runs on other trains.
The carrier contends that the distance between terminals has no
material bearing on the question of wages, and that this is particu-
larly true when comparison is made between the mileage of the
Bristol-Lynchburg run and the former Bristol-Washington run.
The carrier further contends that the employees have not suffered a
reduction of $16 per month, and states that as a matter of fact the
difference between the rates of pay formerly obtaining on the Bristol-
Washington run and on the Bristol-Lynchburg run is $15 per month,
but that this has no material bearing on the controversy for the
reason that the former run has been abolished and a new run created,
and the rate of pay on the new run conforms to rates of pay of
through messengers operating over the same railroad between the
same terminals but on different trains. The carrier claims that
there is no necessary relationship between the rates formerly obtain-
ing on the old run and the rate of pay established for the new run,
and denies that, in any event, the work on the new run is not ma-
terially easier and less responsible or hazardous than that performed
on the old run.
It is also the contention of the carrier that the question of rates
of pay of helpers between Roanoke and Lynchburg has no ma-
terial bearing on this controversy, and that it has acted in full com-
pliance with rule 82 of the agreement in the establishment of the
rates of pay in effect since the rearrangement effective May 1, 1921.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1369.—DOCKET 2656.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question. This is a proceeding and determination under section
313 of the transportation act, 1920, whereby the Labor Board is
authorized, in case it has reason to believe its decision has been vio-
lated by any carrier, to determine, after due notice and hearing to
all persons interested, whether, in its opinion, such violation has
occurred and to make public its decision as to such alleged violation
in such manner as it may deem appropriate.
Statement.-On February 16, 1922, the Labor Board rendered its
Decision No. 721 upon a controversy or dispute between the classes
of employees named therein represented by the American Train
Dispatchers Association and the carriers party to the proceeding
upon which the said decision was rendered. The subject matter of
the dispute was what shall constitute just and reasonable rules and
working conditions.
DECISIONS.
965
The Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. was a party to the proceeding
upon which Decision No. 721 was rendered and is named in said
decision.
Section 2, general instructions, Decision No. 721, reads as follows:
The rules approved by the Labor Board shall apply to each of the carriers
parties to the dispute (Docket 475) covered by this decision, except in such
instances as any particular carrier may have agreed with its employees upon
any one or more of such rules, in which case the rule or rules agreed upon by
the carrier and its employees shall apply on said road.
The rules approved by the Labor Board, referred to in the above-
quoted section of Decision No. 721 and applicable to the carrier
party to the dispute covered by the decision, are as follows:
ARTICLE I. The term "train dispatcher as herein used shall be understood
to include chief, assistant chief, trick, relief, and extra dispatchers, except
chief dispatchers, vested substationally with the authority of superintendent or
assistant superintendent.
ART. III. Sec. (b).—The carrier shall designate an established rest day for
each position in accordance with the foregoing section. Reasonable notice shall
be given of change in assignment of rest day.
ART. IV. Sec. (a).—Train dispatchers shall be monthly employees but the
monthly compensation shall be computed on a daily basis.
Sec. (b). When necessary to fix a daily rate of pay it shall be determined
by multiplying the regular monthly rate by 12 and dividing the result by 313.
Sec. (c).-Loss of time on account of the hours-of-service law or in changing
positions by the direction of proper authority shall be paid for at the rate of
the position for which service was performed immediately prior to such change.
This does not apply in case of transfers account employees exercising seniority.
Sec. (d).-Rates of pay for new positions shall be the same as for existing
positions of equal scope and responsibility.
ART. V. Sec. (a).-Dispatching offices will be maintained as private as
possible.
Sec. (b).-When assignment by the carrier requires train dispatchers to
change their place of residence they will be furnished free transportation for
their families and household goods to their new place of residence at time of
transfer.
Sec. (c).—Train dispatchers and their dependents will be granted as liberal
transportation privileges as are accorded other subordinate officials and em-
ployees.
Sec. (d).-Reasonable notice will be given of reduction in force or change in
hours of assigned positions.
ART. V. Sec. (d).-Reasonable notice will be given of reduction in force or
change in hours of assigned positions.
Section 4, general instructions, same decision, reads as follows:
Proposed rules not herein decided. Because a very large majority of the
carriers and their employees have agreed upon seniority and discipline rules,
these subjects are remanded in their entirety. The Labor Board believes
that certain other subject matters may not be covered in all localities by rules
of general application, and require further consideration by the parties
directly concerned. All such rules which involve a dispute between a particu-
lar carrier and its employees are hereby remanded to said carrier and its
employees for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions of section 301
of the Transportation Act, 1920.
In further negotiations attention is again directed to the principles an-
nounced in Exhibit B of Decision No. 119.
The rules remanded for conference between the carrier and the
train dispatchers, in accordance with the above section, are as follows:
ART. XIV. Chief and assistant chief dispatchers will be relieved by train dis-
patchers according to seniority in accordance with rule 5.
ART. XIX. The doubling of territory for relief purposes will not be per-
mitted.
966
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
1
.\
In addition, the question of whether or not chief dispatchers come
within the jurisdiction of the rules established by Decision No. 721
governing working conditions of train dispatchers, is covered by sec-
tion 5, general instructions, Decision No. 721, which reads as follows:
Vacations and sick leave with pay.-In the opinion of the Labor Board the
question of vacations and sick leave with pay is one which should be left at
this time to the carriers and their respective employees for the adoption of
such rules as may be severally and mutually agreed upon.
The proposed rules left at this time to the carriers and their re-
spective employees for the adoption of such rules as may be severally
and mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the above section of
Decision No. 721, are as follows:
ART. XV. Train dispatchers who have been in the service in such capacity one
year or more will be granted 2 weeks' or 14 working days' vacation per annum
with full pay, and failing to receive such vacation through no fault of their
own will receive extra pay at pro rata rates therefor. Train dispatchers so
far as possible will be allowed choice of seasons for vacation.
ART. XVI. Train dispatchers will be paid for time lost account personal sick-
ness not to exceed 60 days in any calendar year, when such loss of time does
not incur additional expense to the company.
On March 4, 1922, the general chairman of the train dispatchers
in the service of the carrier named, addressed to the general manager
of the carrier the following communication:
In accordance with the provisions contained in section (a), Article VI, of
Decision No. 721, issued by the United States Railroad Labor Board, as well
as Article XX of the agreement entered into between the representatives of
the Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. and the representatives of the train dis-
patchers on that road, you are hereby given 30 days' notice of a desire on
the part of the train dispatchers to write into said agreement the rules on
which agreement was not reached in conference and which have been decided
by the board in its Decision No. 721, and to further negotiate those rules
remanded by the board as per section 5 of general instructions.
If it is your desire to confer with the undersigned and his committee at
any time prior to the expiration of the specified time limit of 30 days, such
an agreement will be entirely agreeable to us. Please advise.
On May 24, 1922, the following letter was addressed by the general
chairman to the vice president:
It has been nearly three months since I asked for a meeting with you to
write in agreed-to rules and those decided by the United States Labor Board in
Decision No. 721, and over two months since you told me that you would give
me an appointment for that purpose as soon as convenient.
As I have heard nothing further from you on the matter, I am inclined to
think that you have entirely overlooked it.
On or about June 4, 1922, the general chairman wrote the vice
president, as follows:
Referring to my letters of March 4 and May 23: It has been deemed advis-
able to notify the Labor Board that we are unable to obtain a meeting with
the carrier to put in effect the provisions of their Decision No. 721, on June 10.
Under date of June 20, 1922, the chief executive of the American
Train Dispatchers Association filed with the Labor Board an appli-
cation for decision in which it was set forth that-
(a) Decision No. 721 of the Labor Board contemplated and
required that the Chicago & Alton Railway should enter into an
agreement or schedule with its train dispatchers by and through
their duly authorized and designated representatives, which sched-
:
967
DECISIONS.
ule or agreement should embody the rules, contained in Decision
No. 721, above quoted;
(b) That the neglect and failure of the carrier to so comply with
the intent and provisions of said Decision No. 721 constitutes a
violation of an order of the Labor Board, of which the board should
take cognizance by proceeding under section 313 of the transporta-
tion act, 1920;
(c) That the neglect and refusal of the carrier to comply with
the request of the duly authorized and designated representatives
of the train dispatchers in its service and arrange for conference to
discuss the rules or working conditions remanded by Decision No.
721 constitutes a violation of which the Labor Board should take
cognizance by proceeding under section 313 of the transportation
act, 1920; and
(d) The above-enumerated rules governing working conditions
remanded to conference between the train dispatchers and carrier
are just and reasonable and should be embodied in the schedule or
agreement to be entered into as aforesaid by and between the carrier
and its train dispatchers.
The carrier has been furnished a copy of the employees' presenta-
tion in this proceeding but has not responded either orally or in
writing to the employees' allegations shown above. Under date of
September 11, 1922, the carrier was duly notified of hearing con-
ducted pursuant to said notice, September 28, 1922, but was not
represented at the hearing.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the carrier has violated
Decision No. 721 in failing to comply with the provisions thereof
as hereinbefore set forth.
DECISION NO. 1370.-DOCKET 858.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
Question. Dispute regarding the exercise of seniority rights
by E. W. Miles when his position in the auditor's office was abol-
ished March 31, 1921.
Statement.-Mr. Miles entered the service of the carrier in April,
1909, in the freight office at Gibson, Ind., and worked in various
clerical positions until March 1, 1921. On or about that date cer-
tain changes were made in the method of handling accounts which
resulted in the transfer of certain work pertaining thereto from
the local stations to the auditor's office, and the abolition in connec-
tion therewith of certain positions in the local stations. The
position held by Mr. Miles was one of those abolished, and on
March 1, 1921, he was appointed assistant cashier in the auditor's
office at Gibson. The latter position was abolished March 31, 1921,
and Mr. Miles was relieved from the service.
It is agreed by both parties to the dispute that the position of
assistant cashier in the auditor's office was one classified as personal
office force and excepted from the provisions of the national agree-
ment of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
968
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
2
In the original handling of this dispute with the carrier, the
employees took the position that when Mr. Miles's position in the
auditor's office was abolished he should have been permitted to
exercise in that office the seniority accrued in the agent's office.
However, this request was subsequently changed to a request for the
right to exercise seniority in accordance with rule 29 of the agree-
ment, and this was the basis upon which the dispute was presented
by the employees to the Labor Board.
Rule 29 of the clerks' national agreement reads as follows:
Employees now filling or promoted to excepted or official positions shall retain
all their rights and continue to accumulate seniority in the district from which
promoted.
When excepted or official positions are filled by other than employees covered
by these rules, no seniority rights shall be established by such employment.
It is the contention of the employees that Mr. Miles was promoted
from a position in the local freight office to an excepted position in
the auditor's office; that under the provisions of rule 29, above
quoted, he was entitled to retain his seniority rights in the seniority
district from which he was promoted (agent's office), to continue
to accumulate seniority therein, and to exercise his seniority rights
in said office in accordance with rule 27 of the agreement when his
position was abolished. The employees request that inasmuch as
Mr. Miles was not granted the privilege of exercising his seniority
in accordance with the rules of the agreement, he be reinstated
in the service with seniority rights unimpaired and permitted to
exercise his seniority rights to position in the agent's office, in accord-
ance with the rules of the agreement, and reimbursed for the wage
loss sustained since March 31, 1921, on which date his position in
the auditor's office was abolished.
The carrier states that the auditor's office and the agent's office at
Gibson are in separate seniority districts; and that when the posi-
tion held by Mr. Miles in the agent's office was abolished he could
have exercised his seniority rights in that office in accordance with
rule 27 of the agreement, but instead of doing this he elected to
accept a position in the auditor's office. The carrier further states
that the position held by Mr. Miles in the agent's office was not
transferred to the auditor's office, nor was there any consolidation
of positions in connection with the change in the method of handling
the accounting work on March 1, 1921.
The carrier contends that when the change in the method of
handling the accounting work was made, the agents at the stations
where the positions were abolished suggested to the employees
affected the advisability of making application for employment upon
the auditor, and that such applications were made by the majority
of said employees. It is claimed that the auditor provided employ-
ment for as many of these employees as possible, but they were given
to understand that they were going to work in the auditor's office
as new employees. It is further claimed that these are the circum-
stances under which Mr. Miles was given employment in the auditor's
office. The carrier further contends that under the circumstances
Mr. Miles had no seniority rights in the auditor's office, and that
since the auditor's office was in a different seniority district than
the agent's office he could not retain his seniority rights in the latter
DECISIONS.
969
office under rule 29 of the agreement; therefore, the action of the
carrier in relieving Mr. Miles from the service when his position in
the auditor's office was abolished on March 31, 1921, was not in
conflict with rules of the clerks' national agreement.
Opinion. It appears that Mr. Miles held a position in the agent's
office which was included within the scope of the clerks' national
agreement and subject to the rules of said agreement. When the
change in the method of handling the accounting work resulted in
the abolition of this position and the creation of a position for the
purpose of handling the same kind of work in the auditor's office, he
applied for and was assigned to the latter position. This latter
position was admittedly a better position than the one held by Mr.
Miles in the agent's office. His application for same was made sev-
eral days before his position in the agent's office was abolished and
the continuity of his service was uninterrupted in the acceptance
thereof.
The carrier denies that rule 29 of the agreement preserved Mr.
Miles's seniority in the agent's office, first, because he was not pro-
moted to the excepted position in the auditor's office, and second, be-
cause the rule does not preserve seniority for employees accepting
excepted positions outside of the seniority district in which they are
employed. While it might be technically held that Mr. Miles was
not promoted to a position in the auditor's office, it is the opinion of
the Labor Board that all the elements of a promotion were present,
and even though they were not it is clearly the intent of rule 29
to preserve to an employee accepting an official or excepted posi-
tion the seniority accumulated in the district from which promoted.
With respect to the second claim that rule 29 does not preserve
seniority for employees assigned to excepted positions outside of the
seniority district in which they are employed, the rule is so plain upon
this point that no elaboration should be necessary. The language of
the rule clearly provides for the retention of seniority when em-
ployees are promoted to excepted positions, regardless of whether
or not such positions are within the same seniority district. In this
connection, it should only be necessary to say that no excepted posi-
tion is within any seniority district as that term is used in the clerks'
national agreement.
However, the evidence shows that the employees did not present
their claim in behalf of Mr. Miles on a basis of rule 29 until April
28, 1921, the claim presented prior to that date having been made on
a basis of rules not applicable in this case.
In the submission of its position in this dispute, and in its appear-
ance before the Labor Board, the carrier raises certain questions of
jurisdiction of the Labor Board in this case. The board has given due
consideration to the argument presented in connection with the
board's jurisdiction, and decides that it has jurisdiction in this dis-
pute.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides, for the reasons stated above,
that under the provisions of rule 29 herein quoted E. W. Miles was
entitled to the retention of his seniority in the district from which he
was promoted—namely, the agent's office-and that he shall be rein-
stated to the service of the carrier with seniority unimpaired and per-
mitted to exercise his seniority rights to any position in the agent's
970
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
office to which he may be entitled and reimbursed for the wage loss
sustained since April 28, 1921, less any amount earned in other em-
ployment since that date.
DECISION NO. 1371.-DOCKET 1077.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Question.-(a) Shall the position of stenographer and general
clerk in the local freight office at Memphis, Tenn., be included within
the scope of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees, as defined in rule 1 of Article I thereof?
(b) Shall Mae Chism, clerk in said office, be reinstated and reim-
bursed for wage loss sustained since the date she sought to exercise
her seniority to said position?
Statement.-During the month of March, 1921, the position held by
Miss Chism in the local freight office at Memphis was abolished.
She sought to exercise her seniority to the position designated as
assistant claim and general clerk, but her request was denied on the
ground that the employee then filling said position was required to
handle correspondence for the chief clerk and perform other duties
of a direct and confidential nature which justified the classification of
the position as personal office force. On May 1, 1921, the title of the
position was changed to stenographer and general clerk. On the
seniority roster issued January 1, 1921, Miss Chism's seniority date
is shown as May 28, 1917, and the seniority date of the occupant of
the position to which she aspires is shown as August 3, 1920. It is
agreed that Miss Chism is capable of filling the position efficiently,
having done so on several occasions.
Section (a), Article XII of Supplement 7 to General Order No. 27,
reads as follows:
Promotions shall be based on ability, merit, and seniority; ability and merit
being sufficient, seniority shall prevail, except, however, that this provision shall
not apply to the personal office forces of such officers as superintendent, train
master, division engineer, master mechanic, general freight or passenger agent,
or their superiors in rank, and executive officers. The management shall be the
judge, subject to an appeal, as provided in Article XIII.
Question 22, Interpretation No. 8, to Supplement 7, reads as
follows:
Question 22.—What is meant by "personal office forces," as used in section
(a), Article XII, Supplement 7, to General Order No. 27?
Decision.-Personal office forces will vary according to the organizations of
the railroads, departments, and offices involved. Therefore the positions con-
stituting personal office forces can not be designated for all railroads and offices.
They include positions of a direct and confidential nature. The character of
the duties and responsibilities should control.
In July, 1919, the director, division of operations, United States
Railroad Administration, issued instructions to the regional directors
readings as follows:
Referring to my letter of May 9 in regard to the seniority provisions of para-
graph (a), Article XII, of Supplement 7, and the answer to Question 22 of
DECISIONS.
971
Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 7, regarding personal office forces in rela-
tion to the agencies at the larger stations:
Our information is that the clerks' organization is not making any claims that
the agencies at the larger stations are not included in the exceptions concern-
ing personal office forces contained in paragraph (a), Article XII, of Supple-
ment No. 7, apparently recognizing that there are classes of agencies which
correspond in responsibilities with the offices which are definitely mentioned in
the article.
In discussing the situation with the Board of Railroad Wages and Working
Conditions, they expressed the opinion that that was the intent of the article,
but that they did not feel it would be proper to include all supervising agents
as covered by Article IV of Supplement 13, as that might exclude a large num-
ber of employees from the promotion and seniority provisions of Supplement 7
which it was not intended to exclude. Where the agents are permitted to
select their personal office forces, before others than the employees in the
office are selected, proper consideration should be given to the qualifications
of the employees to the end that meritorious employees may not be ignored.
Also, please see my letter of April 2, 1919, in regard to selection of personal
office forces.
The difficulty of laying down any definite rule in the premises is recognized,
but the opinion was expressed that, in view of the provisions of paragraph (a),
Article XII of Supplement 7-" The management shall be the judge, subject to
an appeal, as provided in Article XIII"-the situation could be adequately
taken care of by the exercise of discretion in the selection of the agencies
and if it is not attempted to extend exemption to all supervisory agents.
It has been decided to handle the situation in this manner, and I will be
pleased if you will advise your Federal managers accordingly.
The employees state that in July, 1919, the carrier issued instruc-
tions designating as personal office force the positions of stenog-
rapher to the agent, assistant agent, and chief clerk to supervisory
agents, and Memphis was classified as a supervisory agency under
these instructions.
The employees contend that when these instructions were issued
the committee filed protest, and on October 20, 1919, a memorandum
of understanding and agreement between the carrier and the em-
ployees' committee was drawn up providing for the classification of
chief clerks, file clerks, and stenographers to certain division officers
as personal office force, but making no reference to the force of
supervisory agents.
When the clerks' national agreement was issued, effective January
1, 1920, this memorandum of understanding, not being in conflict with
the agreement, was considered an addendum thereto. However, dis-
putes arose at various times as to the application of the rules of the
agreement to certain positions at larger agencies. The employees
claim they endeavored at various times to meet with the carrier's
representatives for the purpose of reaching an agreement to avoid
further controversey, and have offered in evidence copies of corre-
spondence exchanged between the general chairman and the general
manager during the period October, 1920, to July, 1921, when the
entire question of personal office force was the subject of conference
held in accordance with Decision No. 119.
The employees contend that the instructions promulgated by the
carrier after the issuance of Supplement 7 to General Örder No. 27
were not the result of an agreement with the employees; that they
protested the issuance of these instructions and endeavored to hold
conferences for the purpose of securing a modification thereof but
without success. The employees further contend that there are only
about 26 clerks employed in the Memphis station, and that the agent
20936°-23-62
972
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
at that point is not equal to or superior in rank to the superintendent,
master mechanic, trainmaster, or such division officials referred to in
the clerks' national agreement, and that in any event there is nothing
in the agreement which contemplates excepting from the provisions
thereof stenographers of supervisory agents' chief clerk.
The employees request that Miss Chism be permitted to exercise
her seniority rights to the position of stenographer and general clerk
and paid for monetary loss sustained through denial on the part of
the carrier of that right on March 31, 1921.
The carrier states that on July 10, 1919, following the issuance of
the instructions of the United States Railroad Administration,
various employees in a number of the larger stations, including
Memphis, were designated as personal office force. It is claimed
that the authority to designate personal-office-force positions was
delegated to the carrier under Supplement 7 and that the employees
made no protest or objection to these instructions until October,
1920, when the question was raised in a general way. In the mean-
time (October, 1919), an understanding was reached with the
clerks' organization as to what positions should constitute personal
office forces of general and division officers. It is claimed that this
agreement did not cover the personal office force of supervisory
agents, which it was considered had already been established under
the instructions of July 10, 1919, and continued in effect from that
date without formal protest or appeal.
On
With respect to the specific case of Miss Chism, the carrier
states that following the abolition of her position on March 22,
1921, she filled temporarily the position of report and general
clerk until the regular occupant thereof returned to work.
March 31, 1921, she sought to exercise her seniority to the position
which is the subject of this dispute, but her request was denied
on the ground that the position to which she aspired was con-
sidered a personal office force position not subject to the provisions
of the clerks' national agreement. The carrier contends that when
the clerks' national agreement was applied on January 1, 1920,
converting monthly-rated positions coming under the agreement to
a daily basis, the position involved in this dispute was continued
on the monthly basis, and no question was raised or complaint.
made at any other time. The carrier contends that since this posi-
tion was not included within the scope of the clerks' national
agreement, it is not subject to the rules thereof, and they were
therefore justified in denying to Miss Chism the right to exercise
her seniority rights to said position.
Opinion. It appears that in accordance with the order of the
United States Railroad Administration the carrier designated as
personal office force certain positions at what were construed
to be supervisory agencies, and contends that the position which
is the subject of this dispute was so designated. On October 4, 1920,
the employees filed with the carrier a protest against certain posi-
tions shown in the instructions of July 10, 1919, as personal office
force. No action was taken with reference to granting a confer-
ence upon their appeal from the carrier's designation of personal
office force positions. This is explained by the carrier as due to
a succession of unavoidable circumstances; however, it can not be
denied that the employees exercised their right to appeal from
DECISIONS.
973
the carrier's designation of personal office force as provided in the
orders of the United States Railroad Administration and the clerks'
national agreement.
While the orders of the United States Railroad Administration
and the provisions of the clerks' national agreement recognize that
personal office forces will vary according to the organization of the
railroads, departments, and offices involved, there is not contained
therein any precedent for classifying as a personal office force
position the secretary to a chief clerk to an agent at a station where
only 25 clerks are employed.
Generally speaking, the personal office forces of such officers as
trainmasters, division engineers, master mechanics, or their equals
or superiors in official rank, have been construed to include chief
clerks, file clerks, and personal stenographers to such officers. In
exceptional cases where the employees and carriers have agreed,
other positions have been so designated, but even in these cases divi-
sion officers who are of considerably higher rank than the agent of
a station of only 25 employees, the secretary to their chief clerk has
not been construed to be a personal office force position.
The evidence in this case shows that the designation of the stenog-
rapher to the chief clerk to the agent at Memphis was not made by
agreement with the employees, but, on the contrary, the employees
protested the carrier's action in so classifying this position.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides:
(a) That the position of stenographer and general clerk in the
agent's office at Memphis, Tenn., did come within the scope of the
clerks' national agreement; and
(b) That Mae Chism shall be permitted to exercise her seniority
rights thereto and be reimbursed for the monetary loss sustained
since March 31, 1921.
DECISION NO. 1372.-DOCKET 1256.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Rail-
way Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of O. D. Griffin, train dis-
patcher, dismissed from the service December 7, 1920.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding the proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board,
the board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1373.-DOCKET 1981.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the decisions of the Labor Board apply to em-
ployees of the Camden warehouse, Baltimore, Md.?
Decision. The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this
dispute that an agreement has been entered into between the carrier
and the clerks' organization covering the rules and working condi-
974
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tions of the employees in the Camden warehouse, and that the con-
troversy covered by this docket has been settled.
This dispute is therefore removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 1374.-DOCKET 2781.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding rates of pay of telegraphers, Selma
station, San Joaquin division.
Decision. At the hearing conducted by the Labor Board the
employees expressed a desire to withdraw this dispute from further
consideration by the board and make a further attempt to adjust it
with the carrier. The carrier having agreed to the withdrawal of
the dispute on this basis, the case is removed from the docket and
the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1375.-DOCKET 2783.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper rate of pay for teleg-
rapher-towermen at Hadley tower, Coast division.
Decision.-The employees having requested the withdrawal of
this dispute and the carrier having concurred therein, the case is
removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1376.-DOCKET 2784.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding proper rate of pay of second and
third trick telegrapher-towermen, Bloomington tower, Los Angeles
division.
Decision-The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
case from further consideration by the Labor Board, and the carrier
having concurred therein, the dispute is removed from the docket
and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1377.-DOCKET 2785.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding proper rate of pay of telegrapher-
towerman, Burbank tower, Los Angeles division.
Decision. The employees having requested the withdrawal of this
dispute from further consideration by the Labor Board, and the
carrier having concurred therein, the case is removed from the
docket and the file closed.
DECISIONS.
975
!
DECISION NO. 1378.-—DOCKET 2786.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific, System).
Question.-Dispute regarding claim of G. E. Carey, telegrapher,
Grass Lake, Shasta division, for one day's pay, December 31, 1921.
Decision.—This dispute is remanded to the employees and carrier
for further investigation and effort to reach a settlement in ac-
cordance with the understanding reached at hearing conducted by
the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1379.-DOCKET 2791.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding claim of H. M. Stomp, agent,
Orland station, Sacramento division, for overtime from March 1 to
15, inclusive, 1921.
Decision. This dispute is remanded to the employees and carrier
for further investigation and effort to agree in accordance with the
understanding reached at hearing conducted by the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1380.-DOCKET 2794.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding claim of telegrapher-towermen,
Shorb tower, Los Angeles division, for increased rate account han-
dling switches.
Decision. At hearing conducted by the Labor Board the em-
ployees agreed to withdraw this case from further consideration
on the basis outlined by the carrier at said hearing.
The dispute is therefore removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 1381.-DOCKET 2797.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Dispute regarding claim of P. F. Werner, telegrapher,
Stockton division, for one hour's overtime October 21, 26, and 28,
1921.
Decision. At hearing held by the Labor Board this dispute was
withdrawn from further consideration of the Labor Board.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
976
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1382.-DOCKET 2801.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper rate of pay of agent,
Capitola, Calif.
Decision. The employees having withdrawn this dispute from
further consideration by the Labor Board and the carrier having
concurred therein, the case is removed from the docket and the file
closed.
DECISION NO. 1383.—DOCKET 666.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement and pay for all time lost by
R. W. Word, conductor, dismissed October 4, 1920, for alleged re-
fusal to place a car for loading in Ranger City train yard by order
of agent.
Decision.-Parties at interest agreed to withdraw this case and the
docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1384.-DOCKET 667.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of H. J. Bart, conductor,
with pay for all time lost account of being demoted to position as
brakeman on November 1, 1920, without investigation or reason
given therefor.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed to withdraw this case,
and the docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1385.-DOCKET 668.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
Question. Request for rates of wages recognized as standard in
adjacent territory, and rules similar to those on adjacent lines.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed to withdraw this case,
and the docket is therefore closed.
DECISIONS.
977
DECISION NO. 1386.-DOCKET 669.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of R. W. Word, conductor, and Frank Miller,
brakeman, for time lost from September 19 to 23, 1920, when dis-
placed from passenger runs 7 and 8 by Frisco crews.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed to withdraw this case,
and the docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1387.-DOCKET 673.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
Question. Request that W. C. McFarland, R. Q. Word, and
D. B. Dillard be restored to their roster standing as conductors, and
that they be compensated for all time lost on account of their having
been demoted from the position of conductor to that of brakeman.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed to withdraw this case,
and the docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1388.-DOCKET 835.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Train Porters Union 17454 v. Southern Railway System.
Question. Request for an increase of $30 per month under
Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, dated July 20, 1920.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed upon a settlement in
this case and withdrew same from consideration by the Labor Board.
DECISION NO. 1389.—DOCKET 1272.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Equalization of firemen's pay with that of brakemen.
Decision. Upon request of the parties interested in this dispute,
withdrawal of the case is granted and the docket is hereby closed.
DECISION NO. 1390.-DOCKET 1357.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern
Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of W. T. Selvage, San Joaquin division, for
compensation for extra service either before or after completion of
regular assignment during the month of December, 1919.
978
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. At the request of interested parties, the withdrawal of
this case is granted, due to the dispute having occurred prior to the
passage of the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1391.-DOCKET 1377.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Claim of F. B. Palmer, engineer, Portland division,
for 100 miles, January 6, 1921, account of assigned run on which
he was filling a vacancy being annulled that date.
Decision. At the request of the interested parties, the withdrawal
of this case is granted and the docket closed.
DECISION NO. 1392.-DOCKET 1572.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas & Pacific Railway.
Question. Claim of A. W. Byers, yard foreman, Longview yard,
for yard foreman's regular hourly rate for the first eight hours and
overtime rates for the four-hour period in excess of eight, on Septem-
ber 11 to 15, inclusive, 1920, when used as night yardmaster.
Decision. At the hearing held in connection with this case on
March 15, 1922, the representative of the carrier agreed to accept the
contention of the employees. The interested parties agreed to the
withdrawal of this case, and the docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1393.-DOCKET 1582.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Tennessee Central Railroad Co.
Question. Claim for back pay for the months of June and July,
1990, due employees under Decision No. 2, issued by the Labor Board.
Decision. Request for the withdrawal of this docket is granted,
due to dispute having been settled. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1394.-DOCKET 1730.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question. Time claim of A. G. Miller, engineer, and L. Johnson,
fireman, Oelwein terminal, dated February 16, 1921.
Decision. Upon request of the interested parties the withdrawal
of this case is granted. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISIONS.
979
DECISION NO. 1395.-DOCKET 1752.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
+
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen; Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Claim for increase in wages and back pay equivalent
to connecting lines.
Decision. Request for withdrawal of this docket is granted, due to
the dispute having been settled. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1396.-DOCKET 1753.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation.
Question.-Protest of employees against General Notice No. 575,
issued by the carrier, changing overtime provisions of the schedules,
effective July 1, 1921, from time and one-half to pro rata rate.
Decision. Request for withdrawal of this docket is granted, due
to dispute having been settled. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1397.-DOCKET 1758.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Should firemen on oil-burning locomotives be re-
lieved from taking oil or assisting in taking fuel oil en route?
Decision.-Under date of June 22, 1922, interested parties re-
quested the withdrawal of this case from the consideration of the
Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1398.-DOCKET 1773.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Question. Shall firemen be placed on self-propelled unloading
hoist in Marshall yard?
Decision. Under date of June 26, 1922, the interested parties
requested the withdrawal of this case from the consideration of
the Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
980
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1399.-DOCKET 1995.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Question.-Claim for reinstatement and pay for G. N. Behrn,
brakeman.
Decision. Under date of November 10, 1922, the interested parties
requested the withdrawal of this case from the consideration of the
Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1400.-DOCKET 1999.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of E. C. Butts, conductor, for local rates of
pay account setting out two commercial cars at Spoffard and tying
up the engine and the caboose of the work train at Noonan on De-
cember 6, 1920.
Decision. Under date of November 10, 1922, the interested parties.
requested the withdrawal of this case from the consideration of the
Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1401.-DOCKET 2029.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio
Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of G. O. Cox, engine foreman, for position of
yardmaster at Del Rio.
Decision.-Upon request of the interested parties, this case was
withdrawn. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1402.-DOCKET 2030.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Request that the carrier bulletin the Hearne-Stone City
local run in accordance with the provisions of rule 8 of the train-
men's agreement.
Decision. Upon request of the interested parties, this case was
withdrawn. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISIONS.
981
DECISION NO. 1403.-DOCKET 2513.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas
& Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of J. W. Lowry, conductor, and H. Britt, brake-
man, for time lost covering five days' suspension.
Decision.-At the hearing held in connection with this case, it
was mutually agreed between the parties interested to withdraw it
from consideration by the Labor Board. The docket is therefore
closed.
DECISION NO. 1404.-DOCKET 2519.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas
& Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dispute relative to whether J. L. Benton, yard fore-
man, and crew should be paid 100 miles road rates account of being
used to make trip to North Fort Worth, October 2, 1920.
Decision. At the hearing held in connection with this case, it was
mutually agreed between the parties interested to withdraw it from
consideration by the Labor Board. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1405.-DOCKET 2521.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas
& Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Is bulletin No. 25, issued by Mr. Durnell, trainmaster,
Big Spring, in violation of Article II of the yardmen's agreement?
Decision. At the hearing held in connection with this case, it was
mutually agreed between the parties interested to withdraw it from
consideration by the Labor Board. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1406.-DOCKET 2594.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Dismissal of T. A. Roberts, switchman, Sweetwater
yard, January 9, 1922.
Decision. At the hearing held in connection with this case, it was
mutually agreed between the parties interested to withdraw it from
consideration by the Labor Board. The docket is therefore closed.
982
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1407.-DOCKET 2510.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas
& Pacific Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of L. L. Trepagnier, conductor, for time lost
covering five days' suspension.
Decision-At the hearing held in connection with this case it was
mutually agreed between the parties interested to withdraw it from
consideration by the Labor Board. The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1408.-DOCKET 475-24-68.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Railroad Yardmasters of America v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding rules to govern the working condi-
tions of yardmasters.
Decision. At the hearing held in connection with this case the
interested parties agreed to its withdrawal. The docket is therefore
closed.
DECISION NO. 1409.-DOCKET 475-24-94L.
Chicago, Ill., November 18, 1922.
Railroad Yardmasters of America v. Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding rules to govern working conditions
of yardmasters.
Decision.-At the hearing held in connection with this case the
interested parties agreed to its withdrawel. The docket is therefore
closed.
DECISION NO. 1410.—DOCKET 1281.
Chicago, Ill., November 21, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway.
Question. This decision is upon a controversy between the organi-
zation and carrier parties hereto in regard to the alleged arbitrary
reduction in wages of employees in telegraph service, effective July
1, 1921.
Statement. The carrier named was not a party to Decision No. 2,
but granted an increase of $20 per month to employees in telegraph
service effective May 1, 1920. On July 1, 1921, the wages of these
employees were reduced $10 per month.
The employees contend that this reduction was not agreed to in
conference between the carrier and the employees, nor authorized
DECISIONS.
983
by the Labor Board, and therefore not in accordance with the pro-
visions of the transportation act, 1920. It is requested that the car-
rier be required to restore the rates in effect prior to July 1, 1920,
and continue same in effect until proper conferences are held and the
matter adjusted by local agreement or in accordance with the pro-
visions of the transportation act, 1920.
The carrier states that some time prior to the date the reduction.
was placed in effect the employees in telegraph service were inter-
viewed by an officer of the carrier and notified that when certain class
1 railroads adjacent to it reduced wages, similar reductions would
be made for its employees. The carrier states that this action was
consistent with the action taken when decision No. 2 was issued;
that the wages now paid compare favorably with those of other
short-line railroads; and that its employees have been very favorably
treated in comparison with those employed by other railroads of its
size.
The carrier contends that its action in reducing the wages of the
employees referred to is fully supported by Decisions Nos. 108 and
147 of the Labor Board and in line therewith, and that in view of
said decisions the organization party hereto can not justly ask for
the establishment of a relatively higher rate upon a short-line rail-
road than has been decided to be just for class 1 railroads, and that
a conference upon a matter already decided by the Labor Board
would be useless.
Opinion.-When any changes in wages previously in effect are
contemplated or proposed by either employees or carriers, confer-
ences must be had as directed by the transportation act, 1920, and
by rules or decisions of procedure promulgated by the board, and
where agreements are not reached the dispute must be brought before
this board and no action taken or change made until authorized by
the board.
The carrier party hereto was not included in Decision No. 147
nor in any other decision of the Labor Board authorizing a reduc-
tion in wages for the classes of employees herein referred to. The
evidence shows that the employees were notified on or about June 27,
1921, of a proposed reduction to be effective July 1, 1921, and that
prior to said reduction no conference or agreement between the rep-
resentatives of the carrier and employees in compliance with the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920, had been held.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides that the wages in
effect prior to July 1, 1921, shall be restored and continued in effect
until changed by mutual agreement between the carrier and the
employees or in the manner provided in the transportation act, 1920.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We dissent from the decision of the majority of the Labor Board
in Docket 1281 for the following reasons:
The Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway is a short-line
railroad, 64 miles in length. It did not and does not now have a
written agreement with the class of employees parties to this dis-
pute, and the practice followed in this case-namely, conferring
with the individual employees and posting notice with regard to
984
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
increases or decreases in rates of pay-has been followed in the past
when changes in rates of pay were contemplated.
This carrier voluntarily made an increase in rates of pay of
telegraphers when that class of employees was increased on Class
I railroads in adjacent territory. The representative of the carrier
stated that the employees were notified, three or four months prior
to the time (July 1, 1921) that the decrease of $10 per month in
salary was made, to the effect that when the Missouri Pacific and
Frisco Systems (between which the Mississippi River & Bonne
Terre road is located) reduced wages, similar reduction would be
proposed for them, and further stated:
Practically every man on our railroad is satisfied with our method of
handling their wages, except this one man, and maybe one or two others.
Of course, none of them like to have their wages cut. We in good faith went
to every man in our employ and told him what we were going to do.
•
I had an interview with my men, talked the matter over with them and
told them what we proposed to do, and they were agreeable to it.
The action taken by the carrier was in effect reasonable com-
pliance with the spirit of the law as to conferences and in accord
with past practice on that little railroad, no agreement having been
in effect. The evidence does not indicate that the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers was authorized to represent a majority of the class of
employees concerned in this dispute.
The action taken by the majority of the board in this case requir-
ing the carrier to restore and make retroactive the rates of pay in
effect prior to the effective date of Decision No. 147, which provided
for similar reductions on Class I railroads, is neither just nor
reasonable. There was no evidence introduced which indicates that
the rates of pay, which the carrier contends were acceptable to a
majority of the employees, were unjust and unreasonable, but on the
contrary the decrease was slightly less than that on Class I railroads
in that territory.
•
Clearly, there is nothing in the transportation act, 1920, that pre-
cludes the carrier from conferring direct with its employees.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
R. M. BARTON.
HORACE BAKER.
DECISION NO. 1411.-DOCKET 2869.
Chicago, Ill., November 21, 1922.
Railroad Yardmasters of America v. Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal
Railway Co.
Question.-Proper rate of pay for yardmasters under the Labor
Board's Decision No. 1266, and disputed questions with regard to
working conditions.
Statement.—At the hearing of this case held on November 4, 1922,
it developed that there was a possibility of reaching an agreement
on a part, if not all, of the questions involved, if same were remanded
to the interested parties for further conference and consideration.
Decision.-This dispute is remanded for further conference, with
request that each side use every effort in an attempt to satisfactorily
dispose of same. In the event of disagreement the Labor Board
will render a decision upon questions that may be submitted.
DECISIONS.
985
DECISION NO. 1412.-DOCKET 1261.
Chicago, Ill., November 21, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding proper application of Article II of
Addendum 1 to Decision No. 147 to employees in the stores de-
partment.
Statement. In the joint statement submitted by the carrier and
employees it is stated that certain employees in the stores department
of the carrier in question are engaged in handling exclusively lum-
ber, scrap, car and track material. These employees received the
increase of 12 cents an hour, as provided in section 7, Article II of
Decision No. 2, for storeroom, stockroom, freight handlers, truckers,
or others similarly employed. In applying Addendum 1 to Deci-
sion No. 147, the carrier reduced the above classes of employees 12
cents an hour.
The employees claim that there is no provision for a decrease of
12 cents an hour for this or any other class of employees specified in
Article II of Addendum 1 to Decision No. 147; and that these em-
ployees are engaged during a majority of their time in the trucking
of material and are seldom engaged in transferring material from
one point to another without the aid of a conveyance. The em-
ployees contend that these employees are storeroom freight handlers
or truckers referred to in section 7, Article II of Addendum 1 to
Decision No. 147, and should be decreased 6 cents an hour in accord-
ance with said section.
The carrier states that in applying Decision No. 2 all employees
in the stores department were increased 12 cents an hour in accord-
ance with section 7, Article II, of said decision. The carrier con-
tends that the employees referred to in this dispute are common
laborers referred to in section 9, Article II of Decision No. 2, and
should have been increased 83 cents an hour under said section
instead of 12 cents an hour in accordance with section 7. The car-
rier further states that section 9, Article II of Decision No. 147,
provides for a decrease of 8 cents an hour for all common laborers
in and around stations, storehouses, etc., which is the amount of
increase provided for these classes under section 9, Article II of
Decision No. 2.
The carrier contends that in reducing the hourly rate of these
classes 12 cents an hour, they were restored to the same hourly basis.
that would have been in effect if they had been properly classified
under Decision No. 2.
Section 9, Article II of Decision No. 147, reads as follows:
All common laborers in and around stations, storehouses and warehouses,
not otherwise provided for, 83 cents.
While the carrier contends in its submission of this case that the
classification of these employees under Decision No. 2 was erroneous,
the joint submission to the Labor Board is upon the question herein
shown and, therefore, this is the only question to which the Labor
Board is authorized to give consideration in this decision.
986
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
In this connection, however, the attention of the respective parties to
this dispute is directed to Decisions Nos. 125, 136, 185, 186, 384, and
391 in which the board has passed on the question of classification
of employees similarly employed.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employees referred
to in this dispute shall be decreased 83 cents an hour in accordance
with section 9, Article II of Decision No. 147.
DECISION NO. 1413.—DOCKET 1473.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Maine Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper application of sections
2 and 3, Article II of Decision No. 147, to clerical employees.
Decision. Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 147 covers the
question in this case and shall govern in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1414.-DOCKET 1329.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Association of New York Central General Office Employees; Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the proper application of Decision
No. 147 to the rate of pay of Lucy Donovan, clerk in the office of
auditor of disbursements, New York, N. Y.
Decision.-Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 147 covers the
question in this case and shall govern in this dispute.
DECISION NO. 1415.-DOCKET 1624.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Cor-
poration.
Question.—This decision is upon a controversy between the organi-
zation and carrier, parties hereto, with reference to the alleged failure
of the carrier to comply with Decision No. 826.
Statement. Under date of March 20, 1922, the Labor Board is-
sued Decision No. 826 upon a dispute between the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers and the Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation
designated as docket 1624. This decision reads as follows:
Decision.The Labor Board has given due consideration to the oral and
written arguments presented by the employees and the carrier and reaffirms
its former decisions that the majority of any craft or class of employees shall
have the right to determine what organization shall represent members of such
craft or class. Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement
which shall apply to all employees in such craft or class.
DECISIONS.
987
The evidence before the Labor Board is not conclusive as to whether the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers represents a majority of the classes of em-
ployees referred to herein, and the Labor Board therefore directs that a poll shall
be taken of the classes of employees designated in rule 1 (scope) of Decision
No. 757, who are in the service at the time of the receipt of this decision, to
determine the choice of a majority thereof as to whether the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers shall represent them in such negotiations.
A conference shall be held on or before April 1, 1922-at such place as the
carrier may designate and of which due notice shall be given to all parties
interested-between the duly authorized representatives of the carrier, the duly
authorized representatives of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, the duly
authorized representatives of any other organization representing the classes
of employees herein referred to and whose by-laws or constitution establishes
the fact that the organization was established for the purpose of performing
the functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of the trans-
portation act, 1920, and the duly authorized representatives of 100 or more
unorganized employees.
Said conference will arrange all of the details of a secret ballot and election
along the same lines and under rules and regulations analogous to those pro-
vided in Decision No. 218 of the Labor Board. When the ballots have been
canvassed the result shall be reported to the Labor Board and the authorized
representatives of the carrier and the chosen representatives of the employees
will proceed with the negotiation of rules.
Under date of March 22, 1922, the president of the Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers sent the following telegram to the general man-
ager of the carrier named in the above decision:
We are now in receipt of Decision No. 826, Docket 1624 of the United States
Railroad Labor Board, wherein it is ordered that a poll shall be taken of the
classes of employees designated in rule 1 (scope) of Decision No. 757 who are in
the service at the time of the receipt of this decision to determine the choice
of the majority thereof as to whether the Order of Railroad Telegraphers
shall represent them in such negotiations.
It is further ordered that a conference shall be held on or before April 1,
1922, at such place as the carrier may designate, between the duly authorized
representatives of the carrier and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, for the
purpose of the functions of a labor organization as contemplated in Title III of
the transportation act, 1920. Said conference will arrange all the details of a
secret ballot and election along the same lines and under the rules and regula-
tions analogous to those provided in Decision No. 218 of the Labor Board.
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers is prepared to send a representative to
meet with them or their representative at such place as you may designate
upon notice from you as to time and place of conference, and we will be glad to
have you advise us of your desires in the matter.
The employees state that, complying with the provisions of De-
cision No. 826, and pursuant to telegram above quoted, a vice presi-
dent of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers proceeded to the head-
quarters of the general manager of the carrier named in the decision,
and upon locating that officer found that a poll of the agents and
telegraphers had already been undertaken by having the train-
master, traveling freight agent, or other official personally call on the
employees to ascertain their wishes as to representation. The rep-
resentative of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers protested this
method of balloting on the ground that the decision of the Labor
Board provided for a conference. Effort was made to show the
carrier that it had not complied with the board's direction in failing
to hold a conference with the representative of the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers to arrange the details of conducting a secret ballot as.
provided for therein. It is claimed that the general manager
insisted on pursuing the method already adopted and stated that
there was no objection to him accompanying the carrier's representa-
20936°-23—63
988
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tives over the railroad; however, this invitation was declined by the
employees' representative, as it was considered irregular and not in
accordance with the decision of the board.
The employees contend that they sought to have the poll taken in
accordance with the board's decision and suggested methods of pro-
cedure which in their opinion would be in conformity therewith, but
the carrier declined to accept the suggestions or subscribe to the
employees' proposed arrangements. The board is requested to re-
quire the carrier to hold conferences with the representatives of the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers and any other organization or com-
mittee of employees designated in the manner prescribed in Decision
No. 826 and arrange for the details of secret ballot and election as
provided for in Decision No. 218.
The carrier states that upon receipt of Decision No. 826 it was
carefully studied to determine its meaning and intent. Copies of
Decision No. 218, referred to therein, were secured, and the carrier
proceeded to carry out the provisions thereof. The carrier contends
that it was apparent that the decision was one adopted for the
larger railroad systems, and that to apply it literally in the balloting
of employees on the Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation
would have given the organized employees and the Order of Railroad
Telegraphers full representation and would have deprived the unor-
ganized employees of any representation, which the carrier claims
would have been manifestly unjust.
The carrier states that a secret ballot was drawn up and the names
of the local committee elected on March 17, on an open ballot, were
shown first on the secret ballot. It is claimed that an effort was
made to have the general chairman of the telegraphers' organization
go over the railroad on a motor car with the representatives of the
carrier and arrange for the secret balloting of the employees, but
it was found that he was at the south end of the road, a two days'
journey from headquarters, and using threats and coercion to intimi-
date agents and telegraphers on the line into voting for the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers.
Following the receipt by the board of the employees' complaint
with respect to the alleged failure of the carrier to comply with De-
cision No. 826, a hearing was conducted pursuant to notice, at which
the carrier was represented. The carrier contends that it has no
dispute with the Order of Railroad Telegraphers; that it has un-
doubted and unrestricted legal right to make wage and working
conditions with its employees; and that the board exceeded its
authority in considering and issuing Decision No. 826. However,
notwithstanding this fact, the carrier claims that it has fully com-
plied with the spirit and intent of the Labor Board's Decision No.
826, and has conducted a secret ballot in accordance with the terms
of said decision, the result of which ballot indicates that the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers does not represent the employees in station
and telegraph service.
Opinion. In this case wages and working conditions of employees
in telegraph and station service were and had been for many years
governed by agreements between the carrier and the Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers. In July, 1921, the carrier served notice of desire
to terminate certain rules incorporated in the then existing agree-
ment in accordance with Supplement No. 13 to General Order No.
DECISIONS.
989
27, and revise certain other rules of the agreement. When the em-
ployees' committee declined, in subsequent conferences, to concur in
the carrier's proposal to exclude from the agreement employees
classified as agents and agent-telegraphers, the carrier established
wages and working conditions for those classes by agreement with
the individuals affected, and denied the right of the organization to
represent said classes.
This action on the part of the carrier became the subject of a
dispute between the organization and the carrier which could not
be disposed of in conference and was thereupon submitted to the
Labor Board for decision. The Labor Board, recognizing this dis-
pute as one which it was authorized to decide under section 301
of the transportation act, 1920, issued Decision No. 826, which pro-
vided for a secret ballot along the same lines and under rules and
regulations analogous to those set forth in Decision No. 218, "to
determine the choice of a majority thereof as to whether the Order
of Railroad Telegraphers shall represent them in rules negotia-
tions," although Decision No. 826 plainly provided that—
A conference shall be held on or before April 1, 1922-at such place as the
carrier may designate and of which due notice shall be given to all parties
interested-between the duly authorized representatives of the carrier, the duly
authorized representatives of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers
* *
The carrier was notified by the chief executive of the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers of his desire to be represented in said con-
ference. The vice president of that organization found upon calling
upon the general manager that the carrier had already undertaken
an election according to its own interpretation of the rules of pro-
cedure outlined in Decision No. 218. This action was plainly in
conflict with Decision No. 826.
The statements contained in the carrier's written presentation as
to the board having exceeded its authority in assuming jurisdiction
in this case, and also in ordering an election, in attempting to pre-
scribe a secret ballot, in stating how, in what manner, before what
date, and under what scrutiny the ballot should be taken, have been
carefully considered. The Labor Board has, in so many orders,
decisions, and announcements which are available to the carrier, ex-
pressed its opinion as to the intent of Congress in enacting Title III
of the transportation act, 1920, and of the authority vested in the
Labor Board by the said act, that it is not considered necessary to
reiterate its position as to the extent of its power under the said act
in this decision.
The transportation act, 1920, places the carrier and the employees
in a contractual relationship as to the negotiation of rules and work-
ing conditions, and the statute expressly provides that "disputes
shall be considered, and if possible, decided in conference between
representatives designated and authorized so to confer
* *
21
The act plainly recognizes the right of employees directly inter-
ested to select their own representatives. This can only be secured
by the voice of the majority of a class. The board, therefore,
adopted the following principle (Principle 15, Decision No. 119)
which is obviously in accordance with the intent and spirit of the
act, and just and reasonable:
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft or class.
990
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall
apply to all employees in such craft or class. No such agreement shall infringe,
however, upon the right of employees not members of the organization repre-
senting the majority to present grievances either in person or by representa-
tives of their own choice. (II, R. L. B., 87.)
The carrier apparently recognizes the right of the majority of
a class to select their representatives, as it had prior to the issuance
of Decision No. 826 canvassed its employees in telegraph and station
service, to determine their wishes as to representation. But the
organization formerly representing these employees was not a party
to the procedure adopted by the carrier in determining the wishes
of the majority as to representation, although that organization
had been recognized as their representative for many years.
The
organization was justified in protesting this action of the carrier,
and the board was justified under the circumstances in prescribing a
method of secret ballot consistent with the provisions of the trans-
portation act, 1920, that would insure the employees directly inter-
ested the right to indicate their wishes as to representation. Hav-
ing heretofore set forth these regulations in detail in Decision No.
218, the board in Decision No. 826 referred the carrier and the em-
ployees to that decision for details of procedure. The board recog-
nized that there might be certain special conditions peculiar to this
case which must necessarily be the subject of conference prior to
the balloting, and if the carrier had displayed the proper spirit
of cooperation, arrangements could readily have been made for "
secret ballot and election along the same lines and under rules and
regulations analogous to those provided in Decision No. 218 of the
Labor Board." (Decision No. 826.)
a
In any event, when a dispute arose as to the essential prelimina-
ries incident to the ballot neither party should have proceeded fur-
ther until that disagreement was composed either by further con-
ference or reference to the Labor Board. As to the right of unor-
ganized employees referred to by the carrier in its written presen-
tation, the board calls attention to the fact that Decisions Nos. 218
and 826 give such employees every right accorded them by the trans-
portation act, 1920.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that the election held by the
carrier as hereinbefore referred to was illegal and void, and that
the rules negotiated by the alleged representatives selected by said
election shall be void and of no effect. Pending the outcome of bal-
lot and decision as to representation, the rules of the agreement with
the Order of Railroad Telegraphers shall govern wages and working
conditions of employees included therein.
The Labor Board directs that a secret ballot shall be taken to de-
termine whether the Order of Railroad Telegraphers represents a
majority of the class of employees included in rule 1 of Decision No.
757. This secret ballot shall be held along the same lines and under
rules and regulations analogous to those provided in Decision No.
218. Conferences shall be held on or before December 1, 1922, for
the purpose of arranging the details of distribution, casting, count-
ing, and tabulating the ballots and announcing the results thereof.
When the ballots have been canvassed the result shall be reported
to the Labor Board, and the authorized representatives of the carrier
and the chosen representatives of the employees will proceed with
the negotiation of rules.
·
DECISIONS.
991
DECISION NO. 1416.-DOCKET 1966.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad
Co.
Question.-This decision is upon a controversy as to the right
of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees to represent clerical em-
ployees in the carrier's service in negotiation of rules for the govern-
ment of working conditions of that class of employees.
Statement. The working conditions of clerical and station em-
ployees in the carrier's service were governed by the clerks' national
agreement, the rules of which were assumed by the Labor Board in
Decision No. 2 as the basis for the application of the increases pre-
scribed therein. Pursuant to Decision No. 119 representatives of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees made request upon the carrier for a
conference for the purpose of negotiating rules and working condi-
tions in lieu of the clerks' national agreement. The carrier informed
the committee of the clerks' organization that it was at that time
conducting negotiations with another committee claiming to repre-
sent clerks in its service.
The carrier subsequently entered into an agreement effective July
1, 1921, with a committee of clerks whom it recognized as the chosen
representatives of a majority of the clerks in its service. In Septem-
ber, 1922, the carrier negotiated an amended agreement with an
association of clerical employees known as the Cincinnati, Indian-
apolis & Western Clerks' Association.
The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees has certified to the Labor
Board that it did, in May, 1921, and does now represent the majority
of the clerical employees, and has presented to the board petitions
containing the original signatures of 112 clerks in the carrier's service.
The clerks' organization contends that the committee with whom the
carrier negotiated the agreement of July 1, 1921, was not duly elected
in the manner prescribed in the decisions of the Labor Board, and
that the so-called chairman of the committee was an employee hold-
ing a personal-office-force position and not qualified to negotiate an
agreement or solicit the signatures of employees subject to the terms
thereof.
The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees further contends that the
clerks had no voice in the selection of the committee with whom the
carrier negotiated the agreement effective July 1, 1921, and that in
many instances intimidating and coercive methods were used in
securing the signatures that appear on the petition circulated by the
said committee. The clerks' organization requests that the carrier
be directed to continue the clerks' national agreement in effect until
such time as the carrier confers with the duly authorized and accred-
ited representatives of the employees in accordance with Decision
No. 119 for the purpose of negotiating and agreeing upon rules and
working conditions, and if there is any doubt as to representation
992
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
that a ballot be taken in accordance with the provisions of Decisions
Nos. 218 and 220 to determine the wishes of the majority.
The carrier states that it negotiated an agreement with a com-.
mittee representing 60 per cent of the clerks in its service and a copy
of the said agreement has been duly filed with the Labor Board. The
carrier contends that it has acted in accordance with the decisions
of the Labor Board and that it has no dispute with the clerks'
organization.
After due notice a hearing was conducted by the Labor Board at
which the carrier was not represented.
Opinion. There has been filed with the board by the representa-
tives of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees petitions bearing the
signatures of 112 clerks in the carrier's service expressing a desire-
That the regularly elected system board of adjustment of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees should represent us in all matters pertaining to rates of pay and
working conditions that may arise between the company and its employees.
There has also been filed with the Labor Board by the carrier
a "List of names of clerks who signed the agreement between the
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co. and the Cincinnati,
Indianapolis & Western Railroad clerks covering rules, wages, and
working conditions effective July 1, 1921." This list also contains
the names of 112 clerks in the carrier's service. A comparison of
the two lists shows that there are about 30 employees whose names
appear on both of them. According to the carrier's statement there
were 186 employees filling positions included in Group 1 in its service
on July 1, 1921.
The employees whose names appear on both lists presented to the
board, can not be included by either the clerks' organizations com-
mittee or the committee with whom the agreement of July 1, 1921,
was negotiated in determining who represented the majority.
Therefore the evidence was not conclusive that the committee with
whom the agreement was negotiated actually represented the ma-
jority and that committee had no right under Principle 15, Decision
No. 119, to make an agreement to apply to all employees in the
class.
Principle 15, here referred to, reads in part as follows:
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft or class.
Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall
apply to all employees in such craft or class
(II, R. L. B., 87.)
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the election held by the
carrier as hereinbefore described is illegal and void, and that the
rules negotiated by the alleged representatives selected by said ballot
shall be void and of no effect.
The provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 and of De-
cision No. 630 shall apply from their effective dates, pending agree-
ment negotiations properly conducted and decision of the Labor
Board upon the question that may not be decided in conference.
The Labor Board also decides that the evidence is not now con-
clusive as to what organization represents a majority of the em-
ployees included in Group 1, Decision No. 220, and therefore directs.
that a vote shall be taken to determine the choice of a majority of
DECISIONS.
993
the employees included in said group of said decision as to repre-
sentation in the negotiation of rules and working conditions.
A conference shall be held on or before December 1, 1922-at such
place as the carrier may designate and of which due notice shall
be given to all interested parties-between the duly authorized rep-
resentatives of the carrier, the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, the
duly authorized representatives of any other organization represent-
ing the classes of employees herein referred to and whose by-laws
or constitution establishes the fact that the organization was estab-
lished for the purpose of performing the functions of a labor organ-
ization as contemplated in Title III of the transportation act, 1920,
and the duly authorized representatives of 100 or more unorganized
employees.
Representatives of unorganized employees authorized to attend
this conference must have the individual and personal signature and
authorization of not less than 100 employees of the said class, said
authorization to show the place of employment and the title of the
position held in the service. Said conference shall arrange all the
detatils of distribution, casting, counting, and tabulating of the bal-
lots, and announce the results thereof along the same lines and under
rules and negotiations analogous to those provided for in Decisions
Nos. 218 and 220. When the ballots have been canvassed the result
shall be reported to the Labor Board, and the authorized representa-
tive of the carrier and the chosen representatives of the employees.
will proceed with the negotiation of rules.
DECISION NO. 1417-DOCKET 1298.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
American Train Dispatchers Association v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas
and Louisiana.
Question. Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost by
J. J. Dermody, train dispatcher, dismissed on September 9, 1921.
Statement. The representatives of the employees state that on or
about September 9, 1921, Mr. Dermody, theretofore employed in the
Jacksonville, Tex., office of the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana in the capacity of trick dispatcher, was discharged from
the service of said carrier account alleged "improper handling of
train orders and of trains, which created hazard of accidents."
Also, that proper appeal was made to the carrier to comply with
existing rules of working conditions prior to discharging said Mr.
Dermody, and proper appeal was subsequently made to each higher
operating official of said carrier for reinstatement, with pay, of Mr.
Dermody, all of which was unavailing.
Employees' position. The employees position is quoted as follows:
It is the contention of the employees: (1) That the action of the carrier in
dismissing Mr. Dermody, without having first complied with the provisions of
the following rule established by the United States Railroad Administration
and maintained by Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119: "When charged with
994
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
offenses likely to result in dismissal, a hearing will be given by a superior
officer other than the immediate superior, at which hearing the dispatcher
may be represented or assisted by any individual whom he may choose or select
for that purpose," entitles Mr. Dermody to be reinstated to the position from
which he was discharged until such time as said carrier shall have complied
with said rule, and to be paid for all time lost; (2) that Mr. Dermody is not
guilty of "improper handling of train orders and of trains which created hazard
of accidents," and is therefore entitled to be reinstated to the position from
which he was discharged and to be paid for all time lost; (3) that Mr. Der-
mody was discharged from the service of said carrier because of his occupancy
of the position of general chairman for the American Train Dispatchers' Asso-
ciation on the Southern Pacific (Texas Lines), said discharge being therefore
unfair, unjust, and unreasonable, in consequence of which Mr. Dermody is
entitled to be reinstated to the position from which he was discharged in the
service of said carrier and paid for all time lost; (4) that the dismissal of Mr.
Dermody was unfair, unjust, and unreasonable, in consequence of which he is
entitled to be reinstated to the position from which he was discharged in the
service of said carrier and paid for all time lost.
C'arrier's position. The representatives of the carrier state that
Mr. Dermody was given a hearing and made acquainted with the
charges preferred against him; that all the charges made have been
abundantly proven and do not indicate a proper character of train
dispatching; and that his dismissal from the service was due entirely
to unsatisfactory work performed by him as a train dispatcher.
Decision. The evidence submitted at the hearing of this case in-
dicates that the charges preferred by the carrier were substantiated
to the extent of warranting the dismissal of J. J. Dermody, train
dispatcher.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost can not be sus-
tained, and is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1418.-DOCKET 968.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Petition of Fort Smith & Western Railroad for Rehearing on Docket 968,
Decision No. 598.
Question.-Request for reconsideration in connection with dispute
in regard to the reinstatement of C. H. Drake, boiler maker, who
was dismissed from the service February 27, 1921, for alleged viola-
tion of rule 23 of the Federal locomotive inspection laws.
Statement. Decision No. 598, issued by the Labor Board, pro-
vided that Mr. Drake be reinstated to the service with seniority.
rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost, less any amount he
may have earned in other employment.
Subsequent to the issuance of this decision the carrier requested
that the case be reconsidered. In this request for reconsideration
special emphasis was placed on the delay that had occurred in the
handling of the case, the carrier charging a great part of the delay
to the organization, for which they disclaim responsibility and for
which they do not feel that they should be required to pay.
Decision.-Request for reconsideration of this case is denied.
DECISIONS.
995
DECISION NO. 1419.-DOCKET 1418.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Brotherhood Railway Police v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of Henry Klieman, John J.
Brady, Rudolph Bergmann, Edward G. Phillips, John Carnyn, and
Henry C. Dowell, formerly employed as patrolmen, with pay for
monetary loss sustained since date of their dismissal.
Statement. The men named above were employed as patrolmen
by the carrier until October 24, 1921.
The employees state that on the date in question they were re-
quested by the superintendent of police to report to the employment
bureau, where they were requested to take the place of striking em-
ployees in the event the anticipated nation-wide railroad strike
took effect. The employees further state that having refused to do
so, the men were dismissed from the service; that they sought a
hearing in connection with their dismissal; and that on November
10, 1921, pursuant to notice received by them on that date, they
appeared before the superintendent of police, who, it is claimed,
told them he was ready to go on with the hearing. It is claimed
that the patrolmen requested the right to have their duly accredited
representative present in accordance with the provisions of Supple-
ment 14 to General Order No. 27, but this request was denied, where-
upon the employees declined to proceed with the hearing.
The employees contend that the men named herein have been in
the service of the carrier from 2 to 10 years and have clear records;
that they were dismissed without hearing; and that when the privi-
lege of a hearing was finally extended to them after their dismissal
the notice they received was so short that they were unable to pro-
duce their desired witnesses or representatives. The employees fur-
ther contend that application for appeal to the highest designated
officer of the carrier, as provided for in Supplement 14 to General
Order No. 27, was denied, and that the dismissal of these men was
brought about on account of their membership in the Brotherhood
Railroad Police. The employees request that the men named be
reinstated to their former positions, with seniority rights unimpaired
and reimbursed for all time lost.
The carrier states that in October, 1921, the carriers throughout
the country were confronted with the possibility of a walkout of their
employees in engine, train, and yard service, and realizing that
should the strike occur as advocated by the organizations involved it
would be a national calamity, it assumed it to be its duty as a common
carrier to anticipate the situation and prepare so far as possible to
meet it by building up an organization of loyal employees and new
men to replace those leaving the service. In addition to other steps
taken to make possible the operation of train service, a canvass was
made of all departments to develop the number of men who could be
spared for duty in some branch of the train-service operation, with
instructions to have such men report to the employment bureau for
classification, etc. It is stated that in response to the call the police.
department directed the six patrolmen in question to report to the
employment bureau, which they did on or about October 24, 1921.
996
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The carrier states that they were classified and informed that in the
event of a strike, which was scheduled to take place on November 5,
they would be assigned to certain train service, but that in the mean-
time they should report back to their department to resume their cus-
tomary duties until called upon.
The carrier contends that they did not so report and, so far as
known, they made no effort to cover their assignments as patrolmen
nor made any attempt to explain to their superior officer the reasons
for their absence from duty until October 29, when they addressed a
letter to the superintendent of police. The carrier contends that these
men were not dismissed on October 24 as alleged, but automatically
eliminated themselves from the service on account of being absent.
from duty for a period of five days, in violation of rule 45 of the
rules and regulations of the police department, reading as follows:
Absent without leave of any member of the force for five consecutive days
shall be deemed and held to be a resignation, and the member of the force so
absent shall, at the expiration of said period, cease to be a member of the police
department and be dismissed therefrom without notice.
The carrier states that these men received their commissions as
railroad policemen from the superintendent of State police in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York, and that since
this occurrence their commissions have been revoked by the super-
intendent of State police.
The application form subscribed to by these men when entering the
service reads in part as follows:
department as
or such
I hereby apply for employment in the
other service as may be found necessary from time to time by the railroad or
my superior officer
*
The carrier contends that if, as it now appears, these men were
opposed to assuming any duty in the event of a strike other than
their customary duties as patrolmen in freight yards where they
would not be required, they should have at least reported back to
their superior officer and stated their position instead of having
completely eliminated themselves by their absence, presumably be-
cause of having been classified for some other duties that were not
agreeable to them and which they were not required to assume until
November 5, and which, as it turned out, they would not have been
required to perform at all. The carrier contends that if these men
had been dismissed from the service they would have been given a
hearing, but in this case no hearing was required, as the men were
not dismissed but failed to report for duty and were dropped from
the service in accordance with rule 45.
Opinion. The evidence presented to the Labor Board in this case
shows that on October 24, 1921, the employees in question were in-
structed by their superior officer to report to certain officials of the
transportation department for service in connection with an impend-
ing strike. Upon reporting to that department they were informed
as to the duties they would be required to perform in the event of
the strike occurring on November 5, and instructed to report back
to their department to resume their customary police duties until
called upon. They did not report back to the chief of police nor
attempt to explain their absence from duty until October 29, and
therefore automatically eliminated themselves from the service
under rule 45 of the police department herein quoted.
DECISIONS.
997
Furthermore, the employees do not deny that they refused to per-
form the service to which the carrier desired to assign them on
November 5, and at the hearing conducted by the Labor Board
their representatives took the position that the carrier had no right
to use its policemen on any other work, regardless of the emergencies,
circumstances, or necessities of the service. The application for em-
ployment to which these employees subscribed when they entered
the service provides that they shall perform "such other service as
may be found necessary from time to time by the railroad," and their
refusal to obey the instructions of their superior officer in this in-
stance was not only insubordination but was clearly in violation of
their contract of employment.
Decision.—The Labor Board decides that the request for reinstate-
ment is denied.
DECISION NO. 1420.-DOCKET 1464.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of W. N. Smith, clerk, Hat-
tiesburg, Miss., dismissed from the service on September 23, 1921.
Decision.-Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1421.-DOCKET 1519.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of John Roelfsema for one hour's overtime,
July 28, 1920, to March 1, 1921.
Statement. Mr. Roelfsema was the only employee in the ticket
office, Sioux City, Iowa. He held the title of ticket agent, and per-
formed no telegraph duties. From July 28, 1920, to March 1, 1921,
he was assigned from 10 a. m. to 7 p. m., with one hour for meals.
Claim is made for one hour overtime each day, from 6 p. m. to 7
p. m., under the following articles of agreement between the carrier
and employees in telegraph service, effective April 1, 1919:
Article X (b).-At offices having but one schedule position, whose hours of
service are not consecutive, employees will commence work between 6 a. m. and
9 a. m. or between 6 p. m. and 9 p. m.
Article X (f).-Employees will not be required to suspend work during regu-
lar hours or to absorb overtime.
The employees state that under Article X (b) of the agreement
above quoted Mr. Roelfsema could not commence work later than
9 a. m., and therefore his regular assignment under the said rule
should have been 9 a. m. to 6 p. m., with one hour deducted for the
meal period; that it was decided by the superintendent to disregard
998
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the provisions of the above-quoted rules and assign the ticket agent
to such hours of service as would avoid the payment of overtime.
The employees further state that there was a passenger train due at
this station between 6 and 7 p. m. which the agent had to work, and
that he is entitled to one hour overtime each day; that in October,
1919, the superintendent of telegraph issued instructions which
clearly outlined the intent of the rules applying to employees in
this class of service, but the superintendent did not comply with the
instructions.
The employees contend that the employee in question was forced
to suspend work from 9 a. m. to 10 a. m. to absorb and avoid the
payment of overtime for the hour 6 p. m. to 7 p. m., and request that
he be reimbursed for the overtime due him under the rules of the
agreement.
The carrier states that the regular hours of the position held by
Mr. Roelfsema were arranged to meet the requirements of selling
tickets for departing trains; that these arrangements had been in
effect for some time past and were prevalent during the time Mr.
Roelfsema occupied the position from 10 a. m. to 7 p. m., with one
hour off for dinner; that Mr. Roelfsema knew before taking the
position that the hours were so arranged; that he never made any
request to have them changed; and that it was understood that they
were entirely satisfactory to him.
Mr. Roelfsema was displaced from his position by another em-
ployee on March 1, 1921, in accordance with the operation of
seniority rules. After his displacement he made claim for one hour's
overtime each day between 6 p. m. and 7 p. m. The carrier contends
that this claim was declined for the reason that it was for overtime
not worked, and that during the entire time Mr. Roelfsema occupied
the position he made no request to have the hours changed, nor did he
submit any overtime slips, which all employees, under the teleg-
raphers' agreement, have standing instructions to turn in daily.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the assignment estab-
lished by the carrier for the position referred to in this dispute was
in conflict with Article X of the telegraphers' agreement, and that
the employee in whose behalf claim is presented shall be reimbursed
for the amount due him in accordance with said agreement.
DECISION NO. 1422.-DOCKET 1520.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Shall J. N. Mendro, ticket seller, Williston, N. Dak.,
be paid overtime for hours of a spread in excess of eight hours?
Statement. The employee named is employed as ticket seller at
Williston, and from March 1, 1920, to July 1, 1920, he was assigned
to come on duty at 6.30 p. m. and remain on duty until 4.55 a. m., the
arriving time of passenger train No. 1.
The employees state that there were two ticket sellers employed
at Williston during the period in question-one working days and
one (Mr. Mendro) working nights and that it was, therefore, a
DECISIONS.
999
two-shift office and each employee should have been assigned to
eight consecutive hours daily in accordance with section (a), Article
X of the agreement between the carrier and employees in telegraph
service, reading as follows:
Eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the meal hour, shall constitute a day's
work, except that where two or more shifts are worked, eight consecutive
hours, with no allowance for meals, shall constitute a day's work.
It is stated by the employees that Mr. Mendro makes the following
positive statement:
That at the time he hired out to the Great Northern Railway Co. as ticket
seller he was instructed by S. S. Caswell, agent, Williston, N. Dak., to report
for work each night at 6.30 p. m., and to continue on duty until Train No. 1
had departed, said train being scheduled to depart at 4.55 a. m., and that he was
instructed by Agent Caswell to protect train No. 1, even though said train was
late, and to stay on duty until the day man came on duty at 8 a. m. This he
did until on or about July 1, 1920, when he was instructed otherwise.
The employees further state that this spread of service from 6.30
p. m. to 4.55 a. m. covered a spread of 10 hours and 25 minutes, which
was actually worked by Mr. Mendro, or 2 hours and 25 minutes
overtime each day when train No. 1 was on time; and that quite.
frequently train No. 1 was late, which made it necessary for Mr.
Mendro to remain on duty until the said train had departed, there
being no other employees on duty at that time.
The employees also state that Mr. Mendro protested to the agent
in regard to receiving only 8 hours' pay for an assignment of 10
hours and 25 minutes, and was told that if his hours were changed
to an eight-hour shift "it would spoil the day man's hours." The
agent, it is claimed, made reference to an agreement entered into be-
tween former ticket sellers under which they worked this assign-
ment, and arranged by mutual agreement to suit their personal con-
venience; however, Mr. Mendro claims he was not a party to the said
agreement, and so informed the agent. It is claimed that Mr. Mendro
also protested to the division superintendent in regard to his long
assignment, but the superintendent, after conferring with the agent,
declined to entertain a claim for overtime actually worked and
informed Mr. Mendro that the claim would not be paid.
The employees contend that Mr. Mendro did not agree with the
agent, superintendent, or anyone else, to work from 11 to 16 hours
per day for compensation for eight hours, and they have submitted
to the Labor Board an affidavit of denial of any such agreement.
The employees request that Mr. Mendro be reimbursed for the hours
actually worked in excess of eight during the period March 1 to
July 1, 1920.
The carrier states that two ticket clerks were employed at Willis-
ton, and assigned to eight-hour shifts. On May 1, 1919, they ar-
ranged between themselves to meet the passenger trains and perform
the other work assigned to them daily at their own convenience.
This arrangement provided for the night man meeting train No. 3,
due at 7.25 p. m., and train No. 1, due at 4.55 a. m., and in case No. 1
was late protecting it until 8 a. m., when the day man came on duty.
This necessitated the night man coming on duty between 6.30 p. m.
and 6.40 p. m., in order to check the ticket case and have the ticket
window open 30 minutes before the arrival of the train.
1000
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
On October 31, 1919, the day ticket seller was promoted to cashier,
the night ticket clerk was assigned to the day shift, and Mr. Mendro
was employed as night ticket clerk. The carrier contends that the
assignment of the positions and the arrangement that had existed
between the two ticket clerks, as described above, was explained to
Mr. Mendro when he was employed, and with the understanding
that the arrangement was satisfactory to him, it was continued in
effect. The carrier further states that later on Mr. Mendro asked
the agent if there was some way by which he could get away from
the long spread of hours and he was told that he could do so at any
time by working the hours that had been assigned him; this he did
not agree to do.
It is claimed that nothing further was said about the matter and
no overtime slips presented until the clerks' organization presented
claim for overtime in behalf of Mr. Mendro on or about July 1, 1920,
whereupon the two ticket clerks were instructed to work their as-
signed hours. The claim of the clerks' organization was declined.
The telegraphers' organization then presented claim for overtime
from November 1, 1919, to July 1, 1920, which was later modified
to the period March 1, 1920, to July 1, 1920.
It is the contention of the carrier that Mr. Mendro agreed to be a
party to the arrangement entered into between the ticket clerks
prior to his employment and that he admitted this in his dis-
cussion with the superintendent; therefore, since Mr. Mendro's claim
contemplates compensation for hours in excess of eight, which were
worked under an agreement between the two ticket clerks and ac-
cepted by Mr. Mendro upon his employment, the carrier should not
be penalized.
Õpinion.—The rule herein quoted provides that eight consecutive
hours shall constitute a day's work in offices where two or more shifts
are worked. Mr. Mendro was not a party to the agreement entered
into between the two former ticket clerks before he entered the service
and was not bound by the provisions thereof.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that J. N. Mendro shall be
reimbursed for the daily hours actually worked in excess of eight
during the period March 1, to July 1, 1920.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1423.—DOCKET 1535.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question.-Shall the ticket sellers at the Union Passenger Station,
Minneapolis, Minn., named in this dispute, be paid one hour over-
time under Article X of the telegraphers' agreement, March 1, 1920,
to February 1, 1921?
Statement. During the period October 1, 1918, to February 1,
1921, the following ticket sellers employed at Minneapolis Union
Station were assigned to work eight hours with one hour for meals
within a spread of nine hours: P. J. Wiederholdt, R. A. Buhse,
R. M. Tschumperlin, E. M. Nortvedt, A. V. Barquist, G. H. Swale,
J. C. Russell, R. C. Danielson.
DECISIONS.
1001
Claim is presented by the employees for one hour overtime under
Article X of the telegraphers' agreement for the period March 1,
1920, to February 1, 1921. Article X of the telegraphers' agreement
reads as follows:
Eight consecutive hours, exclusive of the meal hour, shall constitute a
day's work, except that where two or more shifts are worked eight consecu-
tive hours with no allowance for meals shall constitute a day's work.
The employees state that the employees in question are subject to
the provisions of the telegraphers' agreement and that under sec-
tion (a) of Article X, above quoted, they should be assigned to eight
consecutive hours with no allowance for meal period.
The employees further state that when these ticket sellers received
their back pay under Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27 they
found it did not include any pay for the nine-hour spread of service
which they had been working, and they accordingly protested to the
ticket agent, who, it is claimed, advised them that it was not in ac-
cordance with his wishes to have any claim presented, and that
such claims would not be entertained. It is stated that the ticket
agent also threatened to reduce the force if any claims were pre-
sented, and in this way the ticket sellers were intimated to with-
draw their claims for the time being. It is also claimed that the
employees were not permitted to appeal their case over the agent
without severe criticism, which they desired to avoid if possible.
The employees contend that on October 25, 1919, specific instruc-
tions with respect to the application of section (a) of Article X were
issued by the superintendent of telegraph, which, if properly ap-
plied, would have avoided the claims now presented; but since the
instructions were disregarded and the eight ticket sellers named
were forced to work a longer spread of hours than was specified in
the rules, they are entitled to one hour overtime for each day they
were forced to work the nine-hour spread during the period March
1, 1920, to February 1, 1921.
The carrier states that the ticket clerks at Minneapolis passenger
station have always worked a regular number of hours per day with
one hour off for meals on their own time, and that after the eight-
hour day became effective, they worked a spread of nine hours with
one hour off for meals. The carrier further states that these em-
ployees were not included in an agreement with any class of em-
ployees until the issuance of Decision No. 245 of Railway Board of
Adjustment No. 3, which required the carrier to include them under
the telegraphers' agreement.
The carrier does not deny that section (a) of Article X of the
agreement above quoted provides that employees shall be assigned
to eight consecutive hours, but claims that it was understood that
these employees desired to continue the practice of taking an hour
off of their own time for their meals and they were accordingly
allowed to continue the practice until February 1, 1921, when the
claim herein referred to was presented. The carrier further states
that if the employees did not desire to continue to take the hour off
for meals, they should have made their wishes known and should
net have continued taking the hour off with a view to subsequently
collecting pay for time not worked, and that inasmuch as no service
was rendered during the time for which payment is claimed and
1002
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the employees had of their own volition taken this time off for meal
period, the claim should be denied.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that under the rule of the
telegraphers' agreement herein quoted the employees in whose behalf
this claim is presented are entitled to pay for time worked in excess
of eight consecutive hours, and they shall therefore be reimbursed
for the amount due them under the rule.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1424-DOCKET 1607.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Order of Railroad Claim Investigators of North America v. Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the carrier negotiate a separate schedule of rates,
rules, and working conditions to cover employees in its service repre-
sented by the Order of Railroad Claim Investigators of North
America?
Statement.-On August 22, 1921, the representative of the organi-
zation party hereto presented to the carrier a request for con-
ference for the purpose of negotiating a separate agreement cover-
ing rules and working conditions for certain employees in the freight-
claim department, about 130 in number, designated as claim investi-
gators. Conference was conducted on January 30, 1922, at which
the committee of the organization was advised by the carrier that
the employees whom the committee sought to represent were classi-
fied as clerks and already included in an agreement with the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees. The carrier, therefore, declined to nego-
tiate an agreement covering the said employees with the Order of
Railroad Claim Investigators of North America.
The committee representing the Order of Railroad Claim Investi-
gators of North America states that it represents about 130 em-
ployees composed of assistant chief clerks, salvage agents, loss-
and-damage and overcharge-freight claim investigators, traveling
claim adjusters, traveling representatives, and heads of departments
or bureaus of the freight-claim department to whom is intrusted
the disbursement of millions of dollars in settlement claims, and
contends that the freight-claim rate men in the overcharge-claim de-
partment and the freight-claim prevention employees, hereinafter
referred to as "freight-claim investigators," have been erroneously
classified as clerks.
The employees state that the duties of these so-called freight-
claim investigators are embraced in the following description of
their work:
Upon receipt of a claim the investigator is intrusted with the prompt and
accurate investigation thereof, and must dispose of it in such manner as to
maintain friendly relations between the claimant and carrier, at the same time
upholding every right of his employer, paying to the extent of legal liability and
no more.
The freight-claim investigator must (1) possess a general knowl-
edge of the law of common carriers, keeping in touch with court
DECISIONS.
1003
decisions relating to interstate and intrastate commerce as well as
Interstate Commerce Commission and Public Service Commission
rulings; (2) study the various State laws covering the sale of un-
claimed and refused freight; (3) understand the manufacture and
construction of all classes of articles, conveyances, and machinery;
(4) know the effect of transportation and the elements upon differ-
ent materials; (5) know the inherent nature and vices of live stock,
fruit, vegetables, and grain; and (6) must be familiar with railroad
geography, rates, rate differential points, classification, classification
rules, the construction of railroad equipment, the mechanism of
scales, and with transportation schedules.
After the fact of liability has been established, the amount fixed,
and the claimant satisfied, the investigator must determine to what
extent each of the several carriers is responsible. This requires
a thorough knowledge of the freight-claim rules and rulings of
the American Railway Association and the Railway Accounting
Officers' Association. The application of these rules frequently in-
volves technicalities which result in submission of claim to the
Arbitration and Appeal Committees of the American Railway As-
sociation, the Railway Accounting Officers' Association, and to the
Interstate Commerce Commission for reparation.
The Order of Railroad Claim Investigators of North America
contends that the employees whose duties are described above actually
constitute a body of professional men who are required to deal with
the best men in the traffic world; they must have not only a special-
ized training in traffic matters but an intimate knowledge of the rates
and the classification and shipping requirements of the commodities
handled, and must insist on the protection of the carrier's interest to
the maximum in the settlement of claims.
It is further claimed that the carrier agrees with the committee
that the disbursement of such sums as heretofore mentioned by the
freight-claim investigator should not and can not be intrusted to
mere clerical ability.
The employees contend that the definition of claim investigators
referred to in Interpretation No. 8, Supplement 7 to General Order
No. 27, refers to office employees engaged in a clerical capacity work-
ing up and handling correspondence in connection with claims; that
the employees designated as "freight-claim investigators" do not
devote four hours a day to clerical work, as their time is taken up
entirely with the actual investigation and settlement of claims, which
duties require initiative, judgment, power of decision, and the train-
ing and qualifications set forth in the description of these employees'
duties as quoted above. The Order of Railroad Claim Investigators
of North America further contends that the duties of working up.
and handling correspondence in connection with claims are per-
formed by claim clerks in the local station and clerks in the freight-
claim department who are not referred to as freight-claim investi-
gators and who have no authority whatever to make settlement of
any claim for freight lost, damaged, or destroyed.
It is therefore the contention of the committee that the carrier
is in error in classifying the freight-claim investigators as clerks
and including them within the jurisdiction of the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
20936°—23—64
1004
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tion Employees, and the request of the committee that the carrier
be authorized to enter into negotiations with the Order of Railroad
Claim Investigators of North America covering this separate and
distinct group or class of employees.
The carrier states that it recognizes the fact that the work per-
formed by the employees designated as claim investigators requires
knowledge, experience, and special training that is not required of
employees in other branches of the service classified as clerks; also,
that it involves much initiative, special training, responsibility, and
judgment to properly perform the duties intrusted to them.
The carrier further states that at the present time claim investi-
gators are classified as clerks; that the rules and working conditions
contained in the agreement with the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees govern their service; and that it does not feel authorized to
negotiate a separate schedule of rules governing working conditions
for the employees who are members of the organization party to
this dispute.
Opinion.-Paragraph 5, section 300, of the transportation act,
1920, reads in part as follows:
The term "subordinate official" includes officials of carriers of such class
or rank as the commission shall designate by regulation formulated and issued
after such notice and hearing as the commission may prescribe, to the car-
riers, and employees and subordinate officials of carriers, and organizations
thereof, directly to be affected by such regulations.
The Interstate Commerce Commission, pursuant to the above-
quoted provision of the transportation act, 1920, issued under date of
November 24, 1920, the following regulation with reference to claim
agents:
This class shall include claim agents below the rank of assistant general claim
agent or chief claim agent. It does not include the so-called claim investigator.
We are of the opinion that such employees who are engaged in clerical work
are not officials of the carriers.
Under the above definition employees classified as claim investiga-
tors can not be classified as subordinate officials, neither can they be
classified as officials of carriers; therefore they are necessarily classi-
fied as employees. As employees the only classification applicable to
claim investigators is that of clerk. Principle 15 of Decision No. 119
reads in part as follows:
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft or class.
Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall apply
to all employees in such craft or class.
Group 1 of Decision No. 220 reads as follows:
This group shall include all clerical forces in all departments, as defined
in rule 4 of the national agreement promulgated by the United States Railroad
Administration (excluding those that were considered as coming under the
provisions of section (b), Article I, of the national agreement). This group
shall also include telephone switchboard operators, office boys, office messen-
gers, office chore boys, and other employees filling similar positions in offices,
employees engaged in assorting waybills and tickets, operating appliances or
machines for perforating, addressing envelopes, numbering claims. and other
papers, gathering and distributing mail, adjusting dictaphone cylinders, and
performing other analogous office service.
The carrier has recognized the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam-
ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees as
the organization chosen by a majority of the clerical employees,
+
DECISIONS.
1005
referred to in Group 1 of Decision No. 220, to represent them in
negotiations pertaining to wages and working conditions. Under
date of March 31, 1922, the carrier agreed with the general chair-
man of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees to include within the
agreement with the clerks' organization all employees in the office
of the general freight-claim agent, except the following:
Special agents.
Chief clerk.
Assistant chief clerks.
Accountant.
Chief correspondence clerk
Claim agent's clerk.
Traveling freight-claim adjusters.
Division freight-claim prevention representatives.
Supervisor of freight suits.
Assistant supervisor of freight suits.
Secretary to general freight-claim agent.
Secretary to special agents.
Secretaries to assistants to general freight-claim agent.
Claim-prevention clerk.
Personal file clerk.
Timekeeper.
Secretary to supervisor of freight suits.
Inspector of perishable freight.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the classes of employees
in whose behalf this application is presented, who are now included
in the agreement between the carrier and the Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees, do not constitute a separate class or craft the majority
of which may designate what organization shall represent them in
negotiating rules and working conditions.
Request of the Order of Railroad Claim Investigators of North
America to negotiate a separate schedule of rates, rules, and work-
ing conditions to cover employees in the claim department repre-
sented by the said organization is therefore denied.
This decision shall not be understood, however, to infringe upon
the right of employees not members of the organization representing
the majority to present grievances either in person or by representa-
tives of their own choice.
DECISION NO. 1425.-DOCKET 741.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
Question. Dispute regarding the application of rule 49, national
agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, to position of
night porter at Mount Pleasant, Tex.
1006
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The employees have requested the Labor Board to close
its file in this controversy. The case is therefore removed from the
docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1426.—DOCKET 871.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Shall rule 66, national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, be applied to the monthly rate of pay in effect
for the position of day baggageman, San Antonio, Tex., March 1,
1920, and the increase provided in Decision No. 2 for said position
added to the daily rate thus established?
Statement. The day baggageman at San Antonio was paid a
monthly rate of $135, which included service performed on Sundays
and holidays. This rate was authorized under special authority on
March 1, 1919, and when Decision No. 2 was issued the increase pro-
vided for therein was added thereto, establishing a monthly com-
pensation of $161.50 for the position.
The employees contend that this position should be classified
under rule 66 of the agreement, and that a daily rate of $5.29 should
be established from March 1, 1920, and a rate of $6.33 established
from the effective date of Decision No. 2. The carrier contends that
the rate to which it applied the increase set forth in Decision No. 2
was the rate established by the United States Railroad Administra-
tion, and that, therefore, Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board has been
fully complied with.
Opinion. It appears that, acting upon the recommendation of
the chairman of the Western Passenger Traffic Committee, the Fed-
eral manager recommended to the regional director under date of
March 4, 1919, that certain increases be made in the existing rates
of pay of station, ticket, and baggage employees at San Antonio.
This recommendation was approved by the regional director on
March 11, and the increased rates became effective March 1, 1919.
This position was subject to the rules of the clerks' national agree-
ment, effective January 1, 1920, and the carrier converted the
monthly rate established in March, 1919, to a daily rate in accord-
ance with rule 66 of the said agreement, but later reverted to the
monthly rate and declined to restore the daily rate.
The employees presented a grievance to the carrier upon the
question of establishing a daily rate of pay for this position in
accordance with rule 66, but were unable to secure favorable con-
sideration of their request.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that rule 66 of the clerks'
national agreement shall be applied to the rate of pay of the po-
sition herein referred to, in effect March 1, 1920, and the increase
set forth in Article II of Decision No. 2 for said position shall be
applied to the daily rate thus established.
The position of the employees is sustained.
DECISIONS.
1007
DECISION NO. 1427.—DOCKET 872.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Shall rule 66, national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, be applied to the monthly rate of pay in effect
for the position of night baggageman, San Antonio, Tex., March 1,
1920, and the increase provided in Decision No. 2 for said position
added to the daily rate thus established?
Statement.-W. A. Bugg, night baggageman, passenger station,
San Antonio, was paid a monthly compensation of $120, which in-
cluded service performed on Sundays and holidays. This rate was
authorized under special authority, effective March 1, 1919, and was
in effect at the expiration of Federal control. The increase pre-
scribed in Decision No. 2 for the position was added to this rate,
making a total compensation of $146.50.
The employees contend that the employee herein referred to
should receive, effective March 1, 1920, a daily rate of $4.71 and
from and after the effective date of Decision No. 2 he should receive
a rate of $5.75 per day. The carrier states that the rate in effect
at the time this dispute was submitted to the Labor Board was the
rate established by the application of Decision No. 2 to the rate
authorized by the United States Railroad Administration, and that
therefore there has been no violation of any orders or decisions of
the board affecting this position.
Opinion. It appears that, acting upon the recommendation of
the chairman of the Western Passenger Traffic Committee, the Fed-
eral manager recommended to the regional director under date of
March 4, 1919, that certain increases be made in the existing rates
of pay of station, ticket, and baggage employees at San Antonio.
This recommendation was approved by the regional director on
March 11, and the increased rates became effective March 1, 1919.
This position was subject to the rules of the clerks' national agree-
ment, effective January 1, 1920, and the carrier converted the monthly
rate established in March, 1919, to a daily rate in accordance with
rule 66 of the said agreement, but later reverted to the monthly rate
and declined to restore the daily rate.
The employees presented a grievance to the carrier upon the ques-
tion of establishing a daily rate of pay for this position in accord-
ance with rule 66, but were unable to secure favorable consideration
of their request.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that rule 66 of the clerks'
national agreement shall be applied to the rate of pay of the position
herein referred to, in effect March 1, 1920, and the increase set forth
in Article II of Decision No. 2 for said position shall be applied to
the daily rate thus established.
The position of the employees is sustained.
1008
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1428.-DOCKET 874.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question-Shall rule 66, national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, be applied to the monthly rate of pay in effect
for the position of day ticket clerk, passenger station, San Antonio,
Tex., March 1, 1920, and the increase provided in Decision No. 2 for
said position added to the daily rate thus established?
Statement. The day ticket clerk at San Antonio Passenger Sta-
tion, working seven days a week, was paid a monthly salary of $150
a month with no additional compensation for Sundays and holidays.
This rate was established by special authority of the regional director
March 1, 1919, and remained in effect until the termination of Federal
control. The increase prescribed in Decision No. 2 for employees in
this class of service was added to this rate.
The employees contend that under rule 66 of the clerks' national
agreement this position should be paid a daily rate of $5.88 from
March 1, 1920, and a rate of $6.92 from the effective date of Deci-
sion No. 2.
The carrier contends that the rate of $150 per month is the rate
established by or under the authority of the United States Railroad
Administration in effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920; that the in-
crease provided by Decision No. 2 for positions of this class was
added to that rate; and that, therefore, all of the orders of the Labor
Board pertaining to this position have been complied with.
Opinion. It appears that, acting upon the recommendation of the
chairman of the Western Passenger Traffic Committee, the Federal
manager recommended to the regional director under date of March
4, 1919, that certain increases be made in the existing rates of pay
of station, ticket and baggage employees at San Antonio. This
recommendation was approved by the regional director on March
11, and the increased rates became effective March 1, 1919. This
position was subject to the rules of the clerks' national agreement,
effective January 1, 1920, and the carrier converted the monthly
rate established in March, 1919, to a daily rate in accordance with
rule 66 of the said agreement, but later reverted to the monthly rate
and declined to restore the daily rate.
The employees presented a grievance to the carrier upon the
question of establishing a daily rate of pay for this position in ac-
cordance with rule 66, but were unable to secure favorable consid-
eration of their request.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that rule 66 of the clerks'
national agreement shall be applied to the rates of pay of the posi-
tion herein referred to, in effect March 1, 1920, and the increase set
forth in Article II of Decision No. 2 for said position shall be
applied to the daily rate thus established.
Position of the employees is sustained.
DECISIONS.
1009
DECISION NO. 1429.-DOCKET 876.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922,
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Shall rule 66, national agreement of the Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees be applied to the monthly rate of pay in effect
for the position of accountant at passenger station, San Antonio,
Tex., March 1, 1920, and the increase provided in Decision No. 2
for said position added to the daily rate thus established?
Statement.-E. T. Jones, accountant, San Antonio, passenger sta-
tion, received a monthly salary of $135, with no additional compen-
sation for service performed on Sundays and holidays. This rate
was authorized by special authority effective March 1, 1919, and
remained in effect until the termination of Federal control. The
increase prescribed in Decision No. 2 for the position was added
to this rate.
The employees contend that under rule 66 of the clerks' national
agreement this position should be paid a daily rate of $5.29, effective
March 1, 1920, and a rate of $6.33 per day from the effective date of
Decision No. 2.
It is the position of the carrier that the increase prescribed in
Decision No. 2 was added to the rate authorized by the United States
Railroad Administration in effect at 12.01 a. m., March 1, 1920,
and that therefore all of the decisions of the Labor Board pertaining
to this position have been complied with.
Opinion. It appears that, acting upon the recommendation of the
chairman of the Western Passenger Traffic Committee, the Federal
manager recommended to the regional director, under date of March
4, 1919, that certain increases be made in the existing rates of pay
of station, ticket, and baggage employees at San Antonio. This
recommendation was approved by the regional director on March 11,
and the increased rates became effective March 1, 1919. This position
was subject to the rules of the clerks' national agreement, effective
January 1, 1920, and the carrier converted the monthly rate estab-
lished in March, 1919, to a daily rate in accordance with rule 66 of
the said agreement, but later reverted to the monthly rate and
declined to restore the daily rate.
The employees presented a grievance to the carrier upon the ques-
tion of establishing a daily rate of pay for this position in accord-
ance with rule 66, but were unable to secure favorable consideration
of their request.
Decision-The Labor Board decides that rule 66 of the clerks'
national agreement shall be applied to the rates of pay of the position
herein referred to, in effect March 1, 1920, and the increase set forth
in Article II of Decision No. 2 for said position shall be applied to
the daily rate thus established.
:
The position of the employees is sustained.
1010
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARL.
DECISION NO. 1430.-DOCKET 877.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. International & Great Northern Railway.
Question.-Shall rule 66, national agreement of the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees be applied to the monthly rate of pay in effect for
the position of night ticket clerk, San Antonio, Tex., March 1,
1920, and the increase provided in Decision No. 2 for said position
added to the daily rate thus established?
Statement.—The night ticket clerk at San Antonio passenger
station was paid a monthly salary of $140, with no additional com-
pensation for service performed on Sundays and holidays. This
rate was authorized, effective March 1, 1919, by special authority
and remained in effect until the termination of Federal control.
The increase provided by Decision No. 2 was added to this rate.
The employees contend that under rule 66 of the clerks' national
agreement the position should be paid a daily rate of $5.88, effective
March 1, 1920, and a rate of $6.92 from the effective date of De-
cision No. 2.
The carrier contends that the increases prescribed by Decision No. 2
were applied to the monthly rate established by the United States
Railroad Administration in effect at 12.01 March 1, 1920, and that it
has therefore complied with all the orders and decisions of the Labor
Board affecting this position.
Opinion. It appears that, acting upon the recommendation of the
chairman of the Western Passenger Traffic Committee, the Federal
manager recommended to the regional director under date of March
4, 1919, that certain increases be made in the existing rates of pay
of station, ticket, and baggage employees at San Antonio. This
recommendation was approved by the regional director on March
11, and the increased rates became effective March 1, 1919. This po-
sition was subject to the rules of the clerks' national agreement, effec-
tive January 1, 1920, and the carrier converted the monthly rate
established in March, 1919, to a daily rate in accordance with rule.
66 of the said agreement, but later reverted to the monthly rate and
declined to restore the daily rate.
The employees presented a grievance to the carrier upon the ques-
tion of establishing a daily rate of pay for this position in accordance
with rule 66, but were unable to secure favorable consideration of
their request.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that rule 66 of the clerks'
national agreement shall be applied to the rates of pay of the position
herein referred to, in effect March 1, 1920, and the increase set forth
in Article II of Decision No. 2 for said position shall be applied to
the daily rate thus established.
The position of the employees is sustained.
DECISIONS.
1011
DECISION NO. 1431.-DOCKET 1460.
Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees v. Maine Central Railroad Co.;
Portland Terminal Company.
Question. This decision is upon a request of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Station Employees for a refund of deductions made from
the wages of certain employees in the service of the carriers parties
hereto due to the alleged misapplication of rule 57 of the national
agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees during the period
January 1, 1920, to March 1, 1920.
Statement. Under date of July 12, 1922, the Labor Board issued
Decision No. 1093, reading as follows:
The Labor Board decides that under the memorandum of April 12, 1921, the
deductions due to the alleged misapplication of rule 57 are improper and that
the amounts deducted shall be restored to the employees. The merit of the
other deductions which have been made shall be taken up in conference be-
tween the representatives of the employees and the carrier and if an agree-
ment is not reached may be resubmitted to this board for decision as whether
or not they shall be restored. This decision does not have effect on any deduc-
tions for overpayments for time prior to March 1, 1920.
Under date of August 9, 1922, conference was held between repre-
sentatives of the employees and carriers for the purpose of applying
the terms of the above-quoted decision. At this conference the car-
rier took the position that the Labor Board did not authorize in the
said decision the return to the employees of money collected during
the period January 1, 1920, to March 1, 1920, and the carrier has not,
therefore, returned money collected during said period to the em-
ployees.
The employees contend that any collections made for overpay-
ments prior to April 12, 1921, regardless of whether they were made.
under Federal control, guaranty, or corporate period, should be
refunded to the employees under that portion of Decision No. 1093
reading as follows:
The Labor Board decides that under the memorandum of April 12, 1921, the
deductions due to the alleged misapplication of rule 57 are improper and that
the amounts deducted shall be restored to the employees.
Decision. The Labor Board has heretofore decided that, in its
opinion, the transportation act, 1920, was not intended to have a
retroactive aspect, and that therefore the board has no jurisdiction
over claims arising prior to the passage of said act. The Labor
Board in Decision No. 1093 did not either authorize or deny the
claim of employees for reimbursement of money collected during
the period prior to the passage of the transportation act, 1920, but
merely restricts its decision as to the impropriety of the deductions
referred to therein to the period subsequent to the passage of the
transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1432.-DOCKET 264.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the alleged failure of the Chicago
Great Western Railroad Co. to apply Decision No. 221.
1012
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision. The Labor Board is advised by the parties to this dis-
pute that they have agreed upon a satisfactory adjustment of the
same.
The case is therefore removed from the docket and the file closed.
DECISION NO. 1433.-DOCKET 946.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question. Is the wrecking crew at Casper, Wyo., entitled to time
lost account of using bridge and building department employees to
remove wreckage at Lander and Hudson, Wyo., on January 25
and 26, 1920?
Decision. The occurrence upon which this dispute is predicated
was prior to the enactment of the transportation act, 1920. The
handling of this dispute is therefore not within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Board.
The case is dismissed and the docket closed.
DECISION NO. 1434.-DOCKET 1145.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of C. C. Meyer for classification and rating of
bridge and building foreman.
Statement. On December 14, 1921, an oral hearing was conducted
in connection with the above question. During the course of the
hearing the representative of the carrier stated that the classification
and rating of bridge and building foreman had been conceded to
Mr. Meyer and that arrangements were being made to allow him back
pay on that basis retroactive to March 1, 1920. Subsequent to this
hearing the representative of the employees advised that a satisfac-
tory settlement of the case had been reached and that it was their
desire to have the case withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Labor
Board. On the basis of this information Decision No. 710 was issued
by the board, closing the case.
On May 8, 1922, a representative of the organization filed a sub-
mission with the Labor Board wherein the position was taken that
the carrier had not fulfilled its promise in restoring the rate of
bridge and building foreman to this employee, and making it retro-
active to March 1, 1920. There is introduced in this submission a
communication, dated October 20, 1921, from William Walliser,
assistant general manager of the carrier, addressed to the general
chairman of the employees, reading as follows:
Referring to previous correspondence, your last letter of July 30, 1921, with
regard to the indicated subject:
Further investigation of the duties required of Mr. Meyer indicates that he
is in direct charge of a bridge and building gang in the repairs of bridges,
buildings, platforms, sidewalks, etc., and that he does not report to a foreman,
but reports to and works under the direction of the bridge and building
supervisor or his assistant. Therefore, it has been decided that in view of
the fact that the duties required of Mr. Meyer are the same as those required
of a bridge and building foreman, his position will be so classified and rated,
effective as of March 1, 1920;
DECISIONS.
1013
With respect to claim for classification and rate of foreman under the pro-
visions of Article III, Supplement 4 to General Order No. 27: It is not my
understanding that Mr. Meyer has been, or is, required to supervise work of
mechanics coming under the provisions of Supplement 4 to General Order No.
27, and such being the case he is not entitled to classification and rate of .
foreman in charge of mechanics.
On the basis of the submission from the employees, dated May 8,
1922, this case was reopened by the Labor Board and an oral hearing
conducted, at which the representative of the carrier stated that the
rate of bridge and building foremen (first class) was applied to
Mr. Meyer for the period November, 1921, to March, 1922, but that
in applying the rate of the bridge and building foreman for that
period the local officials had misunderstood the assistant general
manager's letter herein quoted and had applied the higher rate for
bridge and building foreman instead of the lower rate, it being
explained that it has been the practice of the Chicago & North West-
ern Railroad to maintain two rates for bridge and building foremen,
first class and second class, the higher rate applying to men having
supervision over the larger or more important gangs and the lower
rate applying to the men having supervision over the smaller or less
important gangs. It is the contention of the carrier that Mr. Meyer,
while having complete supervision over a gang, does not have the
responsibility of and is not comparable with the bridge and building
foreman in charge of larger gangs.
The representatives of the employees take the position that Mr.
Meyer is handling certain territory; that he is supervising an
average-sized crew; and that he is held responsible for the bridges
and buildings on his respective territory. These statements are not
denied by representatives of the carrier. The employees take the
further position that the officers of the carrier must have taken that
into consideration when they reclassified Mr. Meyer from the posi-
tion of assistant foreman to foreman, and they can not understand
the present attitude of the carrier in view of Mr. Walliser's com-
munication, dated October 20, 1921, which the employees state as-
sured them that Mr. Meyer would be reclassified as a foreman and
paid back pay to March 1, 1920, which was in conformity with the
employees' contention at that time.
The employees therefore contend that Mr. Meyer should be classi-
fied and paid as a first-class bridge and building. foreman on the
same basis which he was paid during the period November, 1921,
to March, 1922, and that the adjustment should be made retroactive
to March 1, 1920, which, it is claimed, was promised them in Mr.
Walliser's letter dated October 20, 1921.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the position of the
employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1435.-DOCKET 1398.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.—Claim for compensation for time lost by P. B. Kelly,
roundhouse employee, Watersmeet, Mich., for the period Decem-
ber 12, 1920-January 12, 1921.
1014
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Je
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from the rep-
resentative of the organization party to the dispute that the case has
been amicably settled and asks that it be withdrawn from the juris-
diction of the Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
:.
DECISION NO. 1436.-DOCKET 2376.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Question-Shall E. R. Shackett be returned to a position of a
supervisory nature at the roundhouse, Middleboro, Mass., and be
allowed a differential of 5 cents per hour from June 6, 1920, to Sep-
tember 25, 1921.
Decision.-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from repre-
sentatives of the respective parties to the effect that a satisfactory
settlement has been effected in connection with this dispute and that
no further action on the part of the board is necessary or desired.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1437.—DOCKET 2607.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.
Question.-Shall the shop laborers employed by the Chicago &
Eastern Illinois Railway Co. be paid for 10 minutes per day for each
day worked when required to check in and out on their own time?
Decision. No. (See Decision No. 1339.)
DECISION NO. 1438.-DOCKET 2625.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Request of employees for the reinstatement of Frank
Slok, formerly employed as coal-chute employee, Ashland, Wis.,
who was dismissed from the service December 19, 1921.
Decision.-The request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1439.-DOCKET 2705.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.
Question.-Are the laborers employed in the car yard at Oaklawn
shop entitled to the same hourly rate of pay as is now paid to other
DECISIONS.
1015
employees at other points on the system for identically the same
class of service?
Statement. The paragraph above represents the wording of the
question submitted to the Labor Board by representatives of the em-
ployees in ex parte form on July 27, 1922. A copy of this ex parte
submission was forwarded to the carrier, and an oral hearing was
conducted at which the representative of the employees advised that
the question was improperly stated in the submission and that the
question upon which a decision was desired was relative to the equal-
ization of the rates of car-yard laborers at the various points with
rates paid common laborers at the respective points.
The representatives of the carrier objected to the interjection of a
question that had not been properly submitted.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the question as stated
at the oral hearing has not been handled and submitted in conform-
ity with the provisions of the transportation act, 1920. The docket
is therefore closed without prejudice to the right of either party to
again submit the matter to the Labor Board in the event of a dis-
agreement upon the question at issue.
DECISION NO. 1440.-DOCKET 2730.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Pennsylvania System.
Question.-Request of employees that Thomas Johnson, foreman,
be returned to section 14, Franklinville, N. Y., from which position
he was displaced by J. J. Donatelli.
Decision-The Labor Board is in receipt of advice from the repre-
sentative of the employees that this case has been settled satisfac-
torily and a request for the withdrawal of same from the consider-
ation of the board.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1441.-DOCKET 2816.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Southern Pacific Lines in
Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Request of signal department employees for the adop-
tion of a new seniority rule to govern temporary assignments.
Decision. At the oral hearing conducted in connection with this
case, the parties to the controversy agreed upon a rule in connection
with the subject matter in dispute and requested that the case be
withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Labor Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
1016
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1442.-DOCKET 2834.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.
་
Question. Request for free transportation for employees of the
Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co., operated by the Chicago
& Eastern Illinois Railway Co.
Decision. The organization party to this dispute has requested
that the matter be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Labor
Board.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1443.-DOCKET 715.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Co.
Question. The question submitted has reference to the nego-
tiation of an agreement as per the provisions of Decision No. 108
and rule 1 of the agreement previously in effect.
Decision. The docket is closed.
DECISION NO. 1444.-DOCKET 780.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts), v.
St. Louis, Troy & Eastern Railroad Co.
Question. This controversy involves the negotiation of rules and
working conditions.
Decision. The docket is closed.
3:
DECISION NO. 1445.-DOCKET 2388.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
Question (a) What is the proper compensation for time worked
beyond 10 hours from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(b) What is the proper compensation for time worked on Sun-
days and designated holidays by regular six-day assigned employees
from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(c) What is the proper compensation for employees released
from duty, notified, or called to perform work outside of and not
continuous with regular working hours from July 1, 1921, to Feb-
ruary 16, 1922, inclusive ?
Decision. The Labor Board refers the parties to this dispute to
Interpretation No. 1 to Decision No. 707, which answers the above
questions.
DECISIONS.
1017
DECISION NO. 1446.-DOCKET 2499.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad.
Question. Is the management of the Toledo, St. Louis & Western
Railroad justified in refusing to meet representatives of the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers for the purpose of negotiating rules and working condi
tions, and shall the rules presented by the employees be placed in
effect?
Statement. On May 10, 1922, the chief executive of the above-
named organization filed with the Labor Board an ex parte submis-
sion wherein it was contended that the general chairman repre-
senting the employees had made repeated efforts to secure a confer-
ence with the chief executive of the carrier, but that the carrier
had taken the position that it did not recognize the United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers
as the representative of the maintenance of way employees and rail-
way shop laborers, but agreed to meet the general chairman as a
representative of the employees, provided he continued in its em-
ployment. A number of letters were introduced by the employees
as evidence purporting to show that numerous efforts had been
made to negotiate rules and working conditions, but without success.
It is the contention of the employees that in conformity with the
provisions of Principle 15, Exhibit B of Decision. No. 199, they were
entitled to a conference for the purpose of negotiating rules and
working conditions affecting the maintenance of way employees and
railway shop laborers. The employees contend that if such confer-
ence had been granted they were prepared to produce certificates of
authority signed by a vast majority of the employees they claim to
represent authorizing the organization to represent them. The em-
ployees ask that in view of their failure to secure such conference the
rules as proposed by them be placed in effect.
An oral hearing was conducted in connection with this case at
which only the representatives of the employees were present.
The following communication from the carrier, dated September
9, 1922, was received by the Labor Board:
Your letter of August 17, Docket 2499, advising that the board would con-
duct hearing September 13 at 11 a. m., in connection with dispute of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers, with reference to the adoption of an agreement to govern rules and
working conditions.
We are having no disputes; we are having no trouble with our own men;
and we are perfectly agreeable to meeting a committee of our own men at any
time, for the purpose of considering any injustice or any grievances that they
may have to offer.
There is no danger so far as our line is concerned of an interruption of
transportation, as designated by the transportation act. We have applied the
Labor Board's decisions, and, if anything, have treated our men better than
the decisions would justify. We are not before the board in any of your
decisions, being operated by the Federal court, and we desire to cooperate and
help in every way possible.
We will not be represented at this hearing, and suggest, in the interest of
settled conditions, that you permit us to settle with our own men and dismiss
this complaint.
1018
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Opinion. The evidence does not show that the carrier at any
time questioned the contention of the organization that it repre-
sented a majority of the employees referred to.
Principle 15, Exhibit B of Decision No. 119, reads as follows:
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to
determine what organization shall represent members of such craft or class.
Such organization shall have the right to make an agreement which shall
apply to all employees in such craft or class. No such agreement shall
infringe, however, upon the right of employees not members of the organiza-
tion representing the majority to present grievances either in person or by
representatives of their own choice. (II, R. L. B., 87.)
In view of the provisions of section 301, transportation act, 1920,
and the above principle enunciated in Decision No. 119, the Labor
Board feels that the carrier should have granted conference to rep-
resentatives of the organization for the purpose of determining
whether or not they were duly authorized by a majority of the em-
ployees to represent them. The carrier was given ample opportunity
to present its position in detail with respect to this question, but
the only information received is the communication herein quoted.
It is therefore necessary for the Labor Board to base its conclusions
upon the evidence submitted.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that the carrier was not justified in refusing to meet representatives
of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers in conference, and that the said carrier shall
upon receipt of this decision arrange to hold conference with said
representatives. If at said conference the representatives of the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers can present proof that they are duly authorized
by a majority of the employees in the departments referred to to
represent them, negotiations shall be conducted in an effort to agree
upon rules and working conditions covering the employees involved;
all disputes to be submitted to the Labor Board in conformity with
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1447.-DOCKET 2727.
Chicago, Ill., December 1, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Question. This controversy involves the reinstatement of Wil-
liam Fehrle, formerly employed as pumper by the Denver & Salt
Lake Railroad Co.
Statement.—The following presents the position of the employees
as filed with the Labor Board under date of July 10, 1922:
William Fehrle was employed by the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co. at
Corona, Colo., as pumper from October 12, 1921, to March 3, 1922, the time of
his dismissal from the service of the company.
William Fehrle was employed as pumper on October 12, 1921, and stationed
at Corona, which is considered the most important pump station on the entire
system. This station is situated on the crest of the Continental Divide, and is
a place where there must be water at all times during the winter months, as
the snowplows and helper engines must have water there upon arrival. Mr.
DECISIONS.
1019
Fehrle was at this place until dismissed on March 3, 1922, and there was only
one supervisor or foreman at the plant during this time. Therefore, we claim
that the carrier, by leaving Mr. Fehrle at this point for the length of time
that they did, without even being visited by some supervisory official, consid-
ered him competent to do the work, and that the carrier, by refusing to answer
any correspondence in regard to a hearing on the matter, shows that it had
no intention of trying to abide by the transportation act, 1920. Therefore, we
request that the management of the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad be instructed
by your honorable board to reinstate Mr. Fehrle, with full seniority rights
and pay for all time lost.
Upon receipt of the employees' ex parte submission embodying
the above, copy of same was forwarded to W. R. Freeman, receiver
and general manager of the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad, extend-
ing to the carrier an opportunity to file a statement of its position
relative to the employees' claim. Having received no reply in con-
nection with this matter, the Labor Board again, on September 15,
1922, addressed a communication to Mr. Freeman reading in part as
follows:
Having received no statement of the carrier's position, this is to advise
that in accordance with rules and regulations of the board the case is being
docketed and brought to the attention of the board. Your attention is again
directed to the dispute at this time in order that you may file required copies
of the carrier's position, if desired.
An oral hearing was scheduled to be held in connection with this
case on October 19, 1922, of which the carrier and employees were
duly notified. On request of the employees the hearing was post-
poned until November 1, 1922. The concluding paragraph of this
notice stated: "Please advise if you will be represented; and if so,
by whom." No advice was received from the carrier relative to this
last communication.
When the case came up for oral hearing on November 1, 1922, only
the representatives of the employees were present, who stated that
they were willing to rest their case upon the written evidence that
had been submitted.
Decision.-Based upon the evidence submitted, the Labor Board
decides that the action on the part of the Denver & Salt Lake Rail-
road Co. in relieving William Fehrle, pumper, from the service, as
outlined above, was not justified, and that he shall be reinstated to
his former position with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
all time lost, less any amount he may have earned in other employ-
ment.
DECISION NO. 1448.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., December 5, 1922.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail-
road Co.; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.; Chicago, Rock
Island & Pacific Railway Co.; Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Railway Co.; Great Northern Railway Co.; Illinois Central Railroad Co.;
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste.
Marie Railway; Northern Pacific Railway Co.; Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific
System) v. Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Question. This decision is upon an application of the carriers
parties to the dispute for the elimination of inequalities produced by
the application of Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 13 to General
Order No. 27, issued by the United States Railroad Administration.
20936°-23- -65
1020
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Statement. For some years prior to 1917 telegraphers in the
service of the carriers parties hereto were paid a monthly salary to
cover the full calendar days of the months; that is, 28, 30, or 31. On
some roads overtime was paid on Sundays and holidays after regular
assigned hours, or after a certain number of hours, as provided in
the agreement. Some agreements also provided that certain agents
and telegraphers would be assigned on a working-day basis, in which
case the monthly rates were less than rates applying to employees
working on a calendar-month basis. Service required on Sundays
and the following holidays-New Year's Day, Fourth of July, Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas-was reduced to a minimum.
In the latter part of the year 1917 telegraph employees in the
service of these carriers received an increase in wages of approxi-
mately 12 per cent, and in conjunction therewith the calendar-month
basis was changed to a working-day-month basis. Thereafter the
rate formerly applying for service performed on the calendar days of
the month applied for the working days of the month and additional
compensation was paid for service performed on other than the
working days; that is, Sundays and holidays.
On December 28, 1918, Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27
was issued, which contained, among other things, the following
provisions:
ARTICLE I. (a) All employees herein specified shall be paid on the hourly
basis, except those provided for in Article IV.
(b) To determine the hourly basis for positions held by monthly paid em-
ployees, multiply by 12 the regular monthly rate in effect as of January 1,
1918, prior to the application of General Order No. 27 (exclusive of all com-
pensation for extra services), divide by 306 (number of working days for the
year), and apply provisions of section (e) of this article.
Section (e) of Article I refers to employees paid on a basis of
10 hours or more to constitute a day's work.
Article IV. refers to positions to which the provisions of the sup-
plement will not apply.
On August 16, 1919, Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 13 to
General Order No. 27 was issued, reading in part as follows:
Question 1.-What is the intent of the term "(exclusive of all compensation
for extra services)" as used in sections (b), (c), and (d) of Article I in
connection with the application of the increase provided in Supplement 13 to
General Order No. 27?
Decision. The total amount of salary earned from the railroad within the
regular assigned hours on the calendar days of the month shall be considered
the basic rate in effect January 1, 1918, upon which the increase provided for
in Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27 shall be applied, exclusive of all other
compensation for extra services, such as pumping, tending switch lights, cross-
ing gates, carrying United States mail, or similar services, except that where
such work was included among the duties for which a regular monthly rate
was in effect prior to the issuance of Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27
no deduction will be made therefor in computing the hourly rate as provided in
sections (b), (c), and (d) of Article I, Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27.
The same principle applies to employees who were, prior to January 1, 1918,
paid on a daily or a weekly basis.
The application of that part of Interpretation No. 8, above quoted,
resulted in some instances in the establishment of inequalities in the
rates of pay of certain telegraph and station employees in the service
of the carriers parties hereto, which the carriers request be eliminated
by reducing the rates of pay of the said employees an amount equiva-
lent to that accruing to them under Interpretation No. 8.
DECISIONS.
1021
When Interpretation No. 8 was issued these carriers took the posi-
tion that it was not the intention of the interpretation to require the
inclusion of compensation for service performed on Sundays and
holidays in computing the hourly rate. The employees, however,
took the position that the interpretation provided that the total
revenue earned from the railroad for service performed within the
regular assigned hours on the calendar days of the month should
be included in determining the hourly rate. The manner in which
to properly apply Interpretation No. 8 not being generally under-
stood, requests were made by the several regional directors upon the
director, division of operation, for advice, and under date of Novem-
ber 14, 1919, the following letter was written by the director, divi-
sion of operation, to the regional directors:
Referring to your letters of September 9 and 12, respectively, in regard to
the intent of question 1 of Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 13, concerning
the intent of the term "(exclusive of all compensation for extra services)," as
used in sections (b), (c), and (d), Article I, of Supplement 13, under sched-
ules with the telegraphers, which, on January 1, 1918, provided monthly wages
for the calendar working days of the month, with special provisions for com-
pensation for regular assigned service performed on Sundays and/or holidays.
It has been decided that under the interpretation in question the pay allowed
for regularly assigned service on Sundays and/or holidays, not including emer-
gency calls or extra service as described in decision to question 1 of Inter-
pretation No. 8, should be included in calculating the annual pay in accord-
ance with sections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of Article I, which is to
be reduced to hourly rates and increased in accordance with the provisions
of Article II of Supplement 13. Where the assignment for Sundays and/or
holidays called for certain hours less than the hours constituting the day and
additional hours were required, the hours required, with a maximum of the
period before which overtime was paid under the individual schedule, shall
govern instead of the hours specified in the assignment.
It was recognized that the extra service required on Sundays and/or holi-
days will vary on different railroads and in different seasons of the year, due
largely to the different train schedules in the several seasons. The question
of the period to be covered for ascertaining the money value of such extra
service, it is felt, must be left to the individual railroads, with the advice
that a sufficiently long period should be selected to represent the true extent
to which the extra service is required. On some roads one month may repre-
sent the situation; on other railroads one month in each season may be suffi-
cient; other roads may require checks of different periods; but, at any rate,
it is desired that a sufficiently representative period should be used.
Recognizing that this results in changing the relations which formerly existed
for offices working 26 days a month, and in addition reverses the preferential
status from the standpoint of monthly pay, and in the hope of being able to
work out some solution which would avoid such undesirable conditions, a
conference has been held with E. J. Manion, president of the Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers, and a committee of telegraphers. Illustrations of the effect
of the interpretation were discussed, and it was found that no satisfactory
solution could be worked out, the representatives of the telegraphers express-
ing the preference to strictly apply the interpretation regardless of the inequali-
ties produced as between the wages of the individual positions.
In view of the foregoing explanations, it is desired that prompt steps be
taken to ascertain the annual compensation for the individual positions as
outlined above, and that hourly rates be recalculated in order that the revi-
sion of the schedule may be completed at the earliest possible date.
There was also submitted to Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3
of the United States Railroad Administration a controversy as to
the application of Interpretation No. 8 on the Southern Pacific Sys-
tem, and on March 1, 1920, that board issued Decision No. T-530,
reading as follows:
In determining the basic rates in effect January 1, 1918, upon which to
apply the increases accruing under Supplement No. 13 to General Order No.
1022
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
27, all pay allowed for regularly assigned service and service performed in
excess thereof on Sundays and/or holidays within the spread of the week-
day assignment, not including emergency calls or extra service as described
in the decision to Question 1 of Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 13 to Gen-
eral Order No. 27, shall be added and considered a part of the monthly rates.
Attention is directed to Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 13 to General
Order No. 27, which is applicable to the Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
The carriers state that the application of Interpretation No. 8 as
directed by the United States Railroad Administration not only
created an additional expenditure of over $1,000,000 per annum
but created a very disturbing and unsatisfactory situation; that
agents, who previously received a substantial differential over teleg-
raphers, are now receiving less than the telegraphers at a great
many stations; and that telegraphers who received rates in excess
of other telegraphers working at the same stations, are receiving a
lesser rate under Interpretation No. 8, notwithstanding the fact that
the class of work and responsibility required are unchanged. It is
stated that on some roads where, prior to Interpretation No. 8, there
were 30 rates of pay, there are now 172 different rates of pay, and
that on the lines represented in this controversy 11,008 employees
received increases and 4,027 received no increases. The carriers con-
tend that this has resulted in old, experienced agents holding re-
sponsible positions taking assignments of less responsibility where
rates of pay were increased under Interpretation No. 8, and agents
of less experience accepted the more important stations, thereby
impairing the efficiency of the service.
It is the contention of the carrier that the language of Supple-
ment 13 clearly shows that it was never intended to include com-
pensation for Sunday and holiday service, where such service was
paid for as overtime, in establishing the hourly rate to which the
increases provided in Supplement 13 should be added; further-
more, that there is no decision of record issued by the United States
Railroad Administration which provides that overtime should be
included in computing the basic rate to which increases prescribed
by the various supplements should be added.
The employees state that the 26-day monthly basis was established
on one of the western railroads through arbitration in 1917, and sub-
sequently adopted on other western railroads which had requests
from the employees for increases in wages and the establishment of
a working-day month pending at that time; that the employees re-
ceived increases of only about 13 per cent, whereas they had previ-
ously been offered 22 per cent increase by the carrier party to the
arbitration proceedings, and that the lesser percentage of increases
granted by the arbitration tribunal was in consideration of the estab-
lishment of the 26-day month.
The employees further state that Supplement 13 provided that "to
determine the hourly basis for positions held by monthly-paid em-
ployees, multiply by 12 the regular monthly rate in effect as of
January 1, 1918, prior to the application of General Order No. 27
(exclusive of all compensation for extra services), divided by 306 ";
that the question then devolved upon the regular monthly rate, and
when the employees' committee on the roads where the 26-day month
was in vogue conferred with the representatives of the carriers in
regard to applying Supplement 13, they claimed that the earnings
within the regular assigned hours of the calendar days of the month
- DECISIONS.
1023
should be the basis upon which the increases should be applied. The
carriers immediately protested this, and some of the cases were pre-
sented to Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3, which decided that
the earnings on the regular assigned hours of the calendar days of
the month should be included in computing the hourly rate. The
carriers contended that this was an erroneous application of Supple-
ment 13 and the controversy was then presented to the Board of
Railroad Wages and Working Conditions, United States Railroad
Administration, which submitted Interpretation No. 8 to the Di-
rector General, and it was subsequently promulgated.
The employees also state that this interpretation provided that
"compensation for extra service" was considered earnings accruing
to employees for handling switch lights, running pumps, or operating
crossing gates, and that these earnings should not be included in com-
puting the hourly rate; but it did provide that the total amount of
wages earned from the carriers within the regular assigned hours
on the calendar days of the month should be considered a basic rate.
Therefore, on roads where the 26-day month prevailed, employees
were assigned to Sunday service for which they received the regular
pro-rata rate, and said employees were entitled to the inclusion of
compensation for such Sunday service.
After the interpretation was issued, conferences ensued between
the representatives of the telegraphers and the carriers at which
the employees said that they admitted the fact that the interpreta-
tion established inequalities, and suggested the advisability of dis-
tributing the total amount of the increase accruing from Interpre-
tation No. 8 equitably to all positions to eliminate the inequalities,
but this proposition of the employees was declined and the inter-
pretation placed in effect in accordance with the language thereof.
The employees contend that when Supplement 13 to General
Order No. 27 was applied to the employees in telegraph and station
service working on the 26-day month basis, no recognition was
given to the fact that the schedule wage was for 26 days per month,
but the salary shown in the schedule was arbitrarily considered as
being for 365 days per annum, the same as on other railroads
working the calendar days of the month; that Interpretation No. 8
was a compromise settlement through which the carriers have
profited at the expense of the employees for three years, and did
not give the employees the full amount they were entitled to; fur-
thermore, that the inequalities would not now exist had a correct
application of Supplement 13 been made in accordance with the
employees' contentions in the first instance, and that the request
of the carriers now presented is merely for the purpose of securing
a wage reduction through a subterfuge.
Opinion.-The Labor Board has given careful consideration to
the oral and written evidence presented by the employees and car-
riers in this controversy and finds that inequalities exist in the rates
of pay of employees in telegraph and station service which are un-
justified and detrimental to the service. It appears that the em-
ployees who have benefited by the inequalities resulting from the
application of Interpretation No. 8 have received the full amount
of the increase provided for in the orders and decisions of the
United States Railroad Administration and the Labor Board, and
that the higher rates of pay accruing to them through the applica-
1024
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
i
tion of said Interpretation No. 8 have resulted from the inclusion
in the monthly rate used as the basis for computing the hourly rate
under Supplement No. 13, compensation for service which was paid
for additionally as overtime. This does not appear to have been
contemplated by any decision of the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration increasing the rates of pay of any class of employees.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that effective January 1, 1923,
the inequalities now existing in the rates of pay of employees in
station and telegraph service of the carriers parties to this decision
shall be eliminated by reducing the hourly rate of the said employees
an amount equivalent to the increase resulting from the application
of Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement 13 to General Order No. 27.
DISSENTING OPINION.
For reasons hereinafter stated the undersigned dissents from the
decision of the majority.
The following is quoted from the presentation made by the em-
ployees at the hearing conducted by the Labor Board, March 18, 1922:
Origin of the 26-day month.-The 26-day month has been effective in Canada
as long as I can remember. The first railroads in the United States to be paid
on the 26-day basis were the Michigan Central and the Pere Marquette, it being
put into effect about 1903. In 1916 several other railroads secured this basis
of payment, among which were the New York Central (lines west) and the
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad. In 1917 a general movement was
started in the Chicago territory for the 26-day month and an increase of 20 per
cent in compensation to meet the soaring cost of living. The pioneer railroad
in this movement was the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, the man-
agement of which refused to entertain the request of the employees, and the
matter was finally submitted to arbitration. Concurrent with the request of
the Rock Island committee of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, practically
every other railroad in the Northwest made similar requests. The natural
result was that a large number of the managements involved either agreed to
accept the decision of the Rock Island arbitration award or to accept it as a
basis for finally concluding the pending controversies.
The point is that the decision of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific arbitra-
tion award was not a local decision, but it had the far-reaching effect of being
the decision or basis of decision for a large number of railroads, which will
presently be itemized.
The representatives of this arbitration board were: Professor Gore, Wash-
ington, D. C., representing the public; Judge Piel, Washington, D. C., repre-
senting the public; Judge Jewett, representing the railroad; C. W. Jones, gen-
eral manager, representing the railroad; W. T. Brown, representing the em-
ployees; O. D. Gorman, representing the employees.
· Voluminous data were presented to this tribunal and a considerable length
of time given to consideration of the employees' request in all its aspects from
every angle. Finally a tentative agreement was arrived at granting the em-
ployees an increase of 13.3 per cent and the 26-day month.
Vice President W. T. Brown, one of the arbitrators representing this organi-
zation, has prepared the following statement:
During the executive session of the board in the arbitration case on the
Rock Island Railroad during the month of November, 1917, in our discussion
covering the handling of the increases in rates of wages to be granted the
employees, and the question of pay for Sunday and holiday service, or what is
usually referred to as the 26-day month, an objection was raised to the 26-day
month after the tentative agreement to grant this to the employees, and the
representatives of the railroad made an offer of a straight wage increase based
on the calendar days of the month, approximating 22 per cent, if our repre-
sentatives would withdraw the request for the 26-day month; this the em-
ployees' representatives refused to do, and the final settlement decreed a wage
increase of 13.3 per cent and the 26-day month."
The increase granted (13.3 per cent) was an increase of $9.75 per man; the 22
per cent increase proposed by the management's representative would have
DECISIONS.
1025
granted an increase of approximately $16.12 per man per month; the conclu-
sion can but be that the employees secured the 26-day month at an expense
of $6.37 per man per month.
As I have said before, this decision not only covered the Rock Island, but
other roads operating in the Northwest used the award as a basis of settle-
ment, these roads being the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul; Illinois Central;
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Northern Pacific; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault
Ste. Marie; Chicago & North Western; Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha; Chicago & Alton; Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago & St. Louis; Minneapolis & St. Louis; and the Yazoo & Mississippi
Valley Railroad. Each of these railroads would have received the same money
increase as the Rock Island had it waived the 26-day month and accepted
22 per cent as an increase; each of the roads in question purchased the 26-day
month by taking the Rock Island award, 13.3 per cent, as an increase, and the
26-day month, and the purchase price in each instance is approximately $6 per
man per month.
Bearing in mind that this controversy covered increases in wages and the
method of computing them, viz, the 26-day basis where the calendar month
had previously been used, we find that by computing wages on the basis of the
arbitration award the employees secured less of an increase than that which
was offered by the management, 22 per cent.
With the foregoing facts in mind we can approach our contention intelligently
and show the great injustice which has been done our employees through the
partial recognition which has been given this very important working condi-
tion by the United States Railroad Administration and the injustice perpetu-
ated by this board by decreeing a horizontal increase under Decision No. 2
and a decrease under Decision No. 147 without consideration of the merits of
the individual case, notwithstanding the presentation of voluminous data to
this tribunal prior to Decision No. 2, in which the inequalities were pointed out
and a solution offered to do justice to all concerned.
Origin of Interpretation No. 8 and its effect on rates.-This brings us up to
the effective date of Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, October 1,
1918. There were two separate and distinct bases of payment, i. e., a schedule
rate which covered service for the calendar days of the month and a schedule
rate for those roads enjoying the 26-day month which covered only service
rendered for the days exclusive of Sundays. Supplement No. 13 recognized
only the rate of wages quoted in the schedules, giving no recognition to the
fact that some of the employees received the wage for 26 days per month, but
assuming the salary as being for 365 days per annum, along with other rail-
roads working on a calendar-month basis. The irresistible conclusion is that
employees on some railroads receive the 26-day month in lieu of an actual
money increase, and subsequently, under the application of Supplement No. 13,
receive no benefit from it in their basic rate.
Immediately an insistent demand for an adjustment of the method of com-
puting increases emanated from the employees, and the dispute was referred
to the United States Railroad Administration and was referred to the Railway
Board of Adjustment No. 3, their decision being that the total amount of
money earned on Sundays (for the road in question, one having the 26-day
month) should be added to the basic rate, and Supplement No. 13 applied to
the rate thus arrived at. It is opportune at this time to mention that the
board in question was bipartisan in construction, the railroads having equal
representation with the employees, and the secretary of this board is authority
for the statement that the decision of the board on this question was unani-
mous. After several decisions on this question were rendered by Board of
Adjustment No. 3 controversy arose as to whether this was properly a function
to be performed by the board in question under the articles of agreement gov-
erning the procedure which only permitted decisions on application of wage
orders and schedule agreements, it being said that this was more of a question
of increase in wages. So the matter was referred to the Board of Railroad
Wages and Working Conditions, also bipartisan in construction, having equal
representatives appointed by the director general to represent the railroads
and the employees. The result of the review by the Board of Railroad Wages
and Working Conditions was Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement No. 13, read-
ing as follows:
"
Question 1.—What is the intent of the term '(exclusive of all compensation
for extra services)' as used in sections (b), (c), and (d) of Article I in con-
1026
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
nection with the application of the increase provided in Supplement No. 13 to
General Order No. 27?
"Decision. The total amount of salary earned from the railroad within
the regular assigned hours on the calendar days of the month shall be con-
sidered the basic rate in effect January 1, 1918, upon which the increase pro-
vided for in Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27 shall be applied,
exclusive of all other compensation, for extra service, such as pumping, tending
switch lights, crossing gates, carrying United States mail, or similar services,
except that where such work was included among the duties for which a
regular monthly rate was in effect prior to the issuance of Supplement No. 13
to General Order No. 27, no deduction will be made therefor in computing the
hourly rate as provided in sections (b), (c), and (d) of Article I, Supplement
No. 13 to General Order No. 27.
"The same principle applies to employees who were prior to January 1, 1910,
paid on a daily or weekly basis
*
*
I repeat, that when Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27 was applied
to those employees on railroads working on a 26-day month basis, no recog-
nition was given to the fact that the schedule wage was for 26 days per month,
but the salary shown in the schedule was arbitrarily considered as being for
365 days per annum," the same as on other railroads working the calendar
days of the month. Interpretation No. 8 was a compromise settlement, as I will
conclusively show by the examples I am incorporating, and did not give the
employees the full amounts they were entitled to. Furthermore, it produced
inequalities which would not have been created had a correct application of
Supplement No. 13 been made agreeably with our contention in the first
instance.
The following examples show three employees-A, B, and C-each receiving
$85 per month on a 26-day basis, working the hours shown in the example:
Prior to January 1, 1918.

Employee.
Week-
Sunday Monthly Sunday
day hours. rate. rate.
hours.
Total
compen-
sation.
∞ ∞ ∞
8
8
8
24
$85.00
85.00
85.00
$85.00
$3.28
6.56
88.28
91.56
A..
B.
C.
Under Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27, their rates, notwithstand-
ing that B regularly received $88.28 per month and C received $91.56 per month,
were figured on an $85 a month basis. In the adjustment under Interpretation
No. 8 to Supplement No. 13, the earnings on Sunday were taken into considera-
tion; but we now contend, as we always have in the past, that a great injustice
has been done to each and every employee on the railroad, as is shown in the
following example:
Rates under Interpretation No. 8.

Basing
rate.
New hourly
rate under
Supplement
No. 13.
A
B
C.
Employee.
$85.00
88.28
$0.5675
.5850
91.56
.6000
Supplement No. 13 provided that the monthly rate should be multiplied by
12 (months) and divided by 306 (days), which is 365 days less 52 Sundays
and 7 holidays. To demonstrate our contention, let us assume that our em
ployees were paid on a daily basis instead of a 26-day month. Under this
assumption our daily rate would have been multiplied by 365 (days) and
divided by 306 (days) and by 8 (hours) to ascertain the new hourly rate, but
DECISIONS.
1027
in the application of the wage order our 26-day month is the same as the daily
basis. It is clear that if the employees were paid on a daily basis and worked
on Sundays they would be paid extra for Sundays.
DECISION REVERSED.
The evidence in possession of the Labor Board shows conclusively
that the question now decided adversely to the employees was one
which had the personal attention of the Director General of Rail-
roads; that it was also approved by the director, division of opera-
tion, both of whom were experienced railroad officials; and that prior
to the decision being rendered the director general had received the
benefit of the judgment of the director of the division of operation,
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3, and the Board of Railroad
Wages and Working Conditions (the latter two boards being com-
posed of an equal number of railroad and employee representatives),
including similar information and objections placed before the board
by the representatives of the carriers and employees in the hearing
conducted March 18, 1922.
IN EFFECT SINCE OCTOBER 1, 1918.
Supplement No. 13 to General Order No. 27 was made effective
October 1, 1918, and, therefore, for a period of over four years these
employees have been receiving the basic rates of pay therein pro-
vided, including those resulting from Question and Decision No. 1
of Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement No. 13, except as these rates
were increased by the Labor Board's Decision No. 2, and subse-
quently decreased by Decision No. 147.
LOW WAGE RATES FURTHER REDUCED.
The evidence submitted by the carriers named in this decision.
shows that 11,008 employees received increases under Interpreta-
tion No. 8 and that 4,027 received no increase. The immediate ef-
fect of this decision-based on the figures submitted by the carriers—
will reduce the annual earnings of those generally underpaid and
highly skilled workers $1,255,680 per annum. In Wage Series Re-
port No. 3, issued by the Labor Board, October, 1921, the average
wages per month for telegraphers, etc., are shown to be $123.55.
The 11,008 directly affected will suffer an average reduction of
$114 per annum by this decision, and while it may be said that
these employees as a class are to-day, under the board's wage reduc-
tion Decision No. 147, effective July 1, 1921, receiving a wage 82 per
cent above the miserably low wage rates in effect prior to the period
of Federal control, the fact remains that they are generally under-
paid.
THE REJECTED DECISION.
Having all these things in mind, and with some personal knowledge
of the service rendered by this class of employees, and the mutually
recognized desirability of conferring at stated periods for the pur-
pose of properly adjusting differentials made necessary by changes
in volume of business handled, and various other conditions pecu-
1028
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
liarly applicable to this service, the undersigned submitted the fol-
lowing proposed decision which was rejected by a vote of 5 to 3,
one member absent:
The Labor Board therefore decides that the increases accruing to the em-
ployees through the application of Interpretation No. 8 to Supplement No. 13
were not improper; but in the application of the increases certain inequalities
were created which should be eliminated by distributing to the employees in
station and telegraph service on the carriers parties hereto the aggregate
amount of the increase accruing through the application of said interpretation.
Conference shall be held on or before December 10, 1922, for the purpose
of arranging the details of the distribution in a manner mutually agreeable
to the employees and the carrier, and effective December 16, 1922.
This proposed decision would have resulted in adjusting any
existing improper differentials without adding one additional penny
to the pay rolls of the carriers. The decision of the majority arbi-
trarily puts into effect differentials that were in effect during the year
1917, and every practical railroad man must admit that this decision
will create a multitude of unjustifiable differentials in rates of pay,
and that the existing dissatisfaction and discontent of these em-
ployees will be augmented by this impracticable decision, the only
effect of which is to bring about another reduction in wages veiled
by a thinly spread smoke screen which simply emphasizes the desire
of the majority to deny the employees an opportunity to meet the
respective carriers in conference and work out an equitable adjust-
ment of any existing improper differentials.
STATEMENT.
A. O. WHARTON.
While I voted against this decision, I do not deem it necessary to
formally dissent from it. As a rule, dissenting opinions accomplish
no practical purpose and merely cumber the record.
Of course,
there are exceptional cases in which a dissenting opinion is worth
while, and each member must use his own discretion as to the ad-
visability of writing a dissent.
W. L. McMenimen.
DECISION NO. 1449.-DOCKET 2425.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for the reinstatement of E. Gaillard, block
man, Nineteenth Street, Chicago.
Statement.-Mr. Gaillard was employed by the carrier as block
man at Nineteenth Street, Chicago, for about four years. He was
dismissed from the service in February, 1922, account of failure
to pass physical examination. The report of the chief surgeon
indicated certain physical defects, including impaired vision in the
right eye, but it appears from the evidence before the board that
the important physical defect is in vision. The sight in the left
eye is normal. This defect existed when Mr. Gaillard was em-
ployed by the carrier and was not considered sufficient to prevent
his passing physical examination conducted at that time. Up to
the time he was relieved he had worked three years and three months
DECISIONS.
1029
without losing a day. During that period his service was satis-
factory.
The duties of the position held by Mr. Gaillard are not similar
to those of position bearing the title of block man, but consist only
of the manipulation of two levers governing the operation of a
spacing signal. He does not handle train orders or switches.
When Mr. Gaillard was taken out of the service in February,
1922, the carrier offered to assign him to the position of crossing
flagman, which offer is still open to him.
Decision. While the Labor Board is not unmindful of the right
of the carrier to determine by examination the physical fitness of
employees engaged in positions affecting the operation of trains and
to act accordingly, the board feels that in view of the facts in this
case—i. e., the nature of the position Mr. Gaillard holds, and the
fact that he performed satisfactory service for three years and
three months without losing a day—it is justified in deciding that
Mr. Gaillard shall be given a test for the purpose of determining
whether his vision and physical fitness justify his continuance in
the position of block man at Nineteenth Street.
Conference shall be held on or before December 15 between the
representatives of the employees and the carrier for the purpose
of arranging the details of the test, at which representatives of the
employees and the carrier shall be present. If it is decided as a re-
sult of this test that Mr. Gaillard's physical condition and vision do
not warrant his restoration to the service as block man, he shall be
assigned to position of crossing flagman, in accordance with the
carrier's offer in the written presentation and reaffirmed at hearing
conducted by the board.
DECISION NO. 1450.-DOCKETS 2064 and 2500.
Chicago, Ill., December 11, 1922.-Effective January 1, 1923.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers et al. v. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al.
Subject of the dispute. This decision determines the undecided
portion of the disputes between the carriers and organizations of
their employees referred to in Decision No. 1267. That dispute em-
bodied requests for increased compensation and for certain changes
in rules and working conditions. Decision No. 1267 disposed of that
portion of the dispute relative to increased compensation, while the
following deals with the question of changes in rules and working
conditions.
Parties to the dispute.-The carriers parties hereto, each of which
has a dispute on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out, are:
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railway Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
1030
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.
Boston & Maine Railroad.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.
Central Indiana Railway Co.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Central Vermont Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Mineral Range Railroad Co.
El Paso & Southwestern System.
Erie Railroad Co.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in United States).
Great Northern Railway Co.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Houston Belt & Terminal Co.
Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.
Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co.
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.
DECISIONS,
1031
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
Railway Transfer Company of the City of Minneapolis.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Monongahela Railway Co.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.
New York Central Railroad Co. (lines east and west).
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.
and its subsidiaries.
Pittsburgh & Shawmut Railroad Co.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
Rutland Railroad Co.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad.
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas & Louisiana.
Southern Railway Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
Tennessee Central Railroad Co.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
and its subsidiaries.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.
Union Pacific System.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.).
Virginian Railway Co.
Wabash Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
1032
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The organizations parties hereto, which have a dispute with one
or more of the carriers on one or more of the rules hereinafter set out,
are:
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Rail-
way Shop Laborers.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
Nature of proceedings.-In conformity with the provisions of the
transportation act, 1920, the carriers or employees named herein have
held or attempted to hold conferences on the subject matter of this
dispute, and all controversies not having been decided in such confer-
ences were referred to the United States Railroad Labor Board for
decision.
Both parties made a full presentation to the Labor Board of their
respective contentions by testimony and argument, oral and written.
Štatement.—The Labor Board, in Decision No. 501, promulgated
rules and working conditions which at that time were deemed just
and reasonable. The employees are now requesting reconsideration
of certain rules contained therein and the addition of certain rules
not covered thereby.
In deciding the dispute between the various carriers and their re-
spective employees relative to rules, the Labor Board has given care-
ful consideration to the submissions filed by the respective parties in
connection with the dispute which resulted in the issuance of Deci-
sion No. 501, the submissions filed in connection with this case, includ-
ing a vast amount of evidence, data, and arguments, oral, written, and
documentary, and information gathered by its own forces, as well as
to the written arguments filed with the certification of the disputed
rules.
The Labor Board in Decision No. 1267 cited certain statistics and
other data relating to the cost of living and to wages and working
conditions in outside industries, and concluded that in view of the
facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced in that case, an
adjustment in wages was due to certain classes of employees therein
named. The Board is also of the opinion that the circumstances.
and arguments presented in this case entitled the employees to cer-
tain consideration with respect to changes in rules and working
conditions.
Certain carriers have raised the question in this case that a portion.
of the employees embraced in the classes herein involved are on a
strike on their respective properties and therefore are not entitled
to be heard before the Board at this time. The fact that some of
these employees are on a strike does not preclude the organization
from presenting a dispute in behalf of those employees who are
actually in the service of the carrier. The employees in the service.
can not equitably be deprived of their right to appear before the
Labor Board because others are out on a strike.
Inasmuch as the submission in Docket 2064 contains in part a
dispute on rules pertaining to pay for overtime and Sunday and holi-
day service for certain of the classes herein referred to, this decision
shall apply only to that portion of Docket 2064.
The submissions show that only one carrier has a dispute with its
employees on section (j) of Article VI; therefore, this section is
remanded for further conference.
DECISIONS.
1033
In the case of certain carriers there are submissions before the
Board from two organizations, in which both ask for changes in
rules and working conditions. In such cases it is not now necessary
to pass upon the jurisdictional question involved.
It will be noted that certain changes in rules have been made as
compared with the language contained in Decision No. 501. The
Labor Board feels that such changes are justified, taking into con-
sideration the seven elements enumerated in the Transportation Act,
1920.
Decision. The Labor Board therefore decides upon the evidence
submitted that the following is just and reasonable and shall apply
to each of the carriers parties to this decision in so far as any par-
ticular rule or question is shown by the respective submissions to be
in dispute.
1. CONTRACT WORK.
In practically all of the submissions filed in this case it is the
request of the employees that a rule be incorporated in the agree-
ment which would prohibit the carrier from contracting its work to
outside concerns. The Labor Board feels that its position with
respect to this question has been clearly and definitely set out in
numerous decisions recently issued and that a further reiteration of
such position is unnecessary.
In further connection with the question of contracts, the Labor
Board does not feel that it is necessary to incorporate in the several
agreements a rule relating to this subject. Should a question arise
which can not be satisfactorily settled in conference between the
interested parties in regard to the question of contracts, the matter
should be submitted to the Labor Board in conformity with the
provisions of the transportation act, 1920.
2. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS.
Numerous other questions were submitted in connection with which
there were no corresponding rules in either the national agreement
of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers or Decision No. 501. The Labor Board feels that a
number of these miscellaneous questions are directly or indirectly
related to the rules as incorporated in Decision No. 501 and the rules.
as herein contained, and that further conference should be held
between the interested parties in an effort to reach an agreement.
3. RULES ELIMINATED.
Certain rules were eliminated by Decision No. 501, which the
Labor Board ruled should cease and terminate. The board wishes
to reiterate its expression relative to the subject matter of such
eliminated rules.
4. INTERPRETATION OF THIS DECISION.
Should a dispute arise between the management and the employees
of any of the carriers as to the meaning and intent of this decision
which can not be decided in conference between the parties directly
interested, such dispute shall be handled in the manner provided
by the transportation act, 1920.
1034
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
5. RULES ADOPTED.
The rules approved by the Labor Board relating to hours of serv-
ice and working conditions governing the employees coming within
the scope of Decision No. 501, are hereby made effective January 1,
1923, on the roads upon which they are applicable.
Explanatory notes. For convenient and ready reference the article and
section numbers and letters as shown in Decision No. 501 are used as a key
for identifying the rules of said decision which are herein referred to.
The rules which have been adopted corresponding to rules in the national
agreement, and to which there are no corresponding rules in Decision No. 501,
have been assigned the same article and section numbers as shown in the
national agreement, and are indicated herein by the use of an asterisk.
The phrase "no change from Decision No. 501" indicates that the corre
sponding rules in said decision shall be continued in effect.
The word "eliminated" shall be construed to mean that the board does not
considers such rules necessary.
The phrase “remanded for further conference" means that the parties to the
dispute should again endeavor to come to an agreement on that part of the
controversy.
ARTICLE 1.-SCOPE.
No change from Decision No. 501.
ARTICLE II.-SENIORITY.
*Sec. (a).-Seniority begins at the time the employee's pay starts.
*Sec. (b).-Rights accruing to employees under their seniority en-
title them to consideration for positions in accordance with their
relative length of service with the railroad, as hereinafter provided.
*Sec. (c-1).-Seniority rights of employees are confined to the sub-
department in which employed.
*Sec. (d-1).-Seniority rights of laborers, as such, will be restricted
to their respective gangs, except that when force is reduced laborers
affected may displace laborers junior in service on their seniority
district.
*Sec. (d-2).—Seniority rights of laborers to promotion will be re-
stricted to the territory under the jurisdiction of only one supervisor
or other corresponding officer, except that for laborers in the me-
chanical department such rights will be confined to the place where
employed.
*Sec. (e).-Seniority rights of supervisory forces in the bridge and
building department will extend over the territory under the juris-
diction of one division superintendent.
Seniority rights of supervisory forces in the track and roadway
departments will extend over the territory under the jurisdiction of
one roadmaster.
Seniority rights of supervisory forces over laborers in the mainte-
nance of equipment department will extend over the territory under
the jurisdiction of one master mechanic.
*Sec. (f).-Employees assigned to temporary service may, when
released, return to the position from which taken without loss of
seniority.
*Sec. (g).
Seniority rosters of employees of each subdepartment
by seniority districts will be separately compiled. Copies will be
furnished foremen and employees' representatives and be kept at
convenient places available for inspection by employees interested.
DECISIONS.
1035
*Sec. (h).-Seniority rosters will show the name and date of entry
of the employees into the service of the railroad, except that names
of laborers will not be included and their seniority rights will not
apply until they have been in continuous service of the railroad in
excess of six months.
*Sec. (¿).-Rosters will be revised in January of each year and
will be open to correction for a period of 60 days thereafter.
*Sec. (j).-Employees given leave of absence in writing by proper
authority of the railroad, for six months or less, will retain their
seniority. Employees failing to return before the expiration of their
leave of absence will lose their seniority rights, unless an extension
has been obtained.
*Sec. (k).—When employees laid off by reason of force reduction
desire to retain their seniority rights, they must file with the officer of
the subdepartment notifying them of the reduction, their address and
renew same each 60 days. Failure to renew the address, each 60 days
or to return to the service within 7 days after being so notified, will
forfeit all seniority rights.
*Sec. (1).-Employees temporarily transferred by direction of the
management, from one seniority district to another, will retain their
seniority rights on the district from which transferred.
*Sec. (m).-In case of change in seniority districts, a relative pro-
portion of the total employees affected will be transferred to, and
their seniority rights adjusted in, the revised districts, by the man-
agement, with a properly constituted committee representing the
employees.
*Sec. (n).—Employees accepting positions in the exercise of their
seniority rights will do so without causing extra expense to the rail-
road, except as provided in these rules.
* ARTICLE III.-PROMOTIONS.
*Sec. (a).-Promotions shall be based on ability, merit, and
seniority. Ability and merit being sufficient, seniority shall prevail;
the management to be the judge.
*Sec. (b).-In transferring employees to fill vacancies or new po-
sitions, the provisions of section (a) of this article will apply.
*Sec. (c).-Employees are entitled to promotion only on the dis-
trict and in the subdepartment over which their seniority rights pre-
vail.
*Sec. (d).-Employees declining promotion shall not lose their
seniority, except to the employee promoted and only in the next
higher rank of service.
*Sec. (e).—Employees accepting promotion and failing to qualify
within 30 days may return to their former positions.
*Sec. (f).-New positions and vacancies will be bulletined within
30 days previous to or following the dates such vacancies occur, ex-
cept that temporary vacancies need not be bulletined until the ex-
piration of 30 days from the date such vacancies occur.
*Sec. (g).-Promotions to new positions or to fill vacancies will
be made after bulletin notice has been posted for a period of 10 days.
at the headquarters of the gangs in the subdepartment of employees
entitled to consideration in filling the positions, during which time
20936°—23————66
1036
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
employees may file their applications with the official whose name
appears on the bulletin. The appointment will be made before the
expiration of 30 days from the date the bulletin is posted and the
name of the employee selected will then be announced. New posi-
tions or vacancies may be filled temporarily, pending permanent ap-
pointment.
*Sec. (h).—The general rule of promotion and seniority will not
apply to positions of track, bridge, and highway crossing watch-
men and flagmen at railway (noninterlocked) crossings, but when
practicable such positions will be filled by incapacitated employees
from any department, and preference in filling and retaining these
positions will be determined by the degree to which incapacitated
for other work, seniority in the service of the railroad, and ability to
perform the work.
ARTICLE IV.-DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCES.
Sec. (a).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (b).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (c).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (d).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (e).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (f).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (g).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (h)-No change from Decision No. 501.
ARTICLE V.-HOURS OF SERVICE, OVERTIME, AND CALLS.
Sec. (a-1).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (a-2).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (a-3).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (a-5).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (a-6).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (a-8).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (c-1).—The starting time of the work period shall be arranged
by mutual understanding between the local officers and the employees'
committee based on actual service requirements.
Employees' time will start and end at designated assembling points
for each class of employees.
Sec. (d-1).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (d-2).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (e).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (f)-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (h).-Employees whose responsibilities and/or supervisory
duties require service in excess of the working hours or days assigned
for the general force will be compensated on a monthly rate to cover
all services rendered, except that when such employees are required
to perform work which is not a part of their responsibilities or
supervisory duties, on Sundays or in excess of the established work-
ing hours, such work will be paid for on the basis provided in these
rules in addition to the monthly rate. Section foremen required to
walk or patrol track on Sundays shall be paid therefor on the basis
provided in these rules in addition to the monthly rate.
DECISIONS.
1037
Supervisory forces shall be compensated on the same overtime
basis as the men supervised when the general force is required to
work in excess of eight hours per day.
Sec. (i)-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (j).-No change from Decision No. 501.
*Sec. (k-1). Where special work not within the scope of this agree-
ment is done outside of regular work period and extra compensation
agreed upon overtime will not apply.
Sec. (k-2).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (1).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (m).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (n).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (o).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (p).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (q)-No change from Decision No. 501.
*Sec. (r).—Except as provided in these rules, no compensation
will be allowed for work not performed.
ARTICLE VI.- -GENERAL.
Sec. (a).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (b).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (c)-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (d).—No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (e).-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (f)-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (g)-No change from Decision No. 501.
Sec. (h).-No change from Decision No. 501.
*Sec. (i).-Eliminated.
*Sec. (1).-Remanded for further conference.
Sec. (m).-No change from Decision No. 501.
DISSENTING OPINION.
"Lest We Forget."-The following is quoted from the recom-
mendation of the Railroad Wage Commission, of which the late
Franklin K. Lane was chairman, transmitted to the Director Gen-
eral of Railroads under date of April 30, 1918:
HOURS OF SERVICE.
At the outset of the hearings it was manifest that the matter of hours of
service is lodged deep in labor's mind. A standard day of reasonably limited
length is as much a part of the measure of justice with the workingman as is
his rate of wage.
Slowly and steadily, by force of law somewhat, but also by the voluntary
act of the employers, a shorter workday is being put into effect. This
tendency will continue, and the shorter day will come to be regarded, not as
a means of minimizing the returns which the worker gains, but as a con-
server of the human material upon which industry rests. This matter of
work time must be submitted to the pragmatic test. Society will come to see
that there is a maximum which is beyond the Plimsoll mark of wisdom, and
a minimum that makes society in many ways the sufferer. The line of mod-
eration, the medial line, is one that must be proved by experience. The wise
employer will look with sympathetic eye to find it, and the wise employee
will attempt in good faith to make it manifest. It would be a splendid
achievement if we could at this time crystallize the experience of the world
1038
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
into a conclusion concerning the length of the workday that would be of
universal application. But this is not possible now, for many reasons, not
the least of which is an insufficiency of data touching so many and such
diverse employments which call for such differing strains upon human nerves
and muscles.
This, moreover, is not the time, in the judgment of the commission, to make
experiments which might lessen the output of that commodity which railroad
men produce-tons of freight hauled and numbers of passengers carried. The
one thing now imperative is volumé of, and speed in, railroad output. Since
the commission's work began, as before, our needs as a nation, and the vital
needs of those nations with whom we are allied, have been imperiled by the
shortcomings of our transportation system. There is no one who wishes to
risk a repetition of this condition. On the contrary, all desire that naught
shall be done which will make it likely.
The railroad employees have asked for the shorter day, saying frankly that
they did not wish an increased rate for overtime save as a means of com-
pelling the observance of shorter hours---a penalizing of the employers for
too long a workday. At this time, however, when urgent and serious neces-
sity compels sacrifice from all, to penalize the Government for working its
men as long as they have been in the habit of working under their private
employers, the railroad companies, is to take advantage of the twofold em-
barrassment of the Government-its need for the work and its inability to
call in outside men. The commmission does not believe that the railroad
employees really want thus to hamper the transportation facilities of the
country in its hour of need.
Manifestly, therefore, at this time, when men must be constantly taken from
the railroads, as from all other industries, to fill the growing needs of the Na-
tion's army, hours of labor can not be shortened and thereby a greater number of
men be required for railroad work. The Nation can not in good faith call
upon the farmers and the miners to work as never before and press themselves
to unusual tasks, and at the same time so shorten the hours of railroad men
as to call from farm and mine additional and unskilled men to run the rail-
roads. While the commission is strongly disposed to a standard day, in so
far as the nature of the service will permit it, its firm judgment consequently
is that the existing hours of service in effect on the railroads should be main-
tained for the period of the war.
But with this we earnestly urge that a most exhaustive study be made of this
matter of hours of service, not with a view to the adoption of some arbitrary
and universal policy which shall have no regard to the kind of work done or
to the effect upon the railroad service but with these very considerations in
mind. And we have gone into this matter far enough to justify to ourselves
the belief that by the steady application of such sympathetic consideration, the
railroad service may be improved and at the same time fuller opportunity
be given for lifting a burden that falls disproportionately upon some of the
less favored of the railroad workers. The foundation for such a study may
be found in the charts constituting Appendix VII of this report.
OVERTIME PAY.
Closely allied to the matter of hours of service is that of extra pay for over-
time. In fact, the whole theory of those who speak for labor is that extra pay
for overtime is the logical way to force the standard day of reasonable hours
with no work thereafter. In that theory there may or may not be force; but
quite apart from such view, certain it is that in harmony with the broader idea
that fair hours of rest and recreation are the laborer's right, the use of those
hours in industry may well be obtained only at a wage much above the normal.
With overtime as with hours of service, however, the commission believes that
the existing rules and conditions of payment should not be disturbed during
the period of the war. But the time when the study of the matter of hours of
service is made, that study must sympathetically cover also the broad and
kindred field of compensation for the overtime which is necessary in certain
classes of service.
On December 15, 1919, over one year after the signing of the
armistice, the United States Railroad Administration granted the
maintenance-of-way employees overtime payments at the rate of
time and one-half after the eighth hour.
DECISIONS.
1039
Decision No. 501.-Effective December 16, 1921, the Labor Board
issued its Decision No. 501, rules governing working conditions. In
this decision the majority of the board denied the employees' request
for punitive overtime payments for service rendered on Sundays and
seven designated holidays, and in addition thereto promulgated a
rule establishing pro rata payment for the ninth and tenth hours
when worked continuous with the regular work periods.
The present decision continues in effect the pro rata rate of pay
for Sundays and the seven designated holdiays and for the ninth
and tenth hours of continuous service.
Since the promulgation of Decision No. 501 every argument ad-
vanced by the employees regarding the necessity of a punitive rate
for time worked in excess of eight hours as a means to insure the
workers the benefits accruing under the eight-hour day has been
justified by the action of the carriers, who have quite generally
required substantial numbers of these employees to work nine or ten
hours per day.
The majority, in denying these employees punitive overtime rates
for Sundays and the seven designated holidays and for service ren-
dered in excess of eight hours, are at variance with the trend of
modern thought. Wise employers have quite generally recognized
the justice of the workers' plea. The Federal, State, and Municipal
Governments have almost uniformly recognized the principle of
punitive payment for this overtime. Tribunals and boards of arbi-
tration created and selected to pass upon this question are to be
included in the long list, and society generally indorses this principle.
The exception. There is one notable exception, however, and that
is the tribunal created by an act of Congress, obligated under oath to
establish "just and reasonable" rates of pay and rules governing
working conditions for railroad employees.
Railroad labor, notwithstanding the misstatements emanating from
the paid propagandists in the employ of the so-called "hard-boiled "
group of carriers, does not seek preferential treatment but does
demand and has the right to expect fair and impartial consideration.
That much and more they are entitled to.
Discontent and unrest among railroad employees. Of course there
is discontent and unrest among railroad employees, when an ex-
amination of the decisions of this board will disclose that there has
been but one decision issued during its existence that represented any
betterment of their conditions of employment, and that decision
(Decision No. 2, increasing wage rates, effective May 1, 1920) did
not give consideration to the increase in the cost of living by 16 per
cent, primarily due to the fact that the information was not avail-
able until a date subsequent to the findings of the board; but the
employees never benefited from that fact in any subsequent decision
of the board. This statement must not be construed to mean that
the board has not rendered decisions sustaining employees in many
of the disputes filed for decision; it does mean that all other decisions
rendered represented no improvement over conditions which had
been previously established by and through the various organizations
representing employees or were less favorable than the rules of
existing contracts provided.
A. O. WHARTON.
1040
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The dissenting opinion is directed at two of the rules adopted by
a majority of the Labor Board:
First, that providing the pro rata rate of pay for overtime beyond
the eighth hour; and
Second, that providing the pro rata rate of pay for Sunday and
holiday work-full period.
With the second-mentioned rule I am not fully satisfied, and I
therefore did not vote for it. It is, however, as to the rate, identical
with the corresponding rule in the national agreement. The rules
for railway employees promulgated by the Federal Government dur-
ing the war period of Government control are usually pointed to as
the acme of industrial justice. Certainly, they represent the high-
water mark of liberal concession to the demands of the employees,
and yet none of these national agreements contained a rule for the
time-and-one-half rate for Sundays and holidays, except the rules of
the shop crafts and signalmen. This time-and-one-half Sunday
rule, in a modified form, has been retained by the Labor Board for
the shop crafts.
I believe that the principle embraced in the Sunday rule of the
shop crafts, as set out in Decision No. 222-namely, that time and
one-half should be paid for Sunday work, except such work as is
unavoidably and regularly performed on Sundays, and which is abso-
lutely essential to the continuous operation of the railroads-should
obtain in the case of the maintenance of way employees.
To this partial extent I concur in the dissenting opinion, but not
altogether in the argument advanced in its support by my associate.
The statement in his dissenting opinion to the effect that there is
discontent among railroad employees because they have not retained
under the decisions of the Labor Board everything of rules and wages
that they obtained during Government control is not impressive.
Practically nobody else in this country has succeeded in maintaining
the prices and conditions of work and business built up during the
stress of that abnormal period. Railroad labor and its representa-
tives could well afford to mingle with their regrets over the compara-
tively little they have lost a large degree of self-congratulation over
the great advances they have retained. In view of the sufferings
and losses of the farmers and producers of the country, from which
railroad labor has been largely exempt, the railway employees could
consistently subdue their unrest and devote their enthusiastic exer-
tions to the efficient service of the people who are paying for it.
It must also be remembered that many of the carriers have not
been pleased with the decisions of the Labor Board. Some of the
most important decisions that have ever been rendered by the board
were favorable to the employees; for example, the Pennsylvania
case and the contract cases, in both of which the Department of Jus-
tice at Washington is defending the rights of the employees on up
to the Supreme Court.
When the constituted authorities are being criticized for denying
some of the contentions of a given class of citizens, it would be
refreshing to make occasional mention of the fact that the same
DECISIONS.
1041
authorities have been equally as zealous in upholding the rights of
that class. A degree of fairness along this line would obviate class
hatreds, allay unrest, and strengthen loyal patriotism.
BEN W. HOOPER.
DECISION NO. 1451.-DOCKET 591.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chi-
cago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Question.-Claim for continuous time for swing brakemen on
trains Nos. 82 and 83, between Worthington, Minn., and Sioux Falls,
S. Dak.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Passenger trains Nos. 82 and 83 operate daily between
Mitchell, S. Dak., and Worthington, Minn., a distance of 134 miles. Train No.
82 leaves Mitchell with a train crew consisting of one conductor and one brake-
man; upon arriving at Sioux Falls, an intermediate station, a second brake-
man is placed upon the train and remains with such train to the terminal,
Worthington, arriving at that station at 12.45 a. m., being relieved at 1.30 a. m.;
he resumes work on train No. 83 at Worthington at 5.30 a. m., and is relieved
at Sioux Falls at 7.45 a. m. The mileage, Sioux Falls to Worthington, 62 miles.
This swing brakeman is paid under the 8-within-10-hour short turn-around
passenger rules.
Employees' position.-The employees contend that this brakeman is not as-
signed to short turn-around passenger runs, in view of the fact that the trains
upon which he works cover a straightaway trip of 134 miles. Consequently,
such brakeman is entitled to continuous time from the time required to report
for duty for train No. 82 until relieved at Sioux Falls when he is released from
duty on train No. 83.
Carrier's position.-Trains Nos. 82 and 83 are regularly scheduled passenger
trains running between Worthington and Mitchell, through Sioux Falls, a dis-
tance of approximately 134 miles. The work on these trains is such that
only one brakeman is required between Sioux Falls and Mitchell, but for a
number of years it has been considered desirable to use a second brakeman
between Sioux Falls and Worthington. This second brakeman, or swing brake-
man, goes on duty at Sioux Falls at 9.45 p. m., and after having served as
second brakeman on train No. 82 to Worthington, a distance of approximately
62 miles, he is relieved for a period of two hours; he again goes on duty for
the return trip of train No. 83, and is relieved at Sioux Falls at 7.45 a. m.,
after having made a total of approximately 124 miles, for which he is allowed
150. This swing brakeman, on account of the nature of the run, works under
two conductors, and the position has been paid for under the short turn-around
rule covered by Article III of Supplement No. 25 to General Order No. 27.
When putting this position into service on September 4, 1919, Bulletin 298
was issued to all concerned, reading as follows:
"Position of a swing brakeman on trains Nos. 82 and 83, between Sioux
Falls and Worthington, is hereby bulletined.
"This man to report for No. 82 at Sioux Falls on the arrival of the train
there, work to Worthington and back, and remain on duty at Sioux Falls until
the work on No. 83 has been completed and train is ready to go, when he will
tie up.
"This brakeman will be excused two hours at Worthington between the
arrival of No. 82 and the departure of No. 83.
"Application for this position will be received at the office of the assistant
superintendent for a period of five days from date."
We contend that this position is properly provided for in accordance with
the short turnaround passenger rules in Supplement 25 to General Order No. 27.
Decision. The claim is denied.
1042
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1452.—DOCKET 595.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chi-
cago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Question.-Protest of yardmen employed in the Chicago, St. Paui,
Minneapolis & Omaha Railway yards at Minneapolis, Minn., against
the practice of using the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Railway yard crews in the transfer service between Minneapolis
yard and Minnesota Transfer.
Statement.-Under a long-established practice, transfer engines
and crews handling business between the Twin Cities have in addi-
tion performed the handling of business to and from Minnesota
Transfer, an intermediate point.
If the request of the employees were granted and a transfer crew
which would handle a train from St. Paul to Minnesota Transfer
would be required to run light from Minnesota Transfer to Minne-
apolis, instead of handling a train between those points, it would be
an economic waste.
Decision. The request is denied.
DECISION NO. 1453.-DOCKET 612.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.
Question.-Claim of J. S. Frampton, engineer, and D. S. Haskins,
fireman, for continuous time, July 6 and 7, 1920.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Carrier's statement of fact.-Engineer Frampton and Fireman Haskins bid
in run covered by Bulletin No. 3339, reading as follows:
BULLETIN NO. 3339.
"For one engineer, one fireman, log run between Beaumont and Rockland-
six days per week. New run.
"Posted June 18, 1920; expires June 26, 1920."
The through-freight division on this district extends from Beaumont to Jack-
sonville, a distance of 172.1 miles. The local district extends from Beaumont
to Rockland, a distance of 73.8 miles, and from Rockland to Jacksonville, a
distance of 98.3 miles.
This engineer and fireman left Beaumont at 2.40 p. m. on July 6, arriving
at Rockland at 10.05 p. m., and were released at 10.25 p. m. On arrival at
Rockland the crew was instructed to leave the engine at Rockland and dead-
head to Beaumont on first train, which was No. 168, due to leave Rockland at
3.25 a. m. on the morning of July 7. This arrangement was made on account
of the local engine having been taken to move a passenger train, necessitating
leaving the log-run engine at Rockland for the local operating between Rockland
and Beaumont.
Engineer Frampton and Fireman Haskins did not deadhead from Rockland
to Beaumont, as instructed, but left that point deadhead to Beaumont on local
freight train No. 160, which left Rockland at 630 a. m. on the morning of the
7th, arriving in Beaumont on the afternoon of the same date.
When Engineer Frampton and Fireman Haskins arrived at Beaumont they
were advised that the log run was discontinued, and Engineer Frampton took
a position on the Port Arthur local on July 8, and on the same date Fireman
Haskins took switch-engine fireman's position in the Beaumont yard.
DECISIONS.
1043
Under the schedules in effect on these lines, deadhead time for engineers and
firemen is paid separate from all other time. In other words, under the prac-
tices it is not permissible to combine deadhead time with service time. The
deadhead rule reads as follows:
' Engineers' schedule, Article XV.-Engineers deadheading over the road in
the service of the company to take a certain engine or run in any service shall
be paid for 75 miles or less, $3.88; more than 75 miles and less than 200 miles,
$6.93; 200 miles or more, at the rate of 3.47 cents per mile; but in no case
shall less than one day's pay at $7.46 be allowed when no other service is per-
formed.
'Firemen's schedule, Article XIII.-Firemen deadheading over the road in
the service of the company on passenger train to take a certain engine or run
in any service shall be paid for 75 miles or less, $3.07; more than 75 miles and
less than 200 miles, $4.78; 200 miles or more, at the rate of 2.39 cents per mile;
but in no case shall less than 200 miles be allowed when no other service is per-
formed."
For the service trip on July 6 Engineer Frampton was allowed $7.72, and for
the deadhead trip on the 7th, $7.46, amounting to $15.18 for 7 hours and 25
minutes' service.
The fireman was allowed for the service trip on the 6th, $5.68, and for the
deadhead trip on the 7th, $4.78, or a total of $10.46.
Employees' position.-The following stations are terminals for locals only:
(1) Rockland for trains running between Jacksonville and Rockland and
Beaumont and Rockland.
The above rule, while not appearing in the engineers' agreement, has been
understood and applied, and time claims have been allowed to both engineers
and firemen exactly alike.
It is the employees' position that no rule in the agreement gave the com-
pany the right to tie up crew at any intermediate point at their will or con-
venience and consider that such point became a terminal for that especial
occasion and for that particular crew. It is the employees' contention that the
trip was a turnaround trip from Beaumont to Rockland and return, and in
so far as the crew is concerned there was no complication whatever.
It was
not through any action of theirs that the passenger engine became disabled.
It was through no adjustment of theirs that they lost their engine, and they
certainly were not tied up under the hours-of-service law, and should not,
as we view it, be forced to lose their time or permit the combining of dead-
head with other time when not tied up under the law.
Rockland was an intermediate point for this crew. Under the above-quoted
rules and established practices thereunder, engineers and firemen have in the
past been allowed continuous time, as is claimed in this instance.
Carrier's position.-The carrier holds that the time as allowed Engineer
Frampton and Firemen Haskins is in accordance with the contract and past
practice on these lines. In support of this statement that the payment allowed
in this case is in accordance with past practice, the company attached as
Exhibit A a copy of decision from Railway Adjustment Board No. 1 in Case
No. 1505, which is an identical case with the one in question; also copy of letter
dated June 28, 1920, from General Chairmen Young and Barr agreeing that
the evidence in possession of the company supports its contention.
Decision.-Under the rules in effect, J. S. Frampton, engineer, and
D. S. Haskins, fireman, were properly compensated. The claim is
denied.
DECISION NO. 1454.-DOCKET 639.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Maine Central Railroad Co.
Question. Claim that overtime rate (three-sixteenths the daily
rate) should be paid engineers and firemen tied up between termi-
nals, not under the 16-hour law, for all time over eight hours.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
1044
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Joint statement of facts.-Train No. 376, regularly assigned freight run,
Thompsons Point to Lancaster, distance 111 miles.
On March 5, 1920, crew reported at Thompsons Point at 9 p. m., leaving at
10 p. m., and owing to severe snowslides were stalled in White Mountains at
Willey House, 80 miles from Thompsons Point, at 6.30 a. m., March 6. The
extremely heavy snowfall made it impossible to get snowplow or relief train
to them and at 9.05 a. m., March 6, crew was notified that train would be
protected in both directions until further notice. Crew relieved engineer and
fireman alternately in taking care of engine during the snowbound period,
which was 48 hours. Train was then run through to Lancaster, that
being its destination, and crew was on duty six hours from time of beginning of
the continuation of the trip until reaching Lancaster, making total lapse time
between terminals of 65 hours.
Employees' position.—Employees contend that all time in excess of eight
hours should be paid for at three-sixteenths of the daily rate, as provided in
Article VII of Supplement No. 24 to General Order No. 27, their contention
being based on the fact that they were not tied up under the hours-of-service
law; that their schedule rule provides, "If the company ties up an engineer
or fireman between terminals for any reason under 14 hours, continuous time
would apply under the schedule for all time tied up;" and that their claim
is substantiated by the answer to question No. 15 of Interpretation No. 2
to Supplement No. 24 to General Order No. 27.
Carrier's position.-That payment of crew is governed by section (a), Ar-
ticle XLIV of enginemen's schedule, and section (a), Article XLII of fire-
men's schedule, both effective January 26, 1920, reading as follows:
66
Employees in train service will not be tied up unless it is apparent the
trip can not be completed within the lawful time, and not then until after
the expiration of 14 hours on duty under the Federal Law or within two
hours of the time limit provided by State laws, if State law governs.
Example: If the company ties up an engineer between terminals for
any reason under 14 hours, continuous time would apply under the schedule
for all time tied up. If tied up between 14 hours and 16 hours, will be con-
sidered as having been tied up under the application of this 16-hour law, and
8 or 10 hours, as may be required, will be deducted."
The carrier contends, in the case in question, that for a man tied up in less
than 14 hours, continuous time should be allowed under the rule at pro rata
rate during the period of tie-up, any overtime accruing before time tied up
to be paid at three-sixteenths of the daily rate; that elapsed time after tied
up until again resuming duty is not overtime and could not be paid at over-
time rate under Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27; that the rate of
three-sixteenths of the daily rate applies only to time actually on duty in excess
of eight hours or its equivalent; and that this follows the principle of Article
VIII, Supplement 24 to General Order No. 27, "Held away from home termi-
nal," which plainly states that engine crews on rest will be paid pro rata
time.
In this instance, crew was on rest from time tied up after 11 hours' service
until again resuming duty.
Crew should be paid in this instance a minimum day of eight hours, three
hours' overtime at three-sixteenths of the daily rate, and thereafter pro rata
rate for all time tied up and released from duty with minimum allowance of
eight hours at pro rata rate plus overtime at three-sixteenths of the daily
rate for such time as on duty in care of engines during period train is tied
up, six hours pro rata time completing trip to Lancaster after full period of
rest immediately previous.
Decision. Claim of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1455.-DOCKET 665.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Order of Railway Conductors; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen v. Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railroad Co.
Question.-Request for the reinstatement of J. M. Thompson, con-
ductor, with pay for all time lost.
DECISIONS.
1045
Statement.-Mr. Thompson was dismissed on November 5, 1920,
for refusing to fill a vacancy in the yard, created by a switchman
who left the service on account of carrier reducing the hours of
service.
Decision. The parties at interest agreed to withdraw this case.
The docket is therefore closed.
DECISION NO. 1456.-DOCKET 694.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question. Request for reinstatement of George Belton at Havre,
Mont., with pay at his regular rate for all time lost since date of his
dismissal, November 21, 1920.
Decision. The evidence in this case shows that Mr. Belton was a
general yardmaster, an officer of the railroad, and not under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board.
The case is therefore dismissed.
DECISION NO. 1457.-DOCKET 695.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of engineers for pay for time after engine is
placed on designated tracks.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Controversy as to whether or not enginemen are entitled
to compensation for service performed after engine is placed on designated
track, when engineer is required by the carrier to look his engine over, or make
out reports, and fireman is required to take down classification signals, markers,
or perform other work on locomotive.
Employees' position.-The award of April 30, 1915, engineers and firemen for
the western territory, provided, under Article V, the following:
66
Beginning and ending of a day.In all classes of road service, an engineer's
or fireman's time will commence at the time he is required to report for duty,
and will conclude at the time the engine is placed on the designated track or
relieved by hostler at terminal."
Subsequent to the effective date, May 11, 1915, numerous questions were
asked of the Board of Arbitration, and under date of January 21, 1916, a ques-
tion was asked the board which is charged to the Canadian Pacific Railway
and listed as question No. 270 on page 36, reading:
Question. In accepting the awarded final terminal delay rule, will time be
computed from the time engine reaches designated switch or terminal station
until crew has inspected engine and reported in, on roundhouse register when
they are required to do this work?
CC
Ansicer.-Engineers and firemen should be notified at what time they shall
report for duty. If engineers and firemen are to be released at designated
track, such track must be specified. In any event they must be paid until they
are released."
When the men on this railroad were made familiar with question No. 270
they began claiming time for all work required of them, including making out
1046
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
the engineers' work report after the engine reached the designated track. The
claims were made under the last line of the answer to question No. 270, reading:
In any event they must be paid until they are released."
No protest was made by the officials of the carrier, notwithstanding the fact
that prior to the award of 1915 and the question and answer quoted above
schedules for enginemen contained no provision that would warrant them claim-
ing time for such service.
Under date of August 21, 1919, Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15 to
General Order No. 27 was issued, which contained on page 16 question No. 78,
reading:
Question.-Does this rule contemplate including in the time on duty time
occupied in examining engines and making out work reports at final terminal?
“Decision.-Schedule rules or practices will govern."
Because of the answer that "Schedule rules or practices will govern," and
the fact that since the information contained in the rulings of the Arbitration
Board dated January 21, 1916, had reached the men, and practice of claiming
time for the service in question had been established, they considered that the
answer fitted their case perfectly and that they were not affected, and continued
to claim time for inspecting engines and making out work reports as therc-
tofore.
Under date of September 7, 1920, D. M. McLauchlan, master mechanic of
the Portland division, addressed all roundhouse foremen under his jurisdiction
as follows:
"I have the following from superintendent, quoting from general time
inspector:
"Rule 4 on back of Form 5585, daily report of engines arriving, fueling,
and departing, reads: "4.-Correct record must be kept by the engine herder
or other designated party of exact time engines arrive at the regular desig-
nated point, and such arriving time should be shown in column No. 4."
We are informed that no record is kept by "engine herder or other des-
ignated party"; to the contrary, the time shown on Form No. 5585 is that
recorded by engineer on roundhouse register. An investigation of this matter
discloses that engineers are including in this time the time expended in making
out reports and inspecting engines. This means that possibly every engine
crew on the Portland division is claiming 10 to 15 minutes more time every
day than is due under current wage schedule, which, if true, constitutes an
overpayment running into the thousands of dollars; and I believe you will
want to rectify it at once.
C6
"Please issue instructions as will correct this erroneous practice and let me
have copy of such instructions.
"Please see that the instructions as contained in Mr. Mercier's letter are
carried out, or, if they can not be taken care of, advise me fully so conditions
can be taken up with the superintendent.'
'Give this letter your personal attention as it is important."
Under date of September 23, 1920, the chairman took up with Mr. McIntyre,
assistant to the general manager, the question of instructions issued by
Master Mechanic McLauchlan, which had been called to their attention by
the chairman of the Portland division, and protested Mr. McLauchlan's
bulletin.
Under date of October 6, 1920, Mr. McIntyre replied, quoting the article
in question governing the beginning and ending of a day, as well as quoting
question No. 78 and its answer, set out in Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement
15 to General Order No. 27, and advised that it had not been the practice to
compensate engineers for making out necessary reports, etc., and held that
there should be no change in the practice.
Mr. McIntyre's statement that it had not been the practice to pay enginemen
for inspecting engines, making out reports, etc., after the decision of the
Arbitration Board dated January 21, 1916, is a statement unworthy of con-
sideration, as the men claimed the time and the carrier admits same, as is
evidenced by the letter of the superintendent to Master Mechanic McLauchlan,
in which he states:
"An investigation of the matter discloses that engineers are including in this
time the time expended in making out reports and inspecting engines.
"This means that possibly every engine crew on the Portland division is
claiming 10 to 15 minutes more time every day than is due under current
wage schedule, which, if true, constitutes an overpayment running into the
thousands of dollars, and I believe you will want to rectify it at once."
DECISIONS.
1047
We look upon the carrier's denial of this question as being an attempt to
deprive the enginemen on the Southern Pacific lines of compensation under a
well-established practice, which practice is perpetuated under Supplement 15
to General Order No. 27.
We ask that the interpretation the employees placed on Article V of the en-
gineers' agreement and Article 1 of the firemen's agreement, which articles
are Article V of the award of April 30, 1915, "Beginning and ending of a day,"
and which interpretation is based upon question No. 270 and answer thereto
of the rulings of the Arbitration Board, dated January 21, 1916, be perpetuated.
Carrier's position.- Representatives of organizations claim that enginemen's
time continues on arrival at terminal, after engine has been placed on desig-
nated track, to include time making out reports, inspecting engines, etc.. The
carrier claims that past practice should not be changed, and time of enginemen
should not be extended as claimed by organizations.
It has not been the practice under Article V of the engineers' agreement and
Article 1 of the firemen's agreement, to continue time of enginemen beyond
the time the engine is placed on the designated track, and to change this prac-
tice would open up an avenue for controversy and abuses which under present
methods of applying these articles are obviated.
This same question was up before the United States Railroad Administra-
tion—namely, question and decision No. 78, Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement
No. 15-amplifying Article XI, Beginning and ending of a day," which is
identical with the above-quoted article, and reads as follows:
66
Question 78.-Does this rule contemplate including in the time on duty
time occupied in examining engine and making out work reports at final ter-
minal?
“Decision.-Schedule rules or practices will govern."
As stated above, it has not been the practice in the past on Southern Pacific
lines to compensate enginemen for making out necessary reports, etc., and we do
not consider there should be any change in this practice.
The board's attention is called to Decision No. 11, issued by the United States
Railroad Labor Board. This exhibit deals with same principle as that reflected
in this case, and decision of the board substantiates the position taken by the
carrier.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that no change shall be made
at this time in the existing rules or working conditions that now
obtain in the case presented.
DECISION NO. 1458.-DOCKET 696.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of J. E. Peterson, engineer, and E. A. Shoupe,
fireman, for 100 miles for turn-around trip made prior to regu-
lar call.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Controversy as to compensation for engine crew called
to report for duty at 10.30 p. m., to leave at 11 p. m. on extra No. 2778 west,
but at 11.45 p. m. were ordered to take switch engine and run to Nutglade, a
distance of approximately 2 miles, and bring in extra No. 4010, the crew of
which had been disqualified under the hours-of-service law. Crew departed on
extra No. 2778 west at 1.27 a. m. May 1.
Crew was allowed initial switching for movements before leaving Duns-
muir on straight-away trip, and miles or hours, whichever was greater, Duns-
muir to Gerber, distance 109 miles.
Claim was made for 100 miles for the service Dunsmuir to Nutglade and
return, and new trip, miles or hours, whichever greater, with a minimum of 100
miles, for the trip beginning at 1.27 a. m. May 1. Claim was made under sec-
tion 3(a) of Article VI and section 1, Article XIII of engineer's agreement,
and sections 1 and 2, Article II, of the firemen's agreement, reading:
1048
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Engineers' agreement, Article VI, section 3 (a).-An engineer making an
irregular turn-around trip in freight service, turning between terminals and
returning to starting point on runs 100 miles or less, eight hours or less, 100
miles will be allowed and overtime will begin at the expiration of eight hours.
On runs of over 100 miles, overtime will begin when the time on duty exceeds
the miles run divided by 123. Overtime shall be paid for on the minute basis,
at an hourly rate of three-sixteenths of the daily rate, according to class of
engine or other power used.
Engineers' agreement, Article XIII, section 1.—An engineer is understood
to have reached the terminal of a trip when he reaches the division terminal
at which engine crews are usually changed, or arrives at the established ter-
minal of his train, as shown by assignment, and having done so and proceed-
ing further with the same train, or being sent out on another trip or train, he
is, in either case, understood to have begun another trip.
Firemen's agreement, Article II, section 1.—In passenger or freight service
a fireman has reached the end of a trip when he reaches the division or dis-
trict terminal at which engine crews are usually changed, or arrives at the
established terminal of his train, as shown by his assignment, and having
done so his trip will be completed and he will take his place on the board in
accordance with the rules governing the running of firemen in such service.
Should he proceed further with the same train or be sent out on another train,
he will in either case, begin another trip.
Firemen's agreement, Article II, section 2.-On a turnaround trip (where
fireman is turned back at an intermediate point) the starting point will be
the terminal as well, except as provided for in section 3, this article."
Employees' position.—Engineer Peterson and Fireman Shoupe, assigned to
pooled freight service between Dunsmuir and Gerber, were, on April 30, 1920,
called to report for duty at 10.30 p. m., to leave at 11 p. m., on extra No. 2778
west. At 11.45 p. m. this crew was ordered to take switch engine and run to
Nutglade, a distance of approximately 2 miles, and bring in extra No. 4010, the
crew of which had been disqualified under the hours-of-service law.
Upon arrival at Dunsmuir this crew was ordered to leave Dunsmuir on
extra No. 2778 west, departing at 1.27 a. m., May 1.
For this service the crew claimed 100 miles account first call being annulled,
100 miles for the trip Dunsmuir to Nutglade and return, and miles or hours,
whichever greater, for the trip Dunsmuir to Gerber.
To this claim local committee added a runaround account this crew being
used on extra No. 2778 west at 1.27 a. m., May 1.
Original claim amended by general chairman to provide 100 miles for the
first trip, turnaround Dunsmuir to Nutglade and return, and miles or hours,
whichever greater, for the second trip Dunsmuir to Gerber, and a runaround
for the pooled engineer and fireman standing first out at 1.27 a. m., May 1,
1920, at which time this crew left Dunsmuir in service said engineer and fire-
man were entitled to perform, as upon reaching the designated main track
switch leading into the yard the road portion of the turnaround trip was
completed and the crew should have been placed at the foot of the pooled list,
and the engineer and fireman standing first out on the pooled list called for
the service on extra No. 2778 west.
Section 1. Article XIII of the engineers' agreement, and section 1, Article
II of the firemen's agreement, describe the completion of a trip and the
manner in which men completing same shall begin new trip, as well as the
fact that they shall take their proper place on board. (See sec. 1, Art. XIII
of the engineers' agreement and secs. 1 and 2, Art. II of the firemen's agree-
ment, quoted in the joint statement of facts.)
The carrier disallowed the claim, employing the following language:
"For this service crew should be compensated on continuous time basis
from 10.30 p. m., April 30 to 10.25 a. m., May 1, as crew was not released from
duty at Dunsmuir, but was in continuous service.”
We feel confident the rules quoted and the fact that road time stops and final
terminal delay begins when the locomotive reaches the designated main track
switch leading into the yard, that it is wholly unnecessary for the company to
release the man as he automatically completes his road trip at said desig-
nated switch and, with the exception of the service the company may require of
him at the terminal after his arrival at said switch and for which he will be
compensated either as switching or final terminal delay until engine is placed
on designated track, he can not be used again except under the first-in-first-out
rules.
DECISIONS.
1049
Therefore, having completed a trip when they reached the designated switch
at Dunsmuir on the last leg of the Dunsmuir-Nutglade-Dunsmuir turnaround
this crew was entitled to a minimum of 100 miles for said turnaround, and hav-
ing been ordered to leave on extra No. 2778 west, a separate and distinct trip
from the turnaround, his claim for miles or hours, whichever greater, Dunsmuir
to Gerber should be conceded.
As the service Dunsmuir to Gerber performed by Mr. Peterson and Mr.
Shoupe should have been performed by the engineer and fireman standing
first out on the respective boards a runaround should be allowed said men as
the rules so provide.
Therefore we ask (1) that 100 miles be allowed Mr. Peterson and Mr. Shoupe
for the turnaround trip Dunsmuir to Nutglade and return.
(2) That Mr. Peterson and Mr. Shoupe be allowed miles or hours, whichever
greater, for the trip Dunsmuir to Gerber.
(3) That the engineer and fireman standing first out at 1.27 a. m., May 1,
1920, at which time Mr. Peterson and Mr. Shoupe left Dunsmuir on extra No.
2778 west, be allowed a runaround under the provisions of the separate
schedules.
Carrier's position.-On April 30, 1920, J. E. Peterson, engineer, and F. A.
Shoupe, fireman, Shasta division, assigned to pool freight service between
Dunsmuir and Gerber, were called for extra west at Dunsmuir for 11 p. m.,
reported for duty at 10.30 p. m. At 11.45 p. m. they were instructed to take
switch engine and proceed to Nutglade (point inside of Dunsmuir yard) to
relieve crew on extra east No. 4010 (crew on which had tied up under hours-
of-service law) consuming from 11.45 p. m. until 12.20 a. m., or a total of 35
minutes, and proceeded on trip, leaving Dunsmuir at 1.27 a. m.
For this service Engineer Peterson and Fireman Shoupe claim one day in
addition to straightaway trip. They were allowed initial switching for yard
movements in addition to straightaway trip.
Section 3 (a), Article VI of engineers' agreement, quoted above, deals with
irregular turn-around trip in freight service, turning between terminals and
returning to starting point. The relieving of crew tied up under the hours-of-
service law in this case was all performed within the confines of Dunsmuir
yard limits, and is not a turning point as contemplated in above-quoted sections.
These sections have no bearing on case in question, and the carrier contends
that terminal switching allowed crew prior to departure on trip to Gerber, for
service performed in Dunsmuir yard, as provided in section 5, Article XV, of
engineers' agreement and Article XVII of the firemen's agreement, is proper
compensation and leaves no grounds for claiming one additional day.
Decision. From the evidence submitted the compensation received
by the crew was just and reasonable. The claim of the employees is
therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1459.-DOCKET 697.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of M. Evans, fireman, for continuous time, Sep-
tember 6, 1920.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Involves controversy concerning compensation for Fire-
man Evans who was assigned to regular trains and taken off his regular run
and used to fire locomotive towing a gasoline motor car.
Employees' _position.-Fireman Evans was assigned to trains Nos. 141 and
142 between Portland and Tillamook. Upon arrival at Tillamook on Septem-
ber 6, 1920, on train No. 141, he received orders to fire engine No. 1395, which
engine was used to tow a gasoline motor car to Mohler and return to Wheeler,
where he would be relieved by Fireman McQuaid, when he (Mr. Evans) would
deadhead to Tillamock on train No. 143.
Fireman McQuaid, who was deadheading on train No. 143 to relieve Mr.
Evans, had no instructions; the train Mr. Evans was firing was late, and, it
1050
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
being dark, he did not see Mr. McQuaid; Mr. McQuaid not knowing he
was to relieve Mr. Evans, did not look for him. As Mr. Evans had not com-
pleted the service required of him, and not being relieved could not deadhead
to Tillamook on train No. 143, he was compelled to remain at Wheeler until
the next morning, September 7, when he was deadheading Wheeler to Miami
on train No. 145 where train No. 142 was met, and he was placed on his own
run (142) which he fired into Portland.
Mr. Evans claimed continuous time from the time he left Tillamook until
he reached Portland under the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of Article II, for
the reason that he did not reach his own or a district terminal from the time
he left Tillamook, his terminal by assignment, at 5.35 p. m., September 6, until
he reached Portland on train No. 142 on September 7.
Under date of September 14 the superintendent wrote Mr. Evans:
""
Referring to your claim, dated September 6, for 192 road miles, account used
in emergency in service outside of your assignment:
"We are cancelling your claim and making the following allowance:
For service performed with engineer Hensley, 100 road miles. Continuous
time at Wheeler not allowed account used on assignment which terminates at
that station.
"For service of September 7, you will be allowed 124 miles at passenger rates.
This covers the mileage deadheading Wheeler to Miami and service performed
with Engineer Williams, Miami to Portland.
"Section 15, XXXVII of the firemen's agreement provides for how a fire-
man assigned to a regular run and at the instance of the company called for
other service shall be paid. The amount earned by you by performing the
service outside of your assignment coupled with the amount paid you for that
portion of your assignment you worked, figures quite a bit more than you
would have earned had you not been called for the emergency trip; therefore,
allowance as made strictly conforms with section 15 of Article XXXVII.”
It will be noted (1) that the continuous time claim was disallowed.
(2) That 100 miles was allowed for the service Tillamook to Mohler and
return to Wheeler. (If there had been a fireman assigned to this run Mr.
Evans would have been paid on same basis as would the fireman assigned have
been paid, and this allowance of 100 miles would have been correct.)
(3) That for the deadhead Wheeler to Miami and service Miami to Port-
land on the 7th, 124 miles was allowed, same being miles deadheaded and
worked. (If a fireman had been assigned to this run and his terminal was
Wheeler, then Mr. Evans would have conformed to the conditions of said
assigned man and time he laid at Wheeler would have been deducted and the
allowance of 124 miles would have been proper, as under Article XII the
deadhead and road service could have been combined.)
(4) That the superintendent sought to convince Fireman Evans that he
had been properly compensated, as he had earned more than he would have
earned had he remained at Tillamook, citing section 15 of Article XXXVII as
authority for his statement.
Article XXXVII, section 15 reads as follows:
"A fireman assigned to a regular run and, at the instance of the company,
called for other service, thus causing him to miss his regular run, will be paid
for such other service not less than he would have earned had he been sent
out in turn in the service to which assigned. This not to include overtime.”
Under the rule quoted it should be clear that same was negotiated for the
express purpose of guaranteeing the man used against loss and that the
schedule provisions would be complied with in making allowances for all serv-
ice, and should the allowance for the outside service not equal the amount he
would have received had he performed work on his regular assignment, he
would be compensated in the difference. That should the compensation for
the unusual service, computed on the basis of the rules in effect, exceed the
amount he would have earned for service on his assignment, said compensation
would have obviated the necessity for payment under section 15 of Article
XXXVII.
Superintendent Mercier would have Mr. Evans believe that the rule only
provided compensation the equivalent of what his own run would have paid
and that, regardless of the manner in which compensation for the unusual
service was computed, he had no kick coming as long as he drew as much
money at the end of the month as he would have drawn had he remained on
his own run and performed no extra or additional service.
DECISIONS.
1051
When the case was appealed to the general officials they took the following
position:
"The run on which Fireman Evans was used out of Tillamook was an estab-
lished run, with terminals and other conditions pertaining to regular service,
and although motor service does not require the service of a fireman, the fact
remains that it was a regularly established run and Fireman Evans was used to
fill vacancy caused by necessity of using steam power to relieve the motor. The
terminals and other conditions of established runs apply to him in the same
manner as to the engineers."
The schedule provision covering the position of the carrier is section 5 of
Article XXXVII and reads:
"Extra firemen filling vacancies in assigned service shall be governed by the
service conditions and allowed the rates of pay of the assigned men."
In the case in question a steam train was used to tow an electric motor on
which no fireman or helper was assigned. In view of this fact there was no
vacancy to be filled and section 5 of Article XXXVII could not apply.
This was a case of using a locomotive to haul a motor car to which an
engineer was regularly assigned and for whom terminals were regularly estab-
lished, but, because of no fireman being used, there was no condition of service
to which the fireman in steam service could conform. Therefore, having used
him in a service not established for fireman, it was purely an extra trip and
necessary to find some means of compensating the fireman for the same.
As Fireman Evans did not reach a terminal from the time he left his own
terminal-Tillamook-at 5.35 p. m. September 6, until he arrived at Portland
on train No. 142, his regular assignment, September 7, section 1 of Article II,
which article and section relate to completion of trips, compels the payment
of continuous time as claimed.
Section 1, Article II of the firenien's agreement, reads:
"In passenger or freight service a fireman has reached the end of a trip
when he reaches the division or district terminal at which engine crews are
usually changed, or arrives at the established terminal of his train, as shown
by his assignment, and having done so his trip will be completed and he will
take his place on the board in accordance with the rules governing the run-
ning of firemen in such service. Should he proceed farther with the same
train, or be sent out on another train, he will in either case begin another trip."
Prior to September, 1917, section 1 of Article II of the firemen's agreement
contained the language, or arrives at the established terminal of his train
as shown by time-table,” which language was eliminated because of many local
officials taking advantage of same for the purpose of tying up crews at any
point that met their convenience, whether the points at which tied up were
considered terminals or otherwise, and contending that the pay of the crew
should stop when so tied up. In addition to the elimination of the language
quoted, the terminals at which crews could be tied up without deduction in
pay were definitely specified in the agreement. (See Art. XIX.)
General Manager Scott in letter addressed to all subordinate officials under
date of November 6, 1917, referring to sections 31, 32, and 33, firemen's agree-
ment (now Arts. II, XIX, and III, respectively) and the identical rules in the
engineers' agreement, states:
"The principal changes in these sections are the elimination of terminals as
shown by time-table. Consequently a fireman running into any point other
than those shown in section 32 as being terminals at which engine crews are
usually changed would not have reached a terminal unless he was assigned to
a train terminating at that point."
Fireman Evans was taken off his regular assignment and left Tillamook at
5.35 p. m. September 6, and did not reach a terminal until his arrival at Port-
land on train No. 142, September 7, as not until then did he reach a terminal
named in Article XIX, or Tillamook or Portland, his terminals by assignment.
We hold that time should be allowed continuously from 5.35 p. m. September
6 until his arrival at Portland on September 7 on train No. 142, at the rate
applying on the locomotive carrying the highest rate for service performed dur-
ing said period, presumably the locomotive used on train No. 142.
The authority for combining the service of the sixth towing gasoline motor
car, the deadhead service of the seventh, and the passenger service of the
seventh is section 1, Article XII of firemen's agreement, which provides for
combining all classes of service performed on the same trip, including deadhead,
and compensating the fireman for such service at the highest rate.
20936°-23———67
1052
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
We wish to call to the attention of the Labor Board the fact that in so far
as the fireman was concerned-there being no fireman assigned to service on
the gasoline-motor car-Wheeler, the point where Fireman Evans laid over,
which the carrier contends was a regular assignment and that same was being
filled by the fireman, constitutes only a terminal as shown by the time-table,
which sort of terminal was eliminated when schedules were revised in 1917,
as is clearly set out in that portion of the general manager's instructions dated
November 5, 1917, quoted herein.
We ask that time be allowed as claimed.
Carrier's position.-On September 6, 1920, gasoline motor assigned between
Tillamook, Mohler, and Wheeler, Portland division, was temporarily disabled
and a locomotive was used to complete the day's assignment, making it neces-
sary to use Fireman Evans, who is assigned to trains Nos. 141 and 142, operat-
ing between Portland and Tillamook, after his arrival at Tillamook on train
No. 141. He left Tillamook on motor train No. 148 at 5.35 p. m., arrived at
Mohler and returned to Wheeler on train No. 153, tied up at Wheeler at 8.50
p. m. making 27 miles.
On September 7, Fireman Evans left Wheeler deadhead on train No. 145
at 8.15 a. m., arrived at Miami, 12.8 miles, where he took his run on train
No. 142 and fired engine to Portland, arriving at Portland at 4.15 p. m.,
distance Miami to Portland 111.5 miles, total on September 7, 124.3 miles.
The carrier contends that service performed by Fireman Evans was anala-
gous to that provided for in section 5, Article XXXVII of the firemen's
agreement, reading:
"Extra firemen filling vacancies in assigned service shall be governed by
the service conditions and allowed the rates of pay of the assigned men."
Furthermore, Fireman Evans was used in an extreme emergency and was
tied up at terminal of regular run filled by engineer for whom he was firing,
and the carrier does not feel that it would be consistent to place an extra
premium when called upon to meet the emergencies or contingencies reflected
in this case.
It is permissible under Article XXXVII, firemens agreement, to use a
fireman assigned to regular run for other service, paying him not less than
he would have earned had he been sent out on his assigned run, exclusive of
overtime.
Fireman Evans was allowed 121 miles for service on September 6, Port-
land to Tillamook, and an additional 100 miles for motor service Tillamook
to Mohler and return to Wheeler, total distance 27 miles. On September 7
he was paid 124 miles continuous time, Wheeler to Miami to Portland;
therefore, in the opinion of the carrier, he has been correctly compensated.
Decision.-Evidence presented in this case shows that M. Evans,
fireman, was properly compensated. Claim is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1460.-DOCKET 699.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim for runaround for crew assigned to helper
service exclusively, when a pooled freight crew was coupled into
train No. 13 at the helper station and made movement with that
train over the territory where helper crews usually operate.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Employees' position.-On May 23, 1920, F. F. Young, engineer, and E. V.
Carter, fireman, regularly assigned pool freight crew, were cut out of an
extra west at Hornbrook and given orders to help first 13 Hornbrook to
Dunsmuir. Hornbrook being a helper station, and the engineers' and fire-
men's rules providing that other engineers or firemen would not be called
for helper service when engineers or firemen assigned to helper service
exclusively were available, H. S. Carter, engineer, and T. E. Hadfield, fireman,
T
DECISIONS.
1053
assigned to helper service at Hornbrook, made claim for run around. The
trip card was disallowed, the superintendent employing the following language:
"Your claim for 50 miles runaround at Hornbrook, May 23, has been dis-
allowed.
"Pool crew was used on No. 13 for operating convenience to move the
engine to Dunsmuir. Further, No. 13 consisted of 12 cars, which would not
require helper from Hornbrook to Snowden."
The claim of the engineer and fireman was taken up through regular
channels and under date of November 6, 1920, Mr. McIntyre, assistant to
general manager, replied in part as follows:
"Engineer Young and Fireman Carter, a regular pool crew, were tied up at
Hornbrook on this date, and as the crew and engine were needed at Dunsmuir
they were, in order to avoid running them light, coupled into train No. 13,
doubleheading that train from Hornbrook to Dunsmuir. As stated by Super-
intendent Fitzgerald, train No. 13 on date in question consisted of only 12
cars and did not require, nor would they have been given, a helper out of
Hornbrook; consequently, Engineer Young and fireman were not called for
nor did they perform service to which Engineer Carter and Fireman Hadfield
were assigned."
The two general committees appealed this and some 65 other cases to General
Manager Dyer, who under date of February 8, 1921, rendered the following
decision:
Engineer Young and Fireman Carter, a regular pool crew, were tied up at
Hornbrook on this date, and as the crew and engine were needed at Dunsmuir
they were, in order to avoid running light, coupled into train No. 13, double-
heading that train from Hornbrook to Dunsmuir, train consisting of only 12
cars and not requiring a helper out of that point. Engineer Carter and Fire-
man Hadfield, regularly assigned to helper service at Hornbrook, claimed a
run around. The fact that train No. 13 did not require a helper out of Horn-
brook, and that a helper crew would not have been called for that train,
justifies decision rendered in this case, in which I concur."
The rules in effect for both engineers and firemen have been contained in
schedules for many years, and read:
"Engineers' agreement, Article VII, section 4.-Other engineers will not be
used in helper service until all regularly assigned helper engineers who are
available have been used, it being understood that this will not apply to
regular assigned helper engineers from other helper stations or road crews
doubleheading through helper stations."
“Firemen's agreement, Article XXIII, section 3.—Other firemen will not be
called for helper service when firemen assigned to helper service exclusively
are available."
In case of violation of rules quoted, a runaround penalty is provided as
follows:
“Engineers' agreement, Article XXX, section 5.-Engineers in like service
who are run around through no fault of their own, at any terminal, shall be
allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not called for service within the limit
of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand last out. Runarounds
will be paid at the rate applying to engine he should have been used upon.
Section 8, Article XXIII of firemen's agreement, provides the manner in
which men assigned to helper service shall be compensated in case they are run
around and reads:
"Assigned helper firemen, who, through no fault of their own, are not
called in regular turn, shall be allowed 50 miles at the rate applying on the
locomotive on which they should have been used, and will stand first out.
This not to apply if fireman is not available under the hours-of-service law.”
It frequently occurs that, because of the necessity for balancing power, the
carrier will use a pool or extra crew from one terminal to another, coupling
them into a train and using them over the entire district. Settlements made
in the past provide that when crews are handled in this manner it will be
considered doubleheading and no runarounds will accrue to helper men at
helper station under the rules providing that other engineers or firemen will
not be used in helper service when men assigned to helper service are available.
In some cases handled in the past, the carrier coupled a pool or extra
crew in with another train and ran them part way over the district, cutting
them out at a helper station, and holding them to help a following train.
in every instance claim has been made for runaround by the engineer and
fireman standing first out and has been allowed.
1054
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
On other occasions, either on account of provisions in hours-of-service law
or for some other reason, an extra or pool crew moving over the road has
been tied up at a helper station, and, when available for service, used out of
said station in helper service instead of the helper crew standing for the
service. Movements of this character have always been considered a run-
around of helper crew and said crew compensated under the runaround rules.
We are citing for the information of the Labor Board several cases of this
character which should serve to substantiate the foregoing:
"First case: On July 11, 1913, D. Whitney, engineer, and E. Stanley, fire-
man, assigned to helper service, stood first out at 2.30 p. m., at which time a
call was made for a helper for train No. 14. Messrs. Whitney and Stanley
were not called for this service, but a road engineer and fireman, who had
started out of Dunsmuir, the terminal, to doublehead a freight train to Ash-
land, the next terminal, and which crew had, upon arrival at Igerna, a point
west of Hornbrook, the helper terminal, been cut out of the freight train and
run light ahead of same to Hornbrook, arriving at that point at 1.30 p. m.,
were used to help passenger train No. 14 instead of Messrs. Whitney and
Stanley. Messrs. Whitney and Stanley were called later to help the freight
train on which the road crew had been doubleheading. Claim was made for
runaround and declined. It was subsequently written up by the general
chairmen to General Superintendent Campbell, northern district, who, under
date of November 18, 1913, sustained the decision of the superintendent, dis-
allowing the claim.
"Under date of September 25, 1914, a docket of pending cases on the northern
district was prepared, and between the date of the original claim of Messrs.
Whitney and Stanley, July 11, 1913, and date of the docket, an identical run-
around had occurred and these cases were listed as cases 2 and 2 (a). The
committees presented these claims in the following language:
"
Engineers and firemen assigned to helper service in accordance with rules
in effect, claims runaround when other crews are used in that service while
helper men are available. This is a direct violation of both the engineers' and
firemen's agreements, as each provides that other engineers or firemen will
not be used in helper service when men regularly assigned to helper service
are available.'
"Mr. Campbell's decision reads:
Cases 2 and 2 (a) granted, by reason of Engineer D. Whitney and Fire-
man E. Stanley being run around by extra men being injected into helper
service at Hornbrook.'
"In connection with this claim it was agreed that had the road crew con-
tinued from one terminal to another doubleheading, and had not been cut out
of train on which doubleheading and used in helper service, no claim would
have been presented by the organizations.
"Second case: Cooperative docket, September 17, 1917. Case No. 58 (file
939).
Submission.-Violation of section 4 (a), Article VII of the engineers' agree-
ment and section 6 (b) of the firemen's agreement. On March 24, Engineer
L. J. Katzenberg and fireman, who were regularly assigned to helper service
out of Tracy, claimed 50 miles runaround account of being run around by
pooled crew which was used in helper service out of Tracy. The helper crew
was available at 6.25 a. m. Engineer Chorpening and fireman were called for
3 p. m., to help a train to Livermore, then cut off and run light to Newark, and
helped train from Newark to Altamont, then returned to Newark and helped
another train from Newark to Tracy, arriving at Tracy at 4.20 a. m., March 25.
The service performed by them was helper service, and they were not
filling the place of assigned helpers.
The claim for runaround by Engineer Katzenberg and fireman was strictly
in accordance with agreement provisions, and we ask that you authorize pay-
ment of the claim for 50-mile runaround on March 24.
"Answer.-Will allow runaround as claimed.
"Third case: Cooperative docket, September 17, 1917. Case No. 30 (file 1052)..
"Submission.-Violation of section 4 (a), Article VII of the engineers' and
section 6 (b) of the firemen's agreements. Specific case: Engineer C. Pratt
and Fireman J. J. Robinson, Shasta division, December 16, 1916, at Hornbrook.
"On December 16, 1916, Engineer Pratt and Fireman Robinson, a crew
assigned to helper service exclusively, were available when a road crew,
Engineer Gickey and Fireman Peterson, were used to help an extra east at
10 p. m. out of Hornbrook, Messrs. Pratt and Robinson's home terminal.
DECISIONS.
1055
"Our contention in that case is the same as in others-that the helper crew
available and standing first out should be allowed a runaround under the
articles and sections quoted.
"Answer.-Will allow runaround to Engineer Pratt and Fireman Robinson
as claimed.
"
Fourth case: Cooperative docket, August 20, 1917. Case No. 183. Ques-
tion of assigned helper crews being run around by road crews.
Submission.-Several runarounds at Palmdale occasioned by the injection
of road crews into helper service. Cases handled with you in November, 1913.
Your letter addressed to us, dated December 26, 1913, file 013-21, covers your
position, but case returned to you at request of Mr. Scott.
"Answer.-Will allow the two claims dated May 12, 1913, it being understood
that this does not apply to regularly assigned helper crews from other helper
stations or road crews 'doubleheading through helper stations.
Fifth case: Cooperative docket, August 20, 1917. Case No. 27. Claim of
Engineer Schultz and Fireman J. B. Reynolds for run around.
"Submission.-On February 16, 1914, Engineer Burke and Fireman Knolls,
pooled freight crew on Los Angeles division, made an irregular turnaround trip
into Indio to Niland and return. While at Niland they were used to make a
helper trip to Mammoth and return.
Engineer Schultz and Fireman Reynolds were regularly assigned helper
men at Niland and were available for helper service at time road crew was
used. Claim was therefore made for runaround as provided by agreements,
but same was disallowed by the superintendent.
“Answer.—Will allow runaround as claimed, it being understood that this
does not apply to regularly assigned helper crews from other helper stations
or road crews doubleheading through helper stations.
"Sixth case: Cooperative docket, August 20, 1917. Case No. 114.
Submission.—Agreements provide that other crews will not be used in
helper service when crews assigned to helper service exclusively are available.
Engineer Bush and Fireman Hoots, Shasta division, were available for
service on October 30, 1914, and another crew was used. Bush and Hoots have
claimed runaround.
"Answer.-Will allow runaround as claimed, it being understood that this
does not apply to regularly assigned helper crews from other helper stations
or road crews doubleheading through helper stations."
Having in mind the settlements cited herein, the carrier having used Engineer
Young and Fireman Carter to help train No. 13 out of Hornbrook, and having
before them the claim for runaround of Engineer Carter and Fireman Had-
field regularly assigned to helper service at Hornbrook, and apparently desir-
ing to evade compensating these men under the provisions of the rules in effect
quoted herein, and the settlements quoted in substantiation thereof, they took
the position that it would not have been necessary to use a helper on train
No. 13 and that they coupled the light engine into that train that same might
be handled as an operating convenience.
While this position has no bearing on the manner in which the claim should
be allowed, and perhaps is not worthy of consideration by the committees, we
deem it advisable notwithstanding to check the register for August and Sep-
tember, 1920, to determine whether or not it was the practice of the super-
intendent of the Shasta division to assign a helper out of Hornbrook to
westbound passenger trains of 12 cars or less. The record shows that the
following trains of 12 cars or less were given help out of Hornbrook, west,
during the months of August and September, 1920, with the engine numbers
and names of the helper engineers used:

·
Aug. 1.
Aug. 2..
Aug. 3.
Aug. 6.
Aug. 12.
Aug. 13.
Aug. 21.
Aug. 27.
Aug. 28.
Date.
Number Number | Number
of train.
of cars. of engine.
Name of engineer.
13
12
13
12
13
12
1-13
12
1-13
12
1-13
12
1-13
12
1-13
12
1-13
222222222
2854
2810
Howell.
Bateman.
2841
Wolters.
3233
Miller.
2714 Connelly.
3233
Harrington.
2848 Reid.
2590 Gary.
12 2850 Herbig.
1056
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.

Aug. 29
Do.
Sept. 3
Sept. 4.
Sept. 5.
Sept. 7.
Sept. 9.
Sept. 12...
Sept. 14.
Sept. 15.
Sept. 18.
Sept. 20.
Sept. 22.
Sept. 24.
Date.
Number Number Number
of train.
of cars. of engine.
Name of engineer
2-13
12
2720 Carter.
1-13
12
2673
McCann.
53
11
2593
Dews.
1-13
12
2768
Webster.
1-13
12
2585
McCann.
15
12
2650
Hoots.
1-13
12
2771
Hughes.
1-13
12
2745 Carter.
1-13
12
2635
Fahs.
2-13
11
2734
Do.
1-13
12
2620
Stanley.
1-15
12
2635
Hoots.
1-13
12
2768
McCann.
1-13
12
2631
Rush.
We feel that in view of the rules in effect providing that other crews shall
not be used when helper men are available and that if such crews are used
helper men will be paid runaround and the settlements quoted, there can be no
doubt, if doubt existed, in the minds of the board, that the claim of Engineer
Carter and Fireman Hadfield is fully justified, and we ask that same be
allowed."
Carrier's position.-On May 23, 1920, Engineer Young and Fireman Carter, a
regularly assigned freight crew, were at Hornbrook and were needed at Duns-
muir, the division terminal, Proceeded with light engine, coupled into passen-
ger train No. 13, Hornbrook to Dunsmuir. Train No. 13 did not require helper
out of Hornbrook; however, helper would have been furnished from. helper
station, Weed, 5 miles west of Edgewood, to help train on this date, Edgewood
to Deetz, 39.7 miles west of Hornbrook.
Engineer Carter and Fireman Hadfield, who were standing first-out at
Hornbrook in helper service, claim run around under sections above referred to.
Attention is called to section 4, Article VII of the engineers' agreement,
reading as follows:
"Other engineers will not be used in helper service until all regularly
assigned helper engineers who are available have been used, it being understood
that this will not apply to regular assigned helper engineers from other helper
stations or road crews double-heading through helper stations."
Under this section it was permissible to use Engineer Young to doublehead
on train No. 13, Hornbrook to Dunsmuir, and Engineer Carter, standing first-
out in helper service, has no grounds for claim. -
Section 3, Article XXIII of the firemen's agreement, reads as follows:
"Other firemen will not be called for helper service when firemen assigned
to helper service exclusively are available."
The fact that Fireman Hadfield was assigned to helper service out of Horn-
brook and that passenger train No. 13 did not require and would not have been
furnished helper out of that point, should eliminate claim for runaround by
Fireman Hadfield. It will be noted that the above-quoted section deals with
calling firemen for helper service and should not be confused with calling pool
freight firemen to take light engine from helper station to another point which
for operating convenience is coupled into train which does not require helper.
Both Engineer Young and Fireman Carter ran through Weed, a helper station
en route, which is permissible when doubleheading through helper station.
Decision. Under the rules in effect claim is not justified and is
therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1461.-DOCKET 701.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of Mr. Benjamin, fireman, for 100 miles account
not being used on August 20, 1920.
DECISIONS.
1057
Statement. The submission contains the following:
Statement of facts.-Controversy concerning compensation for a fireman
temporarily assigned to work-train service who tied up for rest; train was not
held until rest was up, nor fireman used on that particular date.
Employee's position.-Engineer White and Fireman Benjamin were assigned
to work-train service in the snow sheds. This being rush work which it was
necessary to complete in the shortest time possible, it was customary to call
crew at 4 a. m. to 6 a. m., working them as late as practicable.
On August 12, 1920, this crew was called to report for duty at 4 a. m. and
was not relieved until 7.15 p. m., being 15 hours and 15 minutes on duty. When
crew was relieved engineer reported sick and fireman asked for 10 hours' rest.
The carrier deadheaded a crew from Sparks, the district terminal, approxi-
mately 38 miles distant, using said crew on August 13, they being ordered for
service at 6 a. m.
Fireman Benjamin's rest was up at 5.15 a. m.
Fireman Benjamin was held at Truckee and continued in work-train service
and because of not being used on the 13th made claim for 100 miles under
section 2, Article XXVI of the firemen's agreement, which reads:
"Fireman held for work-train service shall be allowed 100 miles at the mini-
mum freight rate for each calendar working day on which no service is begun;
also on Sundays, except when at district terminals or at bulletined tie-up
points."
Claim was disallowed and under date of September 3, 1920, Superintendent
Brennan wrote:
"In view of the fact that the carrier was compelled to pay for the dead-
heading of a fireman to protect this train on account of Fireman Benjamin
requesting 10 hours, I do not think the carrier should be further penalized by
paying Mr. Benjamin for day which he lost of his own volition, neither do I
think that this important work should have been delayed by having work train
wait for this fireman's rest period to expire."
Case appealed through regular channels to general manager who, under date
of February 8, 1921, advised as follows:
"Owing to the character of work in which this work train was engaged on
snowshed district seriously interfering with traffic, which made it essential
that work be completed in the shortest time possible, made necessary the long
hours on duty August 12. However, under hours-of-service law, crew would
have been available for service at 3.40 a. m. on August 13, and it would seem
that if train crew could secure sufficient rest before time set for departure,
such rest should be sufficient for fireman, particularly as 10 hours and 20
minutes elapsed from release from service August 12 until crew reported for
duty August 13."
Section 2 of Article XXVI, quoted herein, provided compensation for firemen
held for work-train service. Fireman Benjamin being held for this service, we
request that time be allowed as claimed,
Carrier's position.-Engineer White and Fireman Benjamin assigned to con-
struction work train operating between Summit and Truckee, on arrival at
Truckee at 7.10 p. m., August 12, Fireman Benjamin tied up for 10 hours' rest
after being on duty 15 hours and 40 minutes, necessitating the deadheading of
another fireman from Sparks to Truckee to fill vacancy. Crew reported for
duty at 5.30 a. m., August 13. Fireman Benjamin claims 100 miles, August 13,
account not having been used on this date.
While it is true that Fireman Benjamin would have been available at 6.40
a. m. August 13, the construction work served by work-train crew was of great
importance and was being performed at a large expense to the carrier of
approximately $1,200 per day, making it necessary for work-train crew to come
on duty at 5.30 a. m., and to meet this condition a fireman was deadheaded from
Sparks.
Attention is called to the fact that train crew, whose work is more arduous
than that of fireman (firing oil-burning locomotive), were rested and available
for service at the usual hour. It will be noted that this train crew and fireman
had 10 hours and 20 minutes off duty from the time of their arrival, August 12,
until time required to report for duty, August 13.
Claims have been made in similar cases and impartial boards have decided
that time claimed account of tied up for rest should not be paid. For the infor-
1058
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
mation of the Labor Board we are attaching a similar case shown as Case No.
2212 (Exhibit No. 1).
In view of all the circumstances, we do not consider there is any justification
in the claim of Fireman Benjamin.
•
Decision. Fireman Benjamin, in asking for 10 hours' rest, so ex-
tended his rest period that he could not be available for work-train
service out of Truckee on August 20, 1920, until after departure of
work train on which he would have been employed from Truckee.
Claim is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1462.-DOCKET 703.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of B. A. McCarl, fireman, for eight hours, and
time and one-half after completing regular assigned run.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Controversy as to compensation for Fireman McCarl,
regularly assigned from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. switch engine, who, due to the failure
of the relief fireman to appear on time, was used on the succeeding shift from
4 p. m. to 4.30 p. m.
Employees' position.-On August 14, 1920, Fireman McCarl, who was regularly
assigned to an 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. switch engine, East Portland, was notified to
work after he had completed his regular assignment until the relief fireman
came on duty. The balance of the crew with which Mr. McCarl was assigned
from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. went honie and the crew assigned from 4 p. m. to mid-
night went on duty. Mr. McCarl worked with this 4 p. m. to midnight crew
from 4 p. m. to 4.30 p. m., at which time the fireman of this crew relieved him.
Fireman made claim for eight hours at time and one-half for the service
4 p. m. to 4.30 p. m. under the provisions of section 3 and example (b), there-
under, of Article XXVIII, which read as follows:
"Except when changing off where it is the practice to work alternately days
and nights for certain periods, working through two shifts to change off, or
where exercising seniority rights from one assignment to another, or when extra
men are required by schedule rules to be used, all time worked in excess of
eight hours' continuous service in a 24-hour period shall be paid for as overtime,
on the minute basis, at one and one-half times the hourly rate, according to
class of engine.
Examples: What compensation should be allowed for additional service
when a fireman is regularly assigned to work 12 midnight to 8 a. m., and
“(b) Is required in an emergency to work 8 a. m. until 11.30 a. m.?
“Answer (b). Eight hours at time and one-half."
Under date of August 17, 1920, the superintendent wrote Mr. McCarl as
follows:
66
Referring to your claim for additional day on August 14, account doubling
over 30 minutes on shift with Engineer O. L. Clark, in East Portland yard.
"Would refer you to section 3 of Article XXVIII, new firemen's agreement,
that portion which reads:
"All time worked in excess of eight hours continuous service will be paid
for as overtime on the minute basis, at one and one-half times the hourly rate,
according to the class of engine.'
'You will note from the reading of this that you are entitled to overtime
only for the 30 minutes you worked over your eight-hour period, account
service continuous, and we have corrected your claim accordingly."
The question was submitted to the management under date of September
26, 1920, by the general chairmen, the following language being employed:
"This claim was made under section 3, Article XXVIII of the firemen's
agreement and is supported by memorandum No. 15-90, which is settlement
DECISIONS.
1059
under Article XIV of Supplement 15, arrived at between representatives of
the Director General of Railroads and representatives of the organizations,
and reads as follows:
66 6 MEMORANDUM NO. 15-90: BUFFALO, ROCHESTER & PITTSBURGH RAILROAD, ENGI-
NEERS AND FIREMEN, ARTICLE XIV, SUPPLEMENT 15.
"Question.—Where a regularly assigned engineer or fireman on first trick
is required to work in excess of remainder of first-trick crew account second-
trick man being late, what is proper compensation under Supplement 15?
'Decision.—Question and answer No. 95 (b) of Interpretation No. 1 to
Supplement 15 applies.'"
Question and answer No. 95 (b) of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15
reads:
“Question No. 95.-What compensation should be allowed for additional
service where a crew is regularly assigned to work 12 midnight to 8 a. m.
and (service performed not affected by exceptions outlined in this rule) ?
"(b) Is required in an emergency to work 8.30 a. m. until 11.30 a. m.?
"Decision. (b) Eight hours at time and one-half."
Under date of November 29, 1920, Mr. McIntyre, assistant to the general
manager, replied as follows:
"I do not consider that decision on question submitted by Buffalo, Rochester
& Pittsburgh Railroad outlined in Memorandum No. 15-90, referred to by
you gentlemen, would apply in this case for the reason that question and
answer No. 95 (b), Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15, deals with a case
where a crew regularly assigned to work 12 midnight to 8 a. m. was required
in an emergency to work 8.30 a. m. until 11.30 a. m., a break of 30 minutes
occurring between expiration of regular assigned hours and subsequent service,
while Fireman McCarl was not released but continued on duty 30 minutes
beyond his assigned hours."
The question was submitted to the general manager in conjunction with some
65 others, who, under date of February 28, 1921, wrote as follows:
"Fireman J. A. Trethaway was called to fill assignment on switch engine
at East Portland 4 p. m. to 12 midnight, and instead of going to East Portland
he reported for duty at Brooklyn, claiming he misunderstood the call. Fire-
man Trethaway failing to report at East Portland resulted in Fireman McCarl
working until 4:30 p. m., or 30 minutes beyond his assigned hours. Claim is
made for eight hours at time and one-half for the 30 minutes' service, under
decision of Memorandum No. 15-90.
"Decision in Memorandum No. 15-90 is that question and answer No. 95 (b)
of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15 applies, indicating that the same
conditions existed in case ruled on in Memorandum No. 15-90 as in question
No. 95 (b) of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15, which had a break of
30 minutes between expiration of regular assigned hours and subsequent
service.
"As Fireman McCarl was not released, but continued on duty 30 minutes
beyond his assigned hours without a break, I do not consider that decision in
Memorandum No. 15-90 would apply and that in payment of overtime at time
and one-half Fireman McCarl has been properly compensated for service per-
formed in excess of eight hours."
It is our understanding that if Fireman McCarl had remained in continuous
service with the same crew with which he performed service under his assign-
ment the 30 minutes would have been considered as overtime. On the other
hand, after having completed the service of his assignment as was evidenced
by the fact that the balance of the crew was released, he began a day with
another crew.
The employees contend that the rule provides a minimum of eight hours
at time and one-half. Decisions and settlements quoted herein sustain this
position.
Prior to December 1, 1919, effective date of Supplement 24 to General Order
No. 27, an identical case to that of Fireman McCarl was passed upon by
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1 for an engineer on the Southern Pacific
Railroad who performed identical service to that performed by Mr. McCarl.
The best evidence we can offer that this service was identical is to quote the
superintendent's letter addressed to Local Chairman Bembow, under date of
February 23, 1918:
"
'Have investigated this claim, and find that upon Engineer Johnson arriv-
ing at relief track, regular relief engineer did not show up, and it was neces-
1060
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
sary for Mr. Johnson to continue working until such time as another engineer
could be called. The fact that relief engineer did not show up constituted an
emergency which could not be foreseen, and for which we are permitted to
continue working the other engineer on overtime until an extra engineer can
be obtained. Overtime allowance as paid in this case correct. Request for
additional time declined."
This engineer had worked 8 hours and 15 minutes with his regular crew on
his own assignment and found upon reaching relief point that the engineer
was not there to relieve him, and because of same he worked from 11.45 p. m.
to 12.25 a. m., or 40 minutes, and claimed a minimum of 8 hours. Railway
Board of Adjustment No. 1 passed on this controversy as Case No. 173, the
decision reading:
"Case No. 173: Southern Pacific Co. v. Engineers and Firemen. Question
of pay for yard engineers working on two shifts.
"Decision. The principle involved in this case was decided by the com-
mission of eight.
"The original decisions of that commission contained no definite provisions
for such cases.
Later, questions were submitted covering cases of yardmen
working with an engine or crew on a succeeding or following shift, and under
date of July 25, 1917, that commission rendered a decision that in such cases
yardmen would be considered as starting a new day.
"As decisions of the commission of eight have been confirmed by General
Order No. 13, cases growing out of their decisions are governed by their rulings.
As this board has stated in other decisions, it does not appear proper that the
decisions of the commission of eight which plainly require changes in former
practices should be made to apply before they were distributed.
Specific instances were not submitted in this case. Therefore the board
decides that if this case covers instances occurring before the decision of July
25, 1917, was received, the former practice of allowing overtime is not changed;
in cases occurring thereafter the decision of the commission of eight applies
and pending claims should be adjusted accordingly."
We ask that Fireman McCarl be allowed eight hours at time and one-half as
claimed.
Carrier's position.-Fireman McCarl assigned to yard service, working 8 a. m.
to 4 p. m. shift at East Portland, and on August 14, 1920, Fireman Trethaway
was called for the 4 p. m. to 12 midnight shift, but through misunderstanding
of call reported at Brooklyn instead of East Portland, making it necessary for
Fireman McCarl to remain on duty until Fireman Trethaway arrived and
relieved him at 4.30 p. m. Claim is made for eight hours at time and one-half
for period 4 p. m. to 4.30 p. m. Was allowed continuous time from time
required to report for duty at 8 a. m. until released at 4.30 p. m., or one day and
30 minutes overtime at time and one-half.
The carrier's understanding of question No. 95 (b) and answer thereto,
Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15, quoted below, deals with a case where
there is a break in the continuity of service.
Question No. 95.-What compensation should be allowed for additional
service where a crew is regularly assigned to work 12 midnight to 8 a. m.
and (service performed not affected by exceptions outlined in this rule):
“(b) Is required in an emergency to work 8.30 a. m. until 11.30 a. m.?
“Decision.—(b) Eight hours at time and one-half."
For example, a man assigned from 12 midnight until 8 a. m. is required to
work from 8.30 a. m. until 11.30 a. m. The fact break occurs between 8 a. m.
and 8.30 a. m. establishes basis under this answer for a new minimum day.
In this connection, however, Southern Pacific Co. does not subscribe to penalty
abuses such as the one described here, originating during United States Rail-
road Administration and does not accept question and answer No. 95 as a
proper interpretation to be placed on section 3 of Article XXIV, firemen's
agreement.
Decision. In this case B. A. McCarl, fireman, was assigned to
regular run from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. J. A. Trethaway, fireman, called
to relieve Mr. McCarl, made a mistake and did not report at the
place and could not get to engine until 4.30 p. m., making it necessary
for Mr. McCarl to continue work until 4.30 p. m., for which he was
paid for one day of eight hours at regular rates, in addition to 30
DECISIONS.
1061'
minutes at time and one-half. The evidence submitted shows that
the compensation received by Mr. McCarl, fireman, for service ren-
dered was just and reasonable. Claim is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1463.-DOCKET 704.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of K. M. Rose, engineer, for one day on regular
assignment and one day at time and one-half same date.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Controversy concerning compensation for Engineer Rose,
regularly assigned to 6.30 a. m. to 2.30 p. m. shift in switching service, who on
June 25, 1920, was called for his regular assignment, 6.30 a. m. After working
from 6.30 a. m. to 8 a. m. this engineer was taken off his assignment and put
to work on the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift, working thereon 8 a. m. to 4 p. m.
Employee's position.-Engineer Rose, regularly assigned to 6.30 a. m.-2.30
p. m. shift in Ashland yard, was on June 25, 1920, called for his regular
assignment, 6.30 a. m., with Fireman Tuttle and Foreman Hall and crew.
Engineer Rose worked from 6.30 a. m. to 8 a. m. on his regular assignment,
when, due to the failure of the engineer on the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift to
report, account his being sick, Engineer Rose was ordered to begin work on
the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift with Fireman G. W. Conrad and Foreman Harris
and crew and worked on same until 4 p. m.
Mr. Rose claimed time as follows: One day for the service 6.30 a. m. to 8
a. m. on his regular assignment. One day at time and one-half for the service
on the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift.
The carrier allowed continuous time, correcting Engineer Rose's time slips
accordingly. The matter was taken up by local chairman with the superin-
tendent, who, under date of September 29, 1920, advised as follows:
Upon referring this matter to our management, we are advised as follows:
"Article XX, Supplement 15 to General Order No. 27, reads:
"""Where it has been the practice or rule to pay a yard engine crew or
either member thereof arbitraries or special allowances, or to allow another
minimum day for extra or additional service performed during the course of
or continuous after the end of the regularly assigned hours, such practice or
rule is hereby eliminated, except where such allowances are for individual
service not properly within the scope of yard service. This article is effective
April 10, 1919.”
"If service performed by Engineer Rose was subsequent to April 10, 1919,
time should be computed continuously from time required to report for duty
until relieved from duty; all time in excess of eight hours being paid for as
overtime at time and one-half.'
"Therefore we will be unable to make any change in our method of allowing
this time."
Then matter was taken up with assistant to General Manager McIntyre, who,
under date of November 25, 1920, advised as follows:
"Facts in this case are that Engineer Rose is regularly assigned to shift
working 6.30 a. m. to 2.30 p. m., and on June 25 came on duty at his regular
assigned time, 6.30 a. m., and worked until 4 p. m.
"Decision to question No. 90 (c), quoted in your letter, is not a similar con-
dition and has no application in this case.
Engineer Rose, having commenced service at regular time set to go to work
and being in continuous service until 4 p. m., was properly compensated under
section 1-B and C of Article II, engineers' agreement, in the allowance of 1
day and 1 hour and 30 minutes overtime."
The matter was then appealed to the general manager with some 65 other
cases and, under date of February 8, 1921, Mr. Dyer addressed the general
chairman as follows:
Engineer Rose, regularly assigned to yard service at Ashland, worked 6.30
a. m. to 2.30 p. m., and on June 25 came on duty at his regular assigned hour,
6.30 a. m. However, on account of yard engineer who was assigned to work
1062
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
66
the shift 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. being sick on this date, and this shift not working,
it was necessary for Engineer Rose to work through on his shift until 4 p. m.
Engineer Rose having commenced service at regular time set to go to work
and being in continuous service until 4 p. m., I consider he has been properly
compensated in the payment of 1 day and 1 hour and 30 minutes overtime for
service performed on this date."
It will be noted from the first paragraph quoted from Mr. Dyer's letter that
Engineer Rose was regularly assigned to the 6.30 a. m. to 2.30 p. m. shift, and
that on June 25 Engineer Rose came on duty at his regular assigned time, but
due to the fact that the engineer assigned to the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift was
sick, and "this shift not working he contends it was necessary for Engineer
Rose to work through on his shift to 4 p. m.
Mr. Dyer is undoubtedly in error about Mr. Rose working through on his
shift, as the records show that Mr. Rose went to work on his assigned run at
6.30 a. m. with Fireman Tuttle and Foreman Hall and crew; that at 8 a. m.
he was ordered to discontinue work on his own shift and with the crew with
which he was regularly assigned and begin work on the 8 a. m, to 4 p. m. shift
with Fireman Conrad and Foreman Harris and crew.
In view of the general manager's statement "and this shift did not work"
that it was not the 8 a. mn. to 4 p. m. shift that did not work, it was the 6.30
a. m. to 2.30 p. m. shift that discontinued work when Engineer Rose was taken
away from the fireman and crew with which he usually worked and assigned
with the fireman and crew working on the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift.
Section 1 (b), Article II of engineers' agreement, and section 2, Article
XXVIII of the firemen's agreement, provide that-
"
Eight hours or less shall constitute a day's work."
The employees contend that as Engineer Rose worked 1 hour and 30 minutes
on his regular assignment and the rules provide "eight hours or less con-
stitute a day's work" as well as that engineers and firemen "shall be assigned
for a fixed period of time which shall be for the same hours daily for all
regular members of the crew," he is entitled to a full day's compensation for
the service on his regular assignment, and, having been used in an emergency
on another assignment, should be paid time and one-half for the emergency
service on the other assignment.
This contention is based upon the decision of Railway Board of Adjustment
No. 1, Case No. 1278 and question No. 95 (c) of Interpretation No. 1 to Sup-
plement 15 to General Order No. 27.
Under date of November 17, 1919, Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1
ruling on Case No. 1278, which case was one where an engineman was re-
quired to work beyond the completion of his regular shift with the crew of
another shift because the engineman failed to show up at the relieving point,
the carrier refusing to pay a minimum day for the service of the engineman
on the second shift, ruled as follows:
"Case No. 1278: Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System) v. Engineers and
Firemen. Proper compensation for engine crew in switching service working
on two shifts.
"Decision. In this case the company holds that it should not be required
to apply the decision in Case No. 173 in cases where an engineman is required
to work on a succeeding shift because of failure of relief engineman to report
unless it is permitted to use the engineman who started the new shift on
through that shift. The ruling of the commission of eight, which was reaf-
firmed by the decision of this board in Case No. 173, holds, in effect, that
where a member of a switching crew is required to begin work on a succeed-
ing shift because of failure of a member of the crew on that shift to report, the
individual beginning on the succeeding shift must be considered as having
been called to begin a new day. He must therefore be paid not less than a
minimum day, irrespective of whether he worked through the shift or whether
he is allowed to quit when the regular man reports. Whether the regular man
should be allowed to take his place when he does report is another question
and should be settled in accordance with practice on individual roads."
Question No. 95 (c) of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement No. 15 to General
Order No. 27 reads:
Question 95.—What compensation should be allowed for additional service
where the crew is regularly assigned to work 12 midnight to 8 a. m., and
(service performed not affected by exceptions outlined in this rule):
"(c) Is required in an emergency to work 8 p. m. to 12 midnight (four
hours) on same day?
DECISIONS.
1063
"Decision.-(c) Eight hours at time and one-half."
In the case in question Engineer Rose began service on another shift
because the engineer on that particular shift did not report for duty account
being sick.
We do not know why the carrier selected Mr. Rose to work in an emergency
on the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. shift after having worked one hour and 30 minutes
on his regular assignment, but, having discontinued the work on his regular
assignment, and the rules reading "eight hours or less shall constitute a day,"
we hold Mr. Rose to be entitled to eight hours for the service on his regular
assignment, and eight hours at time and one-half for the emergency service
on assignment of engineer who had failed to report account being sick.
We ask that such allowance be authorized.
Carrier's position.-Engineer Rose who is assigned to yard service at Ash-
land, 6.30 a. m. to 2.30 p. m., and on June 25, 1920, on account of the engineer
assigned to shift working 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., being ill and not working,
Engineer Rose continued to work through until 4 p. m.; was allowed one
day and one hour and 30 minutes overtime at time and one-half; makes claim
for one minimum day at time and one-half, 6.30 a. m. to 8 a. m. in addition
to yard day, 8 a. m. to 4 p. m.
It will be noted that Engineer Rose was assigned to begin work at 6.30
a. m. and on the date in question began service at his regular assigned time
6.30 a. m., and continued until 4 p. m., and it is difficult to understand how a
claim for one day at time and one-half, from 6.30 a. m. to 8 a. m. during the
regular hours of Engineer Rose's assignment, can be reconciled with schedule
provisions. The occasion for using Engineer Rose to work this 1 hour and
30 minutes overtime, 2.30 p. m. to 4 p. m. was account illness of engineer
assigned to shift working 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., resulting in Engineer Rose and
crew filling assignment on that date.
Decision.-Compensation received by K. M. Rose, engineer, for
service period June 25, 1920, as herein outlined was just and
reasonable. Claim is denied.
DECISION NO. 1464.-DOCKET 705.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Runaround claim for D. W. Pillsbury, fireman, Los
Angeles, Calif., March 19, 1920.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Employees' position.-On March 18, 1920, Fireman Fagan, regularly assigned
to trains No. 55, second Nos. 56, 45, and 46, Saugus-Nordhoff and return, and
not entitled to perform service east of Saugus or west of Nordhoff, was, because
of there being no other crew available, used on engine coupled in with train
No. 108 and run Saugus to Los Angeles for boiler wash and minor repairs to
engine No. 2233. They left Saugus at 5.55 p. m., and arrived at Los Angeles
at 7.50 p. m.
On March 19 engine No. 2233 was coupled in on the return trip with train
No. 107 and moved Los Angeles to Saugus. They left Los Angeles at 6.25
a. m., and arrived at Saugus at 9.35 a. m.
Fireman Pillsbury stood first out on the pool freight list at Los Angeles and
because of Section 32 (b), which provides—
Firemen assigned to pool runs, the daily number or kind of trains com-
posing which are uncertain, shall be run first in first out on all trains not
covered in Article (a) of this section "-
claimed runaround because of the failure of the company to use him in turn
in service to which entitled. Rule governing runarounds in pool service being
section 32 (q).
Firemen assigned to pooled or extra service, running first in first out, who,
through no fault of their own, are not called in regular turn for the service
to which they are entitled under the provisions of this agreement, the man
1064
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
first out shall be allowed 50 miles at the rate applying on the locomotive and
in the service in which he should have been used, for each runaround and
permitted to retain his position on the board.
The carrier declined to allow run around, claiming that the engine was coupled
in to train No. 107 "as an operating convenience." The general manager,
under date of February 8, 1921, wrote as follows:
"Under provisions of firemen's agreement, firemen taking engines to terminal
as above outlined are privileged to make return trip to their assigned territory
with their engine without runaround penalty, and the fact that in this case
engine was coupled in with train No. 107 as an operating convenience, train No.
107 not having sufficient number of cars to require a helper out of Los Angeles,
does not in any manner nullify this provision, and I do not consider that Fire-
man Pillsbury is entitled to runaround claimed."
General Manager Dyer is partially correct in the first portion of his state-
ment-namely, that firemen are privileged to make return trip to their
assigned territory with their engine without runaround penalty," but his
statement is correct only in case it is a light engine. His statement that
because they coupled this engine into train No. 107 as an operating convenience
did not entitle Fireman Pillsbury to a runaround, is decidedly wrong, as is
evidenced by section 32 (d) reading:
"When it is necessary account no other men available to use firemen as-
signed to regular runs or pooled freight service beyond the limits of their as-
signments, they will, upon arrival at a division or district terminal, be promptly
deadheaded to their assigned territory or run back on light engine after re-
quired rest period without runaround penalty. If there are no men available
at such points who are entitled to the work, men may be returned to their as-
signed territory in service."
It must be clear to anyone that because of confining road service to the
movement of light engines that some reason existed for such action.
On the Southern Pacific Railroad crews are assigned between given points
in both freight and passenger service.
During the year 1916 General Manager Campbell of the northern district
conceived the idea of running crews assigned between A and B beyond B to
terminal C, and upon arrival at C placing them in the pool and running them
first in first out in service to which they were not entitled, thereby depriving
enginemen assigned to the pool at C of the work properly belonging to them.
The above is just an example to illustrate the manner in which crews were
handled, and we wish to make it clear that this practice was put in effect on
the entire seniority district, thereby causing considerable loss of time to men
properly entitled to the service and resulting in greatly increased away-from-
home expense for the crews run off their assigned territory.
The settlement of Case 1, docket of August 20, 1917, resulted in the promul-
gation of section 32 (d) quoted next above.
At the time this settlement was being negotiated the general manager was
in close touch with the superintendent of the Portland division, on which the
case originated, and said superintendent, Mr. Burckhalter, insisted that he
be given the right to use crews to doublehead under the example cited, from
C to B; in other words, having used a crew off its assigned territory he asked
that he be privileged to doublehead the crew back to its own territory.
The employees held they could not agree to any such adjustment as it would
result in evading the penalty for the schedule violations, as the carrier could
disregard the schedule, run the crew to a foreign terminal, and doublehead
them back. The penalty referred to compels the carrier to deadhead the crew
back to their assigned territory, or, if it was necessary to balance power, run
them back on a light engine.
The use of Fireman Fagan doubleheading in train No. 107, for any reason,
is in violation of section 32 (d) quoted, and we ask that Fireman Pillsbury
who stood first out on the pool list at Los Angeles be paid a runaround as
claimed, account not being used in turn for the service to which he was
entitled-namely, manning the engine doubleheading on train No. 107.
Carrier's position.-Fireman Fagan assigned to train No. 55, second Nos. 56,
45, and 46, Saugus to Nordhoff and return, on March 18, after completing
assignment, was used on engine coupled into train No. 108, Saugus-Los Angeles,
33.1 miles, for boiler wash and minor repairs to engine No. 2233. Left Saugus
5.55 p. m., arrived Los Angeles 7.50 p. m., for which crew was allowed 100
miles in addition to regular assignment.
DECISIONS.
1065
On March 19, engine No. 2233 was coupled in with passenger train No. 107,
Los Angeles-Saugus, to take regular assignment, leaving Los Angeles 6.25 a. m.,
arriving Saugus 9.35 a. m., for which crew was allowed 100 miles in addition
to regular assignment.
Fireman Pillsbury, standing first out at Los Angeles in pool freight service
claims 50 miles runaround account Fireman Fagan leaving Los Angeles with
regular engine No. 2233.
The carrier contends there is no justification in claim for runaround by
Fireman Pillsbury. Movement of engine No. 2233, Saugus to Los Angeles and
return, in no way involves service to which Fireman Pillsbury was assigned
or entitled to. Train No. 107, into which this engine was coupled leaving Los
Angeles, did not require a helper, and in the absence of engine No. 2233, no
helper would have been used. As evidence of this fact, on the date in question,
road engine No. 2315 on train No. 107 handled but seven cars, and on March 22,
the same engine leaving Los Angeles, operated over the same territory with
eight cars and handled trains successfully without helper.
Decision. The practice of coupling engine in need of wash out or
light repairs in which engines on regular trains which do not require
helpers in order to get them to or from shops has been quite gen-
erally in effect for many years and is conducive to safe and eco-
nomical operation and handling of such engines. In this case, as the
train with which the engine was coupled in getting it to and from
shop did not need helpers, the effect was practically the same as if
the engine had been run light, although better practice.
Claim is denied.
DECISION NO. 1465.-DOCKET 706.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Claim of Frank Schaffer, engineer, for five run-
arounds, June 19, 1920, at Brooklyn, Portland division.
Statement. The submission contained the following:
Statement of facts.-Section 5, Article XXX of the engineers' agreement,
reads as follows:
Engineers in like service, who are run around through no fault of their
own, at any terminal, shall be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not
called for service within the limit of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed
and stand last out. Runarounds will be paid at the rate applying to engine
he should have been used upon."
Employees' position.-Engineer Schaffer, Portland division, reached Brook-
lyn on extra No. 2808 at 11.30 a. m., June 17, 1920. At 11 p. m., June 19, a
call was made for five engineers to deadhead on train No. 53 at 1 a. m., June
20. for the purpose of augmenting the engineers' working lists at Roseburg
account movement of a number of Shriner trains. Engineers Rowan, Cham-
berlin, Stafford, and McDonald, assigned to regular runs, and Engineer Cundiff,
an extra man, were called for this purpose. Engineer Schaffer claimed five
runarounds under the provision of section 5, Article XXX of the engineers'
agreement.
Under date of July 1, 1920, the following correction notice was sent to Mr.
Schaffer by the superintendent:
"Referring to the attached runaround claim. Would refer you to section 5,
Article XXX, of the new engineers' agreement, and would request that you
correct your claim in accordance with that section.
"Also advise if you are a qualified passenger engineer."
The case was taken up by local chairman and presented to the superintendent,
who, under date of July 29, 1920, replied as follows:
"It is not our understanding that engineers run around shall receive more
than one runaround if not used in eight hours. He would, however, be entitled
to 100 miles if stood last out.
1066
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
"In this particular case, engineers were called to deadhead to Roseburg to
come out in passenger service. Mr. Schaffer not having had the 610 days'
experience as engineer to qualify him to handle a passenger train, is not en-
titled to the runaround, and claim is respectfully declined."
The case was then appealed to the assistant to the general manager, who.
under date of November 9, 1920, ruled as follows:
"Yours of September 1, file 1528, in connection with claim of F. Schaffer,
engineer, Portland division, for five runarounds June 19.
Circumstances are as follows: It was found necessary to deadhead five
engineers on train No. 53 from Brooklyn to Roseburg to handle passenger trains
out of that point account Shriner movement, necessitating the calling of en-
gineers who were qualified for passenger service as per section 3 (a), Article
XXX, of the engineers' agreement.
"At the time call was made, 11 p. m., June 19, Engineer Schaffer stood first
out on extra list at Brooklyn. Portland division records show that Engineer
Schaffer's 610 days necessary to qualify him for passenger service were not
up until June 24, consequently he was not available for passenger service, and
Engineer Cundiff, who stood behind Mr. Schaffer on the extra list, was called,
together with four other qualified passenger engineers, for this passenger serv-
ice, Engineer Schaffer being called in regular turn for service in which quali-
fied, reporting for duty at 2.15 a. m., June 20.
"The fact that Engineer Schaffer was not qualified for passenger service
eliminates claim for runaround."
Case was then appealed to the general manager, who rendered decision under
date of February 28, 1921, reading:
"Case No. 45, your file No. 1528, in the claim of F. Schaffer, engineer, for
five run arounds June 19, 1920, at Brooklyn, Portland division. Circumstances
as follows:
"Due to heavy passenger service out of Roseburg account Shriners' move-
ment it was necessary to deadhead five engineers on train No. 53 from Brooklyn
to Roseburg to handle passenger trains out of that point, necessitating the
calling of engineers who were qualified for passenger service. At the time
call was made, 11 p. m., June 19, Engineer Schaffer stood first out on extra
list at Brooklyn. Records show that Engineer Schaffer's 610 days necessary
to qualify him for passenger service were not up until June 24, consequently,
he was not available at this time for passenger service, and Engineer Cundiff,
who stood behind Mr. Schaffer on the extra list, was called, together with
four other qualified engineers for this passenger service, Engineer Schaffer
being called in regular turn for service for which qualified, reporting for duty
at 2.15 a. m., June 20.
Engineer Schaffer not being qualified for passenger service is not entitled
to runaround claimed."
It will be noted that the runarounds have been declined on two counts-
First. That Engineer Schaffer was not a qualified passenger man.
Second. That no more than one runaround could be allowed under the pro-
visions of the engineers' agreement. The provisions referred to are section 5,
Article XXX, reading:
Engineers in like service, who are run around through no fault of their own,
at any terminal, shall be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not called for
service within the limit of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand last
out. Runarounds will be paid at the rate applying to engine he should have
been used upon."
The occasion for deadheading men from Portland to Roseburg was to augment
the engineers' working list at that point-the carrier evidently having knowl-
edge that the available men at Roseburg would not be able to meet the business
demands and it was recessary to make the transfer of men from Portland to
meet the emergency.
Portland is the eastern terminal of the Portland division. The next terminal
west of Portland is Junction City. The second terminal west of Portland is
Roseburg. Pooled crews are separately assigned between Portland and Junc-
tion City, and between Roseburg and Junction City. See section 2, of Article
XXXI, engineers' agreement, which reads:
"Engineers assigned to main line pooled freight service will be assigned as
follows:
"Between Brooklyn (Portland) and Junction City, Junction City and Rose-
burg."
DECISIONS.
1067
Passenger crews are assigned to regular time-table passenger trains between
Roseburg and Portland. Second sections of regular passenger trains to which
regular crews are not assigned, or extra passenger trains, moving between Rose-
burg and Portland, are handled in the following manner:
There are no extra passenger engineers or firemen maintained on the Portland
division, and engineers and firemen assigned to the pool, or extra men if pool is
exhausted, who have had the necessary experience (610 days on the working
list for engineers, and one year's seniority for the firemen) are used to move
said second sections and extra passenger trains from Roseburg to Junction City,
the terminal of their assignment, where they are cut out and a similar crew,
assigned between Junction City and Portland, takes the train from Junction
City to Portland, the terminal of their assignment.
The best evidence that we can cite of the correctness of the above statement
is the settlement of Case No. 8, Docket September 17, 1917, which decision reads
as follows:
"The practice of running pooled freight engineers and firemen through Junc-
tion City on second sections of passenger trains has been discontinued. In the
future engineers or firemen called to fill vacancies on assigned runs will accept
the conditions of the assigned men. When called for service on other than
assigned runs will not be run through terminals except when no enginemen en-
titled to the service are available. When run through they will begin another
trip upon leaving such terminal."
In view of the clear and positive provisions for the handling of second sec-
tions and extra passenger trains between Roseburg and Portland, set out in
the decision quoted next above, it must be apparent that when the men, dead-
headed from Portland to Roseburg, reached Roseburg it would be necessary for
the company to place them at the foot of the extra list from which they would
be called first in first out for any service for which needed. Should it occur
that all engineers in the pool, who were qualified for passenger service, had
been used the pool list would then be augmented by calling qualified men from
the extra list, running them first-in first-out, in accordance with agreement pro-
visions. It is not permissible under the rules to handle crews in any other
manner.
If the carrier deadheaded engineers from Portland and they were used in any
other manner than that set out above, qualified men in pooled freight or extra
service, assigned out of Roseburg, are unquestionably entitled to run arounds.
In view of the foregoing, the only question remaining to be determined is,
Who should have been deadheaded from Portland to Roseburg for the purpose
of augmenting the engineers' extra list at that point? Section 3 (a), Article
XXX of the engineers' agreement, provides:
Engineers assigned to extra list shall in all cases run first-in first-out from
the terminal where assigned, filling all vacancies in freight service, helper or
other service that may be assigned to such extra men
* "
Roseburg, an intermediate terminal, is a point where a considerable number
of engineers and firemen are assigned to pooled freight service, and a large
extra list is always maintained at that point. Ordinarily, several engineers
qualified for passenger service are assigned to the extra list, and practically
all pool men are qualified for passenger service.
The employees contend that if it was the desire of the carrier to deadhead
five engineers from Portland to Roseburg, the rules, decisions, and settle-
ments set out above should have been followed, and the men standing first,
second, third, fourth, and fifth out on the extra list in Portland should have
been deadheaded to Roseburg.
In view of this fact, the engineers named above, who were deadheaded to
Portland, all having been run around Engineer Schaffer, who stood first-out on
the extra list, Mr. Schaffer is entitled to five runarounds, or 250 miles. This
contention should dispose of the question of whether or not Mr. Schaffer
should have been used in view of the dispute concerning his eligibility for
passenger service under the rules.
The employees contend further that section 5 of Article XXX quoted herein
provides a penalty of 50 miles for each runaround. The carrier contends that
if a number of runarounds occur within eight hours they are not obligated
to pay more than one runaround, provided that at the expiration of eight
hours they place the engineer at the foot of the list, allowing him 100 miles.
That portion of the rule reading "If not called for service within the limit
of eight hours 100 miles will be allowed and stand last out," and which the
carrier contends is the only penalty they are required to pay, regardless of the
20936°23——68
1068
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
number of runarounds, was written for the purpose of guaranteeing the engi-
neer who had been run around once a minimum day if not used for eight hours,
for the reason that the engineer run around was entitled to perform the service
that was performed by some other engineer, the rules providing that "eight
hours or less will constitute a day."
There is nothing in the rule that will sustain the position that an engineer
run around three times within an eight-hour period should not be allowed 50
miles for the second and third runaround the same as he would be allowed 50
miles for the first runaround, and there is no justification for the carrier's
position that the rules provide no greater penalty for three runarounds if
occurring within eight hours than that provided for one.
It must be clear from the language employed in the last sentence, the words
run arounds" being used, that it was the intention to pay 50 miles for each
run around if more than one occurred, or the words would not have been used
in the plural.
The employees contend that Engineer Schaffer should be paid the five run-
arounds as claimed, and ask that the Labor Board authorize such allowance.
Carrier's position.-Engineer Schaffer stood first out on extra board at
Brooklyn. At 11 p. m., June 19, when call was made for five engineers to dead-
head on train No. 53 to Roseburg to handle passenger trains out of that point,
Engineer Cundiff, who stood behind Engineer Schaffer on extra list and who
was qualified for passenger service as per section 3 of Article XXX, along
with four other qualified engineers taken off their regular runs, was called and
sent out for this service. Engineer Schaffer claims 50 miles for each engineer
so used.
The reason for not calling Engineer Schaffer in turn at Brooklyn was on
account of his not having sufficient experience to handle passenger trains, as
provided in that part of section 3 (a), Article XXX, engineers' agreement, read-
ing: "Two years' experience in actual road service and 60 days on seniority
district where vacancy occurs."
In this connection, Engineer Schaffer was called for freight service, reporting
for duty at 2.15 a. m. June 20, or 1 hour and 15 minutes after leaving time
of train on which engineers deadheaded. Even though Engineer Schaffer had
been qualified for passenger service and been run around, he would be entitled
to but 50 miles under the provisions of section 5, Article XXX, of the engineers'
agreement, and not five runarounds at 50 miles each, as claimed.
Decision.Claim is denied.
DECISION NO. 1466.-DOCKET 707.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Involves claim of J. H. Westcott, engineer, for three
runarounds.
Statement.—The submission contains the following:
Employees' position. On August 3, 1920, Engineer Westcott, Portland division,
assigned helper man, stood first out for service, but Engineer Warnock, who
was not entitled to the service, was used instead of Mr. Westcott. A short
while thereafter Engineer Westcott, still standing first out for service, was run
around by Engineer Martin, who was used on train No. 142, and by Engineer
Wills, who was used on train No. 237.
Claim was made for three runarounds, and under date of August 16, 1920,
the superintendent addressed a correction notice to Engineer Westcott reading:
"Referring to your trip reports Nos. 4, 5, and 6, dated August 3, claim for
three 50-mile runarounds at Timber.
"The engineers' agreement does not provide allowance of 50 miles for each
time run around. Proper allowance in this case 50 miles; had you not been
called for service within eight hours penalty would be 100 miles. Would refer
you to section 5, article 30, of the engineers' agreement."
The case was taken up by the local chairman with the superintendent, whose
reply was in line with his correction notice of August 16, quoted above.
DECISIONS.
1069
The case was then appealed to the assistant general manager who, under date
of November 30, 1920, advised as follows:
Yours of November 23, file No. 1568, in the claim of J. H. Westcott, engi-
neer, Portland division, for three runarounds of 50 miles each, August 3, 1920.
"Section 5, article 30 of the engineers' agreement, provides that-
Engineers in like service who are run around through no fault of their
own, at any terminal, shall be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not called
for service within the limit of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand
last out. Runarounds will be paid at the rate applying to engine he should
have been used upon.'
"On the date above mentioned Engineer Westcott went on duty at 1 a. m.
and was released at 7 a. m., his eight hours being up at 9 a. m.; he stood first
out when Engineer Warnock left Timber at 9.20 a. m., Engineer Martin at 1.30
p. m., and Engineer Wills at 2.15 p. m.; Engineer Westcott reported for duty
at 3.55 p. m., and left Timber at 4.25 p. m.
"As Engineer Westcott was called for service within the limit of eight hours,
he is entitled to but 50 miles as provided in section 5, article 30 of the engi-
neers' agreement, and claim for two additional payments of 50 miles each is
denied."
The case was then taken on appeal to the general manager, whose decision,
under date of February 28, 1921, reads:
Engineer Westcott having been called for service within the limit of eight
hours, I consider he has been properly compensated in the payment of 50 miles
as provided in section 5 of article 30, above quoted, and must therefore deny
claim for additional payment."
That portion of the rule reading, "If not called for service within the limit
of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand last out," and which the
carrier contends is the only penalty they are required to pay regardless of the
number of runarounds, was written for the purpose of guaranteeing the engi-
neer who had been run around once a minimum day if not used for eight hours,
for the reason that the engineer run around was entitled to perform the service
that was performed by some other engineer, the rules providing that eight
hours or less will constitute a day."
There is nothing that will sustain the position that an engineer run around
three times within an eight-hour period should not be allowed 50 miles for the
second and third runaround the same as he would be allowed 50 miles for
the first runaround, and there is no justification for the carrier's position
that the rules provide no greater penalty for three runarounds, if occurring
within eight hours, than that provided for one.
((
It must be clear from the language employed in the last sentence, the words
runarounds being used, that it was the intention to pay 50 miles for each
runaround if more than one occurred, or the word would not have been used
in the plural.
We ask the favorable consideration of the Labor Board on the employees'
position.
Carrier's position.-Engineer Westcott, assigned to helper service at Timber,
reported for duty on August 3, 1920, at 1 a. m., returning at 7 a. m., his first
eight hours being up at 9 a. m. Engineer Warnock, who followed Engineer
Westcott into Timber at 9 a. m., and whose first eight hours were up at 9.15
a. m., left again at 9.20 a. m. Engineer Martin arriving at Timber at 12.40
p. m. after the expiration of his first eight hours left again at 1.30 p. m.
Engineer Wills, who arrived at Timber at 12.35 p. m., and whose first eight
hours were up at 2.15 p. m., left again in service at 2.15 p. m. Engineer
Westcott reported for duty at 3.55 p. m. and left Timber at 4.25 p. m. He
was allowed a 50-mile runaround under section 5, article 30 of the engineers'
agreement.
It will be noted that Engineer Westcott reported for duty and was again
under pay at 3.55 p. m., or 6 hours and 35 minutes after being run around by
Engineer Warnock at 9.20 a. m. The provisions of section 5, article 30 of the
engineers' agreement, state clearly that " "Engineers in like service, who are
run around through no fault of their own, at any terminal, shall be allowed
50 miles and stand first out; if not called for service within the limit of eight
hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand last out
In the case of Engineer Westcott proper allowance under this article was
50 miles. There is no case of record where engineers have been paid more
than 50 miles during the first eight hours after having been run around, and
1070
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
if more than one runaround has been paid, it has been through oversight on
the part of some local timekeeper and has never been approved by officials of
the carrier.
Decision.-J. H. Westcott, engineer, was compensated for one run
around under the provisions of the rules in effect. Claim for pay
for two additional runarounds of 50 miles each is not justified and
is denied.
DECISION NO. 1467.-DOCKET 708.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question. Protest against the ruling issued by the assistant to
the general manager, which ruling provides that section 5, article
30 of the engineers' agreement, permits of but one runaround.
Statement. The submission contains the following:
Employees' position.-Section 5, article 30, of the engineers' agreement, reads
as follows:
Engineers in like service, who are run around through no fault of their
own, at any terminal, shall be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not
called for service within the limit of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and
stand last out. Runarounds will be paid at the rate applying to engine he
should have been used upon."
About August, 1920, the officials on the Shasta division, following a visit to
that division by an assistant auditor, began for the first time within our
knowledge to disallow claims for more than one runaround for engineers
under the rule quoted when such oversights occurred. The question was
discussed with Mr. McIntyre, assistant to the general manager, in conference
held August 11, 1920, Mr. McIntyre requesting that the case be written up.
Under date of August 13, 1920, the chairman addressed Mr. McIntyre as
follows:
We are in receipt of the following communication from the local chairman
of the Shasta division which is self-explanatory:
On a recent visit to the Shasta division, the auditor deducted all claims
for runarounds when claim was made for more than one, allowing only one
runaround regardless of the times men were run around, and not placed at
the foot of the board. Does not section 5, article 30, allow 50 miles for each
time run around if left first out?'
"Would ask you to give this matter your early consideration and instruct
Superintendent Fitzgerald to allow time in accordance with section 5, article 30,
of the engineers' agreement; sections 16 and 17, article 37; and section 8,
article 23 of the firemen's agreement; also in accordance with settlement made
with Mr. Scott in 1917 and reaffirmed by you in your letter to Superintendent
Wilson, May 6, 1918."
Under date of September 8, Mr. McIntyre replied as follows:
'Yours of August 13, file No. 1516, in connection with allowing engineers
50 miles for each time run around if held first out under section 5, article 30,
of the engineers' agreement, which reads:
66 6
Engineers in like service, who are run around through no fault of their
own, at any terminal, shall be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not
called for service within the limit of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and
stand last out. Runarounds will be paid at the rate applying to engine he
should have been used upon.'
"Section 17, Article XXXVII of the firemen's agreement, reads:
Firemen assigned to pooled or extra service, running first-in first-out,
who, through no fault of their own, are not called in regular turn for the
service to which they are entitled under the provisions of this agreement, the
man first out shall be allowed 50 miles at the rate applying on the locomotive
and in the service in which he should have been used, for each runaround
and permitted to retain his position on the board.'
DECISIONS.
1071
"There is no provision in the engineers' agreement providing for allowance
of 50 miles for each runaround, neither is there any provision in the firemen's
agreement which permits of allowance of 100 miles and placed last out if not
called for service within the limit of eight hours, and under the circumstances
I do not feel that I should be justified in applying a portion of an article of
the firemen's agreement to engineers, or a portion of the engineers' agreement
to firemen.
“Therefore, your request for allowance of 50 miles to engineers for each time
run around is declined."
The case was appealed to General Manager Dyer, who, under date of Feb-
ruary 8, 1921, advised as follows:
"Case No. 51, your file No. 1516, involving general complaint against recent
decisions to the effect that engineers are entitled to but one runaround within
the limit of eight hours specified in section 5, article 30, of the engineers'
agreement.
"Section 5 of article 30 provides that—
"Engineers in like service, who are run around through no fault of their
own, at any terminal, shall be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not
called for service within the limit of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed
and stand last out. Runarounds will be paid at the rate applying to engine
he should have been used upon.'
"It will be noted from the above that provision is made for the payment of
but 50 miles to engineers who are run around through no fault of their own,
with the proviso, however, that if not called within eight hours, they will be
allowed 100 miles and stand last out, and I am unable to locate anything in
this section to justify your contention for payment other than above specified
in a case where an engineer is run around within the limits of eight hours.
Furthermore, records fail to disclose that this rule has been interpreted or
payments made in any other manner than above outlined, which I consider
proper and in accordance with the section above quoted."
That portion of the rule reading, "If not called for service within the limit
of eight hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand last out," and which the
carrier contends is the only penalty they are required to pay regardless of
the number of runarounds, was written for the purpose of guaranteeing an
engineer who had been run around once a minimum day if not used for eight
hours, for the reason that the engineer run around was entitled to perform
the service that was performed by some other engineer, the rules providing
that eight hours or less will constitute a day."
There is nothing in the rule that will sustain the position that an engineer
run around three times within an eight-hour period should not be allowed
50 miles for the second and third runarounds the same as he would be allowed
50 miles for the first runaround, and there is no justification for the carrier's
position that the rules provide no greater penalty for three runarounds, if
occurring within eight hours, than that provided for one.
It must be clear from the language employed in the last sentence, the words
"runarounds" being used, that it was the intention to pay 50 miles for each
runaround if more than one occurred, or the word would not have been
used in the plural.
We ask the favorable consideration of the Labor Board on the employees'
position.
Carrier's position.-The employees' representatives hold that under section
5, article 30, of the engineers' agreement, above quoted, an engineer run around
more than once out of a terminal within a spread of eight hours is entitled
to 50 miles for each and every time run around. The carrier takes the position
that section 5 of article 30 does not imply nor intend that more than one run-
around shall be paid during eight hours from time first run around.
It will be noted that section 5, article 30, of the engineers' agreement pro-
vides for the payment of but 50 miles to an engineer who is run around, with
the proviso, however, that if he is not called within eight hours he will be paid
100 miles, and there is nothing in this section to justify claim of the employees
for payments other than as above described. Furthermore, records fail to dis-
close that this rule has been interpreted or payment made in any other manner
than above outlined.
Decision―The rules in effect do not justify payment to an engineer
for more than 50 miles or one runaround, if he is called and reports
for service within a period of eight hours.
1072
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1468.-DOCKET 721.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co.
Question. This is a controversy regarding the discontinuance of
preparatory time allowed firemen.
Statement.-Article 30 of schedule now in effect reads:
Yard enginemen will be allowed 30 minutes at pro rata rates for oiling
and getting engine ready at hour designated for day's work to begin, and giving
engines reasonable inspection after the day's work.
On April 21, 1921, a bulletin was posted by the carrier to the effect
that the 30 minutes' preparatory time allowed firemen would be dis-
continued.
The employees contend that the rule should be maintained in ac-
cordance with question 105 of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 15
and question 100 of Interpretation No. 1 to Supplement 24.
The carrier contends it has never embodied in its rules the 30-min-
ute allowance for preparatory time to firemen and has not violated
any rule in the handling of this question.
Decision. If firemen are required to report for duty 30 minutes
in advance of the hour designated to begin the day's work, and to
perform the work of oiling and getting the engine ready, they should
be paid therefor. If not required to report in advance of leaving
time, no allowance for preparatory time should be made.
DECISION NO. 1469.-DOCKET 725.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Protest against method of compensating engineers and
firemen assigned to Tyler-Astoria passenger run, Dakota division,
and against running them away from their home terminal, Tyler, on
Saturday night subsequent to completion of assignment, to deliver
engine at shops at Tracy, requiring the engine crew to report at
Tracy on Monday morning to bring the engine back to Tyler prior
to beginning work on their regular assignment.
Statement, The submission contains the following:
Statement of facts.-For a considerable time prior to January 22, 1921, the
Tyler-Astoria passenger run was carded and operated as follows:
No. 41, passenger, leaves Tyler, daily except Sunday at_
Arrives at Astoria, distance 31.9 miles, at.
No. 40, way freight, leaves Astoria at..
Arrives at Tyler at__.
6.00 a. m.
7. 20 a. m.
7.40 a. m.
10. 20 a. m.
No. 45, way freight, leaves Tyler at.
Arrives at Astoria at__
12. 10 p. m.
3.00 p.m.
No. 44, passenger, leaves Astoria at..
Arrives at Tyler at-
3.25 p. m.
5.00 p.m.
On Saturday night when it was necessary to take the engine of the above run
from Tyler to Tracy for wash-out or repairs, the engine, when possible, was
changed off with an engine on a freight run going through Tyler and into Tracy
DECISIONS.
1073
in order to get the engine to Tracy. In other instances pool crews were used
to deliver the engine on this run from Tyler to Tracy; in still other instances
extra crews were sent from the base where extra list is maintained to take the
engine from Tyler to Tracy, and in many cases the crew regularly assigned to
the run was run extra, after completion of its regular assignment, from Tyler
to Tracy, and were compensated under the fourth provision of rule 11, 100 miles
for the extra service in addition to time made on regular run.
On Monday mornings this regular crew, when no other method was used to
get the engine from Tracy to Tyler, was ordered to report at Tracy in suffi-
cient time to run light Tracy tó Tyler prior to beginning work on its regular
assignment, and was compensated 100 miles under the provisions of rule 11 for
such service in addition to actual time earned on its run.
On January 22, 1921, the following bulletin was posted on the Dakota division:
"CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. BULLETIN No. 23.
"All concerned:
HURON, S. DAK., January 22, 1921.
"Effective at once the engine and passenger equipment used on the Tyler
and Astoria line will be tied up at Tracy each Sunday. The regular Tyler-
Astoria line engine, engine crew, the conductor, and the brakeman that work on
Nos. 41, 40, 45, and 44, upon arrival at Tyler on train 44 each Saturday, will
immediately continue through to Tracy as an extra, taking the engine and pas-
senger equipment only.
"This same crew and engine and equipment will be ordered at Tracy, extra,
each Monday morning at about 4.30 a. m., to go to Tyler and make regular
trips, beginning with No. 41, leaving Tyler on regular schedule departing time
and continuing with the trip from Tracy to Tyler.
"One conductor and one brakeman for runs Nos. 41, 40, 45, and 44 between
Tyler and Astoria, daily except Sunday and including extra service between
Tyler and Tracy, in connection with No. 44 Saturdays and extra service Monday,
Tracy to Tyler, in connection with No. 41.
"Send application to P. F. Braden, T. J., Huron, S. Dak.
"F. N. STEWART, Superintendent.”
Subsequent to the posting of the above bulletin, engine crews on the run in
question were required each Saturday night to run extra Tyler to Tracy, lay
over at Tracy until Monday morning when they run extra Tracy to Tyler, then
go in service on trains Nos. 41, 40, 45, and 44. For this service crews are com-
pensated on continuous time basis from time of reporting for duty in the morn-
ing at Tyler until final release at Tracy, and on continuous time basis on Mon-
day from time ordered to report for duty at Tracy until their final release
after completion of their regular run at Tyler, the tie-up point.
Employees' position. The employees contend that it is not permissible for the
carrier to assign additional mileage to a regular run for the mere purpose of
avoiding payment under the fourth provision of rule 11, engineers' and fire-
men's schedules, effective April 1, 1920, neither is it our understanding that
there is any fairness in creating a terminal five days a week at one point and
two days a week at another point for crews on the run in question, thus
obliging them to lay away from home five nights per week or depriving them of
the privilege of remaining at home Saturday night, all day Sunday, and Sunday
night.
The employees further contend that the work between Tyler and Tracy can
not be considered a part of their regular assignment as the extra work is only
performed for the purpose of getting the engine from the outside point to the
shop; that when the regular assigned crew is used on Saturday night and
Monday morning in this extra service to deliver engine to and from Tracy,
after completing their regular assignment and prior to beginning work on their
regular assignment on Monday morning, they should be compensated in ac-
cordance with the fourth provision of rule 11; and that it is not permissible
to make this extra service a part of their regular assignment for the mere
purpose of avoiding compensating the engine crews in accordance with the pro-
visions of rule 11.
The employees' request is to the effect that the regular crew on run in ques-
tion be relieved of the extra work of running light between Tyler and Tracy
on Saturday night and Monday morning except in cases of emergency, and
that this extra work be not considered a part of its regular assignment; fur-
1074
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ther, that when crew is required in case of emergency to take this engine from
Tyler to Tracy they be compensated as per the fourth provision of rule 11,
engineers' and firemen's schedule, effective April 1, 1920.
Carrier's position.-The carrier takes the position that the rules in effect
do not preclude the carrier from adding to or taking from any assignment
when such assignment is made permanent, and notice issued in the usual way
to employees affected, when the requirements of the service warrant such
changes. It is true that prior to January 22, 1921, when necessary to send
engine to Tracy for repairs, at times it was changed off with a freight engine
on the main line. However, at that time the same class of engine could be and
was used on the main line and Astoria branch. With the advent of the use
of heavier power on the main lines of the Dakota division it was necessary to
discontinue this practice, due to the track conditions on the Astoria line not
being suitable to carry the heavier power. In addition to the method of re-
lieving this branch-line engine as above stated, the crews were run through to
Tracy on Saturday nights, or at other times when necessary account of re-
pairs needed, for which they were allowed additional time computed con-
tinuous with their day's work on the Astoria line; the same compensation was
made for return trip after having had repairs made. Schedule rules, effective
December 16, 1915, provided for the automatic tie-up and release, and the
fourth provision of rule 11 reads:
"Fourth. Men on assigned runs in through and irregular freight, local
freight, and mixed train service tie up after completion of regular assignment,
and if used in other freight service, subsequent to completion of regular as-
signment, a new day or trip begins. The same principle applies to men on
assigned runs who are used in freight service prior to beginning work on
regular assignment at initial terminal. Such men tied up to comply with
the hours-of-service law, and are governed by the provisions of the rest rules
contained in the respective schedules.
"Men on assigned runs are not affected by the definite terminal features,
except when their assignment is completed at such definite terminals."
Therefore, under the provisions of this rule it is necesssary to incorporate
in the bulletin notice establishing runs all service required, which was properly
done by the superintendent in charge, Dakota division. In addition to it being
necessary for the engine to go into Tracy once a week regularly, it is necessary
that the coaches used on the Astoria branch be taken into Tracy, where there
is a considerable car-repair force employed (there being no employees at Astoria
except an engine watchman), for a thorough cleaning and essential repairs.
It is incumbent upon the carrier to operate safely, efficiently, and economically,
and to do otherwise than was done in this case would create an uneconomical
condition. In connection with this matter, it is not unusual to have regular
assignments by reason of which the crews tie up at one point a portion of the
time and at another point at other times. In view of the conditions surround-
ing the service on the Astoria branch, the employees' request that we relieve this
crew with their equipment at Tracy Saturday nights, where the outfit can
receive the necessary attention, and return Monday morning except in cases of
emergency, or pay them two additional days for this service, is unreasonable.
This is not an emergency, but is service in connection with the run, and so
specified by bulletin notice.
Decision. Claim of the employees is sustained.
DECISION NO. 1470.-DOCKET 1050.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Dispute regarding the application of rule 53 of agree-
ment between the carrier and the employees in express service to
position held by R. J. Van Buskirk, Nevada, Mo.
Statement. Mr. Van Buskirk is employed by the American
Railway Express Co. at Nevada. The starting time of his assign-
DECISIONS.
1075
ment is 4 a. m. A controversy has arisen as to the proper application
of rule 53 of the agreement between the express company and its
employees, effective February 15, 1920, to this position. Rule 53 of
the agreement reads as follows:
Where three consecutive shifts are worked covering the 24-hour period,
no shift will have a starting time after 12 o'clock midnight and before 5 a. m.
/
The employees state that there are at Nevada three consecutive
shifts of employees, and contend that under rule 53 of the agreement
above referred to the action of the carrier in requiring Mr. Van
Buskirk to report for duty at 4 a. m. is improper and in violation
of the above rule.
The carrier states that there are three employees working con-
secutive shifts as depot clerks at Nevada, but that Mr. Van Buskirk
does not occupy one of these positions and is therefore not governed
by rule 53.
The evidence shows that the employee named is not assigned to a
three-shift position.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1471.-DOCKET 1415.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Union Terminal Railroad Co. of Dallas, Tex.
Question.-Shall the employees referred to herein, engaged in
handling baggage and mail at Dallas, Tex., be decreased 10 cents an
hour under section 4, or 6 cents an hour under section 7, Article II,
of Decision No. 147?
Statement. There are a number of employees engaged in handling
baggage and mail in and around the baggage room and platform at
Dallas. The duties of these employees consist of loading and un-
loading baggage and mail to and from trucks which are conveyed by
tractors. They also handle the mail between the trucks and cars
after the trucks have been placed at the correct doors by the tractors.
All of the work incident to the handling of baggage and mail is
done by hand with the exception of the moving of the trucks from
place to place, which is done by tractors. The work of these em-
ployees is of a manual character, the checking and recording inci-
dent thereto being done by clerks or foremen. In applying Decision
No. 147 the carrier reduced these employees 10 cents an hour under
section 4, Article II, of Decision No. 147.
The employees contend that the work performed by these em-
ployees, both the handling of baggage and mail and the operation
of the power-driven tractors, justifies their classification as freight
handlers and that they would therefore be properly decreased 6
cents an hour under section 7 instead of 10 cents an hour as bag-
gage and parcel room employees under section 4.
The carrier contends that these employees are not freight handlers
or truckers or others similarly employed, but are baggage and parcel
room employees properly decreased 10 cents an hour under section 4
of Article II.
Decision.-Position of the carrier is sustained.
1076
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1472.-DOCKET 1461.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
American Federation of Railroad Workers v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Question. This decision is upon a dispute as to the proper com-
pensation of men employed as mail porters at the Union station,
Toledo, Ohio.
Statement. There are about 36 mail porters at the point named
assigned to three shifts of eight hours each. Their duties consist of
loading and unloading and trucking all incoming and outgoing
United States mail.
These employees were granted an increase of 13 cents an hour
under section 4, Article II of Decision No. 2, and were decreased
10 cents an hour under section 4, Article II of Decision No. 147.
Prior to August 16, 1921, they were paid on a daily basis under
rule 66 of the national agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em-
ployees, effective January 1, 1920. Effective August 16, 1921, they
were paid a monthly rate covering all service performed in accord-
ance with rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
9
The employees state that on July 1, 1921, the employees referred
to herein were reduced 6 cents an hour for the first half of July, but
during the latter part of that month they were advised that a mis-
take had been made and that they would be reduced an additional
4 cents per hour; and that under date of September 1 a notice was.
posted stating that effective August 16, 1921, their wages would be
$101.12 per month, in accordance with the ruling of the Labor Board
in connection with rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement. This
the employees claim resulted in a reduction in the wages of the em-
ployees referred to of from $145 to $101.12 per month, or nearly $45
per month. It is the contention of the employees that there are from
160 to 170 trains arriving at and departing from Toledo station in
the 24-hour period, and that the classification of the work performed
by these employees as intermittent service is improper as they are
continuously engaged throughout the entire tour of duty, and in
fact have scarcely time enough in which to eat their lunch.
The employees further contend that these employees should have
been increased under section 7 of Decision No. 2 and decreased under
section 7 of Decision No. 147, and request that the employees be reim-
bursed for the wage loss sustained by the improper application of
Decisions Nos. 2 and 147 and the rules of the clerks' national
agreement.
The carrier states that at the time this submission was made to
the board there were a total of 145 trains scheduled to arrive and
depart from the Union Station at Toledo during the 24-hour period.
and that of this number 19 trains did not handle mail. The balance
handled mail in varying quantities and 29 were through trains which
arrived and departed and consequently were counted twice in com-
puting the total.
The carrier contends that these employees are a part of the
baggage-room force and come properly within the description of
"baggage and parcel room employees other than clerks," and that
they are not performing work of the same character as men who
DECISIONS.
1077
are handling and trucking freight at station warehouses or plat-
forms. The carrier further contends that the service performed by
these employees does not require continuous application, but on the
contrary is of an intermittent character and properly classified
under rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement.
Decision. Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1473.-DOCKET 1266.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of W. B. Montague, an em-
ployee of the American Railway Express Co., Lewistown, Mont.
Statement.--The question shown above is the one presented to the
Labor Board for decision in the original presentation of the case,
but the question in dispute appears to be whether the employee
named held a position subject to the provisions of the agreement
between the carrier and employees in express service effective Febru-
ary 15, 1920.
The Labor Board in Decision No. 959 remanded this case to the
employees and the carrier for joint investigation in accordance with
the understanding at hearing conducted by the board. This investi-
gation was held, but settlement of the question in dispute was not
reached. However, the following facts were agreed upon:
✩
Mr. Montague entered the service of the American Railway Express
Co. August 1, 1920, as night depot agent, at Lewistown. His serv-
ices were discontinued December 27, 1920, account of reduction in
force. He was subsequently employed by the Montana Grocery Co.
as clerk at a rate of $110 per month. On or about April 1, 1921,
the agent of the express company offered Mr. Montague extra work,
or work classed by the agent as "casual" work, which he accepted.
He continued in the service of the Montana Grocery Co. for a period
of four hours daily for about one week after accepting and starting
work with the express company. The work performed by Mr.
Montague in the positions classed by the agent of the express com-
pany as "extra" or "casual" consisted of the general duties of a
driver. These positions classed by the agent as casual were not
bulletined.
It is the contention of the employees that the work performed by
Mr. Montague was not special or fluctuating service as his hours were
established by the regular arrival and departure of trains and he
performed the same work each day on a regular assigned position,
and that the position now in existence is a "split-trick" position,
which the carrier had no right to establish. The employees further
contend that the agent had no right to demand that this employee
sign a statement accepting such hours of service, and that Mr. Monta-
gue was relieved from this work because he made inquiry regarding
his rating and hours of service.
The carrier denies that a split-trick position was established, and
claims that on the contrary the local investigation disclosed that there
1078
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
was no position involved, as it was shown that Mr. Montague actu-
ally performed "short hour" or "intermittent" work previously
performed by casual labor. Some of this work was performed in the
morning and some in the evening. The carrier also denies that this
constituted a regularly assigned position or that Mr. Montague was
released from the work because he made inquiry regarding his rat-
ing and hours of service.
It is the contention of the carrier that Mr. Montague was offered
this work when he was already employed by another party, and that
being of a casual or intermittent character the work comes within
the language of "exception," rule 1, Article I, of the agreement be-
tween the express company and its employees, effective February 15,
1920, reading as follows:
This agreement shall not apply * * to individuals performing special
service requiring only a part of their time from outside employment or busi-
ness *
*
The carrier therefore contends that the position was specifically
excepted from the agreement with the employees in express service,
effective February 15, 1920, and that it was within its rights "in
ceasing to employ Mr. Montague for this special intermittent short-
hour casual work when he indicated his dissatisfaction with the
hours and pay."
Opinion. It appears that on or about April 1, 1921, two part-time
positions of drivers were established, one covering a spread from
8 a. m. to 11 a. m., and the other a spread from 7 p. m. to 9.30 p. m.,
the former being paid at the hourly rate of driver and the latter at a
flat rate of $50 per month. Mr. Montague, who was employed by the
Montana Grocery Co., applied for and was assigned to these so-called
part-time positions. When he later indicated his dissatisfaction with
the hours thereof, he was relieved.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides that since the position held
by the employee named was a special or part-time position, it was
not subject to the provisions of the agreement between the American
Railway Express Co. and its employees, effective February 15, 1920.
Claim for reinstatement is therefore denied.
DECISION NO. 1474.-DOCKET 1295.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Claim of H. L. Siler, clerk, master mechanic's office,
Jackson, Tenn., for additional compensation for the period No-
vember 22, 1920, to January 18, 1921, under rules of the national
agreement of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.
Statement.-During the period above named Mr. Siler was as-
signed with several other employees to the preparation of data in
support of undermaintenance claims equipment, roadway, and struc-
tures, Columbus & Greenville Railroad, the operation of which was
at that time under the management of officers of the Mobile & Ohio
DECISIONS.
1079
Railroad Co. The work of preparing this data was performed at
Columbus, Miss. Mr. Siler and the other employees involved re-
ceived while engaged in this temporary work the rate of their regular
assigned positions, and in addition thereto their expenses incident
to meals and lodging.
The employees contend that the position held by Mr. Siler at
Columbus was similar to a position in the engineering department
paid at the rate of $6.33 per day, and that under rule 74 of the
clerks' agreement he was entitled to that rate. The employees there-
fore request that Mr. Siler be reimbursed for the difference between
the compensation he received and the compensation he would have
received if paid in accordance with their contention as to the appli-
cation of rules of the agreement.
The carrier states that Mr. Siler was one of several employees
assigned to the work of preparing data from time books, distribu-
tions, and reports requiring the experience these employees possessed.
The carrier contends that the position to which Mr. Siler was as-
signed was not subject to rule 74, but was a temporary assignment
of less than two months' duration covered by rule 68 of the clerks'
agreement and that Mr. Siler was paid in accordance with that rule.
Decision.-Claim of the employees is denied.
DECISION NO. 1475.-DOCKET 1404.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Question. In the original presentation of this case there were two
questions in dispute: (1) The application of the rules of the clerks'
agreement to the positions held by the employees involved and the
right of the clerks organization to represent them; (2) claim for a
minimum of eight hours' pay under rules 49 and 51 of the clerks'
agreement.
Statement.—At Whitefish, Mont., a car department force is main-
tained in connection with a repair track and small shop located at
that point. This force performs such repair track work and light
general repair work on cars as is usually performed at division
points, cleans and supplies passenger cars set out and passing
through Whitefish, and performs all the work incident to care of
refrigerator and other cars passing through in freight trains.
This force includes 22 laborers who are carried with the remainder
of the car department force on the shop pay rolls as shop laborers.
These laborers are under the general direction of the general car
foremen and are supervised exclusively by car department foremen.
It is the duty of these laborers to get ice out of ice house, prepare it,
supply it to passenger trains, assist in icing refrigerators, clean and
fill oil heaters for refrigerator cars in fruit trains during cold
weather, supply cabooses, shift freight in cars where necessary for
the purpose of making repairs, such as applying draft timbers, et
cetera, transfer freight where necessary to empty the cars for the
purpose of making repairs, and to adjust bad-order loads of timber
and poles, replacing them in proper position on cars where the loads
1080
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
have shifted and restaking them when necessary. The carrier states
that these laborers are also required to pick up scrap in shop and
on repair track, and to keep the shop and repair track premises
clean, but the employees claim that this work is performed by main-
tenance of way forces.
Since the dispute was presented the employees and carrier have
jointly advised the Labor Board that—
The representation has been definitely settled, and it is recognized that the
clerks' organization has the right to speak for this class of employees.
The above agreement is dated August 2, 1922.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employees in whose
behalf this claim is presented were not subject to the rules negotiated
by the clerks' organization prior to the date of the agreement between
the respective parties, August 2, 1922.
DECISION NO. 1476.-DOCKET 1410.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Question.-Shall the positions of cashier and clerk-stenographer,
East St. Louis, be bulletined in accordance with rule 6 of the agree-
ment between the organization and carrier parties to this decision?
Statement. During the year 1918 there was created at East St.
Louis, Ill., a joint office for the purpose of handling stock shipments
to and from the national stockyards at that point. Each railroad
that maintained a separate office at the stockyards entered into this
joint agency, and employees of the individual roads were generally
taken over, including the agent on the Chicago & Alton Railroad.
On August 1, 1921, the Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. decided to
withdraw from the joint agency and reestablish its own agency.
When this was done the carrier took the agent back in its service
and took from the joint agency a cashier and clerk-stenographer, a
total of three employees, each of whom was paid the same salary
he had been receiving in the joint agency.
The employees state that the cashier and clerk-stenographer were
not previously employed by the Chicago & Alton Railroad, having
been employed prior to their service with the joint agency by the
Baltimore & Ohio and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroads
respectively. It is further stated by the employees that upon taking
up the question of advertising these positions, they were advised by
the carrier as follows:
As stated previously, I do not agree that these were newly created positions,
requiring same to be advertised, or that the national agreement schedule cov-
ering newly created positions was meant to cover a case of this kind, or that
it was the intention that they should be advertised; but, rather, these positions
were simply transferred from one office to the other and the men in question
transferred with the work. Of course, if there was now a vacancy in this
office the position would be advertised, but I can not agree to now advertise
the positions that were simply transferred from the consolidated office to the
new office.
The employees contend that the employees in question were not
transferred but entered the service of the Chicago & Alton Railroad
Co. as new employees, and that the action of the carrier in assigning
DECISIONS.
1081
!
the said employees to positions in its service without bulletining
the positions was in conflict with rule 6 of the agreement between
the clerks' organization and the carrier, reading as follows:
New positions and vacancies on seniority districts other than the general
offices will be advertised and bid on as follows—
1. Employees of the respective department in which new positions or vacan-
cies occur at the station and/or terminal.
2. Employees of all departments at such station or terminal.
3. Employees in the department in which the vacancy or new position occurs
on the superintendent's division on which the position is located.
Departments as herein referred to are the transportation, traffic, mechanical,
stores and accounting.
The carrier states that in withdrawing from the joint agency it
was necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the office that
the cashier and bill clerk be expert rate clerks, as they had to do
all the revising of rates in connection with the handling of inbound
and outbound stock. The carrier further states that when it with-
drew from the joint agency the force in the joint agency was reduced
to the extent of three employees and no employees were hired by
the agency to take the places of the three men transferred to the
Chicago & Alton agency.
It is the contention of the carrier that rule 6 was never intended
to cover a condition of this kind, but on the contrary the following
rule of the agreement was intended to apply to changes of this kind
and said rule was complied with in this instance-
When for any reason two or more offices or departments are consolidated
or divided, employees affected shall have prior right to corresponding positions
in the consolidated or divided office or department. After such rights have been
exercised these rules will govern-
and that, therefore, there has been no violation of the agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the positions of cashier
and clerk-stenographer, herein referred to, shall be bulletined in ac-
cordance with rule 6 of the agreement between the carrier and em-
ployees in clerical and station service.
DECISION NO. 1477.-DOCKET 1412.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System).
Question.-Shall the baggage-room foremen herein referred to be
decreased 6 cents an hour under section 1, Article II of Decision No.
147, or 10 cents an hour under section 4, Article II of Decision
No. 147?
Statement.-A. B. Minford is employed in the ferry baggage
room, San Francisco, Calif., as day foreman, and is so classified on
the pay rolls of the carrier. His duties are to supervise the following
employees engaged in handling baggage to and from said baggage
room:
Baggage handlers
Baggage checkers.
Delivery clerk
18 to 25
7
1
Frank Hansen is employed in the said baggage room as night fore-
man and is so classified on the pay rolls. Mr. Hansen has super-
*
1082
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
and
vision over an average of three baggage checkers until 11 p. m.,
from 5 to 10 baggage handlers engaged in the handling of baggage
to and from the baggage room.
Both of the above-mentioned foremen report to the station baggage
master.
M. O'Connor is employed at the Oakland Pier Station as day
baggage foreman and is so classified on the pay rolls of the carrier.
He has supervision over two gang foremen and from 40 to 50 baggage
handlers engaged in the handling of baggage between trains and the
station baggage room, and the transfer of baggage from trains into
trucks which are later transferred to the ferry boats. Mr. O'Connor
reports to the depot station master.
These employees were increased 13 cents an hour under section 4,
Article II of Decision No. 2, and were decreased 10 cents per hour
under section 4, Article II of Decision No. 147.
The employees state that in addition to the employees enumerated
above Mr. Minford has jurisdiction over a storage clerk whose time
is divided between the office of the station baggage agent and the
general baggage room, where he takes record of baggage for the
purpose of assessing storage.
The employees contend that the three employees herein referred to
are classified by the carrier as foremen and should have been in-
creased 13 cents per hour under section 1, Article II of Decision
No. 2, and decreased 6 cents per hour under the corresponding sec-
tion of Article II, decision No. 147.
The carrier states that the service performed by the Messrs.
O'Connor and Hansen is analogous that is, exercising general
supervision over baggage checkers and handlers-and that the serv-
ice performed by Mr. Minford is the same except that in addition
he has jurisdiction over a delivery clerk whose work is of a clerical
nature. The carrier states that the storage clerk referred to by the
employees works in the office of the station baggage agent, and
while he visits the baggage room that is under the direct super-
vision of Mr. Minford for the purpose of checking up baggage in
connection with assessing storage charges, he is not under Mr. Min-
ford's jurisdiction.
The carrier contends that the three foremen in question were.
increased under section 4, Article II of Decision No. 2, as "baggage
and parcel room employees," and that they are not "foremen, sub-
foremen, or other clerical supervisory forces," within the meaning
of section 1, Article II, of Decision No. 2.
Decision. The Labor Board decides on the evidence presented in
this particular case that the specific foremen herein referred to
should be decreased 6 cents an hour in accordance with section 1,
Article II, of Decision No. 147.
DECISION NO. 1478.-DOCKET 1413.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Question. Shall James A. Forrest be granted an increase of 13
cents per hour under section 2, Article II of Decision No. 2?
DECISIONS.
1083
Statement.—Mr. Forrest was employed by the carrier at Pendle-
ton, Tex., from November 20, 1918, until October 25, 1920. The rate
of his position was increased 5 cents an hour under section 6, Article
II of Decision No. 2.
The employees state that during the period of his employment at
Pendleton Mr. Forrest performed the following duties:
Cleaning station and lighting lights, selling tickets, checking and handling
baggage, taking United States mail from trains, making daily reports and
attendant duties, sweeping station floors, delivering United States mail to post
office, checking freight, and making freight bills and sundry reports.
The employees contend that the preponderant duties of the position
were extremely clerical in their nature, the incumbent stating that
it required practically six of the eight hours constituting the assign-
ment to handle and perform the clerical work of the position, and
that the work he performed was practically the same as that per-
formed by the agent during the day. The employees further con-
tend that the classification of the position held by Mr. Forrest as
station attendant was improper; that the position should properly
be classed as clerk or assistant agent, and that Mr. Forrest's rate
should be increased 13 cents an hour in accordance with section 2,
Article II of Decision No. 2.
The carrier states that the employee in question was assigned as
helper at Pendleton in November, 1918, and paid at the rate of $58
a month. This rate was changed to $2.27 per day in accordance
with rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement, effective January 1,
An investigation of Mr. Forrest's duties was made by the
superintendent and copy thereof filed with the Labor Board. The
carrier summarizes the duties performed by Mr. Forrest as follows:
Duties performed.
Cleaning up.
Lighting up and selling tickets and handling baggage..
Taking mail from train No. 18……….
Counting cash and daily reports..
Delivering United States mail to post office.
Making freight bills.
Miscellaneous weekly reports (average up daily)..
Total each day..
Time consumed.

Hours.
Minutes.
1
00
2
261848812
05
30
15
06
08
The carrier, therefore, contends that the employee in question is
not a clerk, but is a station helper or attendant properly increased
5 cents an hour under section 6, Article II of Decision No. 2.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that the employee in question
is not entitled to an increase of 13 cents an hour under section 2,
Article II of Decision No. 2.
Claim of the employees denied.
20936°-23-69
1084
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
DECISION NO. 1479.-DOCKET 1416.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
Co.
Question.-Claim of C. H. Rich and D. J. Landry, employed in
relief service at passenger station, Providence, R. I., for rate of pay
of position held by employees whom they are required to relieve.
Statement.-Rule 67 of the national agreement of the Brother-
hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees provides that—
So far as practicable, consistent with the requirements of the service, employees
shall be allowed one day of rest (not necessarily Sunday) in seven
In compliance with this rule two new relief positions requiring six
days' service a week were created at the Providence passenger sta-
tion for the purpose of relieving gatemen, train callers, and infor-
mation clerks who had been working seven days per week. Messrs.
Rich and Landry were assigned to these positions.
The employees state that these relief men covered different posi-
tions on different days of the week paying higher rates than estab-
lished for the relief positions as shown by the following examples:

Regular daily | Rate paid
rate of position. relief men.
$4.975
$4.444
4.975
4. 444
4.856
4.342
4.856
4.342
4. 856
4.856
4. 342
4.342
29.374
26.256
It is the contention of the employees that the employees in ques-
tion should be reimbursed for the difference between the rate paid
them and the established rate of the positions they were called upon
to fill in accordance with rule 72 of the clerks' national agreement,
reading as follows:
RULE 72. Employees temporarily or permanently assigned to higher rated
positions shall receive the higher rates while occupying such position; em-
ployees temporarily assigned to lower rated positions not have their rates
reduced.
The carrier states that the relief positions were new positions
created to comply with the provisions of rule 67 of the clerks'
national agreement, and that the daily rates were established there-
for in accordance with the rates fixed by the application of the
clerks' national agreement to six-day positions and in effect at the
time these new positions were authorized.
The carrier contends that it is within its right in establishing new
six-day positions and paying therefor a rate as applying to such
new positions on precisely the same basis as rates were applied to
other six-day positions heretofore established and in effect. The
carrier further contends that Docket No. C-1001 of Railway Board
DECISIONS.
1085
of Adjustment No. 3, upon which the claim of the employees is based,
did not apply to new six-day positions created and paid the same
rates as in effect before the application of Docket No. 1001 to seven-
day positions; that Decision No. 949 of the Labor Board having set
aside the differentials created by the application of Docket No. 1001,
the rates for all of the positions at Providence are now paid upon
the basis as established for the two new relief six-day positions herein
referred to.
Opinion.-It seems to be well established as reasonable, fair, and
just that the relief men performing service such as this should
receive the same compensation as the regular employees on the posi-
tions they are required to fill.
Decision.-The Labor Board therefore decides that the two em-
ployees herein named shall be reimbursed for the difference between
the regular daily rate of the positions they were required to fill and
the rate paid them as relief men, during the period that they were
paid less than the regular rate of the employees they relieved.
DECISION NO. 1480.-DOCKET 1476.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees v. American Railway Express Co.
Question.-Request for reinstatement of J. C. Daugherty, joint
messenger and baggageman, Galveston, Tex.
Decision. Basing this decision upon the evidence before it, in-
cluding proceedings of hearing conducted by the Labor Board, the
board decides that request for reinstatement is denied.
DECISION NO. 1481.-DOCKET 1146.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Shall George H. Lawrence, employed at the round-
house, Powers, Mich., be classified and rated as a foreman and receive
a differential of 5 cents over and above the rate paid engine watch-
men at that point.
Statement.-On March 3, 1922, the Labor Board issued Decision
No. 778, covering the claim submitted by representatives of the em-
ployees relative to classification and rating of Mr. Lawrence, round-
house employee at Powers. It was the contention of the employees
at that time that Mr. Lawrence acted in the capacity of foreman and
also performed certain machinist's work, which it is claimed entitled
him to a higher rate of pay than he was receiving.
Decision No. 778 stated in part:
Irrespective of his pay-roll classification, the evidence shows that the carrier
recognized Mr. Lawrence as foreman at Powers.
The evidence before the Labor Board is conflicting as to Mr. Lawrence per-
forming mechanics' work; this is a question or dispute that can be definitely
determined by a joint investigation and the parties will be directed accord-
ingly.
1086
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
The evidence shows that upon receipt of this decision suggesting a
further conference, a conference was held between the duly author-
ized representatives of the respective parties, at which time the em-
ployees representative contended that the Labor Board had, in its
decision, decided that Mr. Lawrence was a foreman.
The employees further stated that they were willing to waive that
portion of the dispute relative to Mr. Lawrence performing a
mechanic's work.
The representative of the carrier took the position that the lan-
guage of Decision No. 778 remanded the entire question for further
conference, it being the contention of the carrier that Mr. Lawrence
did not perform mechanics' work, nor did he perform service which
could be properly considered that of a foreman.
An oral hearing was conducted on the resubmission of this case,
at which time both parties presented additional evidence with respect
to their contentions regarding the classification of Mr. Lawrence as
foreman.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the evidence submitted
that George H. Lawrence shall be classified as a foreman and be paid
a differential of 5 cents an hour over and above the rates paid other
engine watchmen at that point.
The question with respect to a retroactive application of this
decision shall be subject of further conference between the interested
parties.
This decision shall in no case be considered retroactive beyond
March 1, 1920, the effective date of the transportation act, 1920.
DECISION NO. 1482.-DOCKET 1687.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Petition of Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. for Rehearing on Docket
1687, Decision No. 1082.
Question. Request for rehearing in connection with dispute cov-
ered by Decision No. 1082.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1082 shall
be applied in conformity with the provisions thereof, subject only
to change with respect to the class of employees affected which may
be agreed upon in conference between the duly authorized repre-
sentatives of the interested parties.
DECISION NO. 1483.-DOCKET 2392.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad.
Question.-Request for leave of absence and free transportation for
general chairman of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes and Railway Shop Laborers.
Statement. This case was submitted to the Labor Board in ex
parte form by the chief executive of the above-named organization.
DECISIONS.
1087
It is the contention of the employees that L. E. Pope, general chair-
man of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and Railway Shop Laborers, is the duly authorized representative
of the maintenance of way employees and shop and roundhouse
laborers on that property. The employees take the further position
that the carrier was apprised of Mr. Pope's appointment to the office
of general chairman, but refused to grant him leave of absence and
free transportation for the performance of duties incumbent upon
that position. The employees submit evidence purporting to show
that repeated efforts were made by Mr. Pope to secure leave of
absence and free transportation, which were denied by the carrier.
An oral hearing was conducted in connection with this case, at
which only the representatives of the employees were present.
The only statement before the Labor Board indicating the carrier's
position is that incorporated in a communication dated September
9, 1922, reading:
Your letter of August 17, Docket 2392, with reference to hearing to be held
September 13 in connection with dispute between the United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes and Railway Shop Laborers and the Toledo, St.
Louis and Western Railroad.
We have no dispute with these gentlemen. We have no dispute with any of
our employees. Our track forces are in better shape, are better satisfied, and
we have less labor turnover and the conditions never were better on our line
than they are at the present time. There is no danger of an interruption of
traffic. Our track conditions are better than they have ever been in the past.
As to the question of giving L. E. Pope, section employee on our line, one
year's leave of absence and free transportation, I wrote you some time ago.
We do not do this with any of our employees and we can not consistently
grant this request.
We will not be represented at the hearing. My suggestion would be that
this complaint be dismissed, and suggest that the Toledo, St. Louis & Western
Railroad management are not only willing, but anxious, to meet our employees
at any time if they have any grievances.
It might be of interest to you in this connection to know that we did not
reduce the pay of our section men July 1, in accordance with your order. It
may also be of interest to you to know that our shop crafts did not strike and
we are 100 per cent, not only in the mechanical department, but in the track
department. All we ask is to be left alone to run our own business and we
will undertake to get along with our own men.
Decision.-The Labor Board directs the attention of the interested
parties to Decision No. 1446, which has reference to recognition of
the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers in negotiating rules and working conditions.
The Labor Board feels that the question involved in this dispute
is interwoven with that covered by Decision No. 1446, above re-
ferred to, and that this matter should be handled in the conference
therein referred to.
DECISION NO. 1484.-DOCKET 2414.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Question.-Seniority rights of Frank Helton and H. Clutts, em-
ployed as pumpers, Tamms, Ill.
Statement. The evidence in this case shows that Mr. Clutts en-
tered the service of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co. in January, 1909,
1088
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
•
and that Mr. Helton entered the service of the carrier in January,
1921, both men being employed as pumpers at Tamms.
It is the contention of the carrier that Mr. Clutts asked for and
was granted verbal leave of absence for 30 or 60 days, or longer if
necessary, account of ill health. It is also shown that Mr. Clutts
laid off on March 3, 1921, and returned to service during the month
of April, 1921, but that some dissatisfaction was expressed by cer-
tain men then employed, who took the position that Mr. Clutts had
resigned from the service and was therefore not entitled to return to
the position of pumper formerly occupied by him.
There is introduced as evidence a statement from a physician
that Mr. Clutts was under his professional care during this
period. It is also the statement of Mr. Clutts, which is corroborated
by the carrier, that while not actually engaged in the operation of,
be exercised supervision over the plant during the period above re-
ferred to-namely, from March 3 to April 25, 1921.
The carrier upon being apprised of the position taken by the
employees at the plant instituted an investigation, and on May 19,
1921, Mr. Clutts was put back to work, displacing Frank Helton, who
had been filling the position. It was the position of the carrier that
Mr. Clutts had been given verbal leave of absence account of the
condition of his health and was therefore entitled to return to his
former position.
The following letter, dated July 23, 1921, was addressed to the
representative of Mr. Helton by the roadmaster:
Mr. W. W. CARPENTER,
West Point, Miss.
CORINTH, Miss., July 22, 1921.
DEAR SIR: On account of so much business in the office last Sunday did not
get to write you as I agreed. Since then I have been on a motor trip, which
was completed yesterday in Okolona.
I will say, however, that I have taken Mr. Clutts out of the service and put
Mr. Helton back to work; this change was effective the 19th instant. Will
answer your letter to complete your file when I again get back to Murphys-
boro.
It is indicated that Mr. Helton was again placed in the position
of pumper, displacing Mr. Clutts, in which position he served until
November 15, 1921, when Mr. Clutts was reinstated in the position of
pumper, thereby again displacing Mr. Helton.
The carrier takes the position that Mr. Clutts was granted leave
of absence verbally because of ill health, and due to his service age
they felt justified in granting this consideration. It is the contention
of the carrier that the action on the part of the employees was for
the purpose of eliminating Mr. Clutts from the service because of his
nonaffiliation with the organization.
The employees take the position that the rule of the agreement
then in effect provided that leaves of absence would be required in
writing. Section (j), Article II of the national agreement United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers reads:
Employees given leave of absence in writing by proper authority of the rail-
road, for six months or less, will retain their seniority. Employees failing to
return before the expiration of their leave of absence will lose their seniority
rights unless an extension has been obtained.
DECISIONS.
1089
The employees further contend that in not securing a written
leave of absence Mr. Clutts surrendered his seniority as a pumper.
The employees lay especial emphasis upon the letter from the road-
master, dated July 22, 1922, hereinbefore quoted, which it is con-
tended was an acknowledgment on the part of the carrier that Mr.
Helton and not Mr. Clutts was entitled to the position of pumper at
Tamms. The employees make the claim that Mr. Clutts voluntarily
left the service of the carrier; that he drew all the money due him;
that he sold his home, which was located near the pumping station;
that he accepted a position in a sawmill at Sandusky where, it is
claimed, he remained for nearly three months, performing arduous
labor; and that therefore he had no seniority with the carrier and
should not have been permitted to displace Mr. Helton. Mr. Clutts
denies that he was employed elsewhere while out of the service of the
carrier.
Decision.-The Labor Board decides upon the language of the rule
in effect at the time this dispute arose, and upon the circumstances
surrounding this particular dispute, that Frank Helton is entitled to
the position of pumper at Tamms, Ill.
DECISION NO. 1485.-DOCKET 2776.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
Question.-Claim of section foreman and section men for bridge
and building foreman's and carpenter's rates for the performance of
certain work alleged to be that of bridge and building men, which
resulted from engine tank backing into turntable pit.
Statement.—The submission contains the following:
Statement of facts.-At midnight, January 25, 1922, an engine tank was
backed into turntable pit at Council Bluffs, Iowa. Bridgemen, trackmen, and
roundhouse men were called at or about 1.30 a. m. for the purpose of removing
tank from the pit and making repairs to track, turntable, etc., which work was
completed at or about 7.30 a. m.
Henry Smith, section foreman; Lawrence Petry, assistant section foreman ;
Edward Davis, John Jacobi, Frank Tanner, John Cahill, and Peter Olson, sec-
tion laborers, who were employed in this work, were allowed compensation
under schedule rules at their respective rates of pay. Claim is made for com-
pensation at rates of pay applicable to bridge and building foremen, assistant
bridge and building foremen, and bridge and building mechanics, respectively.
Employees' position.-Rule 56 reads as follows:
"An employee working on more than one class of work four hours or more
on any day will be allowed the higher rate of pay for the entire day. When
temporarily assigned by the proper officer to a lower rated position, his rate of
pay will not be reduced."
Our understanding of the above-quoted rule in the agreement between the
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. and the maintenance of way employees
and railway shop laborers is to the effect that employees required to work on
more than one class of work four hours or more will be allowed the higher
rate for the entire day. The employees in question were called, and after
Mr. Smith, section foreman, had inspected the work to be done he found the
track intact and that there was nothing for himself and men to do.
He was
about to release them from further duty, when he was informed by bridge
and building foreman, Mr. Cartwright, that he had ordered the above-men-
1090
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
tioned foreman and men to help him, as he was short of help and could not
handle the resetting of the turntable without additional help. As all work
on the turntable is and always has been considered bridge and building men's
work, and as above stated there was no track work to be done, and, as is
shown, the employees herein named worked directly under the supervision
of Mr. Cartwright, bridge and building foreman, with men who were classified
and rated as bridge and building men, and as the employees named above
worked more than four hours on work that is paid for at a higher rate, we
claim that they should be paid in accordance with rule 56, above mentioned,
and at rate and one-half as provided for in rule 29.
·
"RULE 29. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, employees notified
or called to perform work not continuous with the regular work period, will be
allowed a minimum of two hours' pay at rate and one-half for two hours
worked or less; and if held on duty in excess of two hours, rate and one-half
will be allowed on the minute basis. Employees who are subject to call
because of the requirements of the service will notify their immediate superior
where they may be called and will respond promptly when called."
Carrier's position.—Assisting at wrecks, derailments, washouts, etc., has
always been considered trackmen's work, and on the date in question track-
men were not required to, and neither did they, perform any service other
than that generally required of trackmen in similar circumstances. The sec-
tion foreman and assistant section foreman were on the ground and in charge
of the gang. They made such repairs to the track as were necessary, and
carried blocking and ties used for blocking to the turntable pit for the use
of the bridge and building men, and were not required to, and neither did they,
perform any service ordinarily recognized as that belonging to bridge and
building forces.
It is the position of the carrier that compensation for these employees on
the basis of schedule rules at the rate applicable to their respective positions
was correct, and that they are not entitled to additional compensation on the
basis of the rating of bridge and building foreman, assistant bridge and build-
ing foreman, and bridge and building mechanics, respectively.
Decision. Based upon the evidence in this particular case, the
position of the carrier is sustained.
PART 2
ADDENDA :: 1922
1091
LIST OF ADDENDA AUTHORIZED.
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 147.
Addendum
No.
Page.
4. Dated February 16, 1922
1095
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 222.
10. Dated February 8, 1922_
11. Dated February 10, 1922.
1096
1096
12. Dated February 16, 1922.
13. Dated May 6, 1922.
14. Dated June 5, 1922_
1096
1097
1097
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 501.
2. Dated April 26, 1922.
3. Dated May 6, 1922.
4. Dated May 20, 1922.
1098
1098
1099
ÁDDENDA TO DECISION NO. 630.
1. Dated January 27, 1922.
2. Dated February 8, 1922.
3. Dated February 10, 1922.
1099
1100
1100
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 721.
1. Dated March 16, 1922.
1101
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 725.
1. Dated March 24, 1922_
1101
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 757.
1. Dated March 13, 1922.
2. Dated March 16, 1922.
3. Dated April 12, 1922.
1101
1102
1103
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 1028.
1. Dated June 20, 1922.
2. Dated July 12, 1922___
3. Dated October 25, 1922.
4. Dated December 21, 1922__
1104
1105
1107
1107
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 1036.
1. Dated July 1, 1922.
2. Dated July 12, 1922.
3. Dated August 2, 1922.
1108
1109
1111
1093
1094
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 1074.
Addendum
No.
Page.
1. Dated July 1, 1922.
2. Dated July 12, 1922—
1112
1113
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 1266.
1. Dated October 26, 1922_
2. Dated October 28, 1922.
1115
1115
ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 1267.
1. Dated November 16, 1922.
2. Dated November 22, 1922_-
1116
1117
ADDENDA TO DECISIONS.
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO DECISION NO. 147.-DOCKET 353.
Chicago, Ill., February 16, 1922.
Decision No. 147 (Docket 353).-New York Central
Railroad Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees, et al.
Entry. Relating to the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey et al. and
the Specific Classes of Employees Named or Referred to Under Each Par-
ticular Carrier.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 147 shall apply to the
carriers hereinafter named and to the specific classes of employees
named or referred to under each of said carriers with the same force.
and effect as if the said carriers and employees had been named
originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall be
February 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of July 1, 1921, as shown
in Decision No. 147, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1922.
Add to Article I of Decision No. 147 the carriers (found named
as original parties to Docket 353 or by addendum made parties
thereto) hereinafter named under the caption, "Article I.-Carriers
and employees affected."
ARTICLE I.- -CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board for the specific classes of its employees
named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases
and rules governing reference to article and section numbers here-
tofore printed in Decision No. 147 and reproduced in Addendum
No. 1 thereto.
NOTE.—An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 147 or addenda thereto. These carriers are renamed in this
addendum for the purpose of including certain classes of their employees not
named or referred to in said decision.
*Central Railroad Company of New
Jersey.
Article XI. Section 1.
*Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Article XI. Section 1.
*St. Louis - San Francisco Railway
System.
Article XI. Section 1.
*Western Maryland Railway Co.
Article XI. Section 1.
1095
1096
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ADDENDUM NO. 10 TO DECISION NO. 222.—DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 8, 1922.
Decision No. 222 (Docket 475).-Chicago & North
Western Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' De-
partment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry. Relating to the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co. and to Its Em-
ployees in the Shop Crafts.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 222 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its employees in the shop crafts
with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named
originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall be
February 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of August 16, 1921, as
shown in Decision No. 222, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in Docket
475, Decision No. 222, the following carrier:
Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 11 TO DECISION NO. 222.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 10, 1922.
Decision No. 222 (Docket 475).-Chicago & North
Western Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' De-
partment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry.-Relating to the Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co. et al. and
to Their Employees in the Shop Crafts.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 222 shall apply to the
carriers hereinafter named and to their employees in the shop crafts
with the same force and effect as if the said carriers had been named
originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall be
February 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of August 16, 1921, as
shown in Decision No. 222, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in Docket
475, Decision No. 222, the following carriers:
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 12 TO DECISION NO. 222.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 16, 1922.
Decision No. 222 (Docket 475).-Chicago & North
Western Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' De-
partment A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry. Relating to the Galveston Wharf Co. and to Its Employees in the
Shop Crafts.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 222 shall apply to
the carrier hereinafter named and to its employees in the shop crafts
DECISIONS.
1097
with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named
originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall be
February 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of August 16, 1921, as
shown in Decision No. 222, and hereby issues the following—
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in Docket
475, Decision No. 222, the following carrier:
Galveston Wharf Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 13 TO DECISION NO. 222.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Decision No. 222 (Docket 475).-Chicago & North
Western Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' De-
partment A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry.-Relating to the Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co. et al. and
to Their Employees in the Shop Crafts.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 222 shall apply to
the carriers hereinafter named and to their employees in the shop
crafts with the same force and effect as if the said carriers had been
named originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall
be May 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of August 16, 1921, as
shown in Decision No. 222, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE MAY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 222, the following carriers:
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co.
Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 14 TO DECISION NO. 222.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., June 5, 1922.
Decision No. 222 (Docket 475).-Chicago & North
Western Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' De-
partment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry.-Relating to the Virginian Railway Co. and Its Employees in the
Shop Crafts.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 222 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its employees in the shop crafts
with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named
originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall be June
1, 1922, as set out below, instead of August 16, 1921, as shown in
Decision No. 222, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in Docket
475, Decision No. 222, the following carrier:
Virginian Railway Co.
1098
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 501.-DOCKETS 1489 AND 1490.
Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1922.
Decision No. 501 (Docket 475).-Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers.
Entry.-Relating to the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co. et al. and Certain
Employees in the Maintenance of Way Departments Thereof.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 501 shall apply to the
carriers hereinafter named and to their employees, as defined in Arti-
cle I of Decision No. 501, with the same force and effect as if the
said carriers had been named originally in said decision, except that
the effective date shall be May 1, 1922, as set out below, instead of
December 16, 1921, as shown in Decision No. 501, and hereby issues.
the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in Docket
475, Decision No. 501, the following carriers:
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
St. Louis, Troy & Eastern Railroad Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO DECISION NO. 501.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Decision No. 501 (Docket 475).-Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers.
Entry. Relating to the Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co. et al. and
to Its Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 501 shall apply to the
carriers hereinafter named and to employees specified in scope
thereof with the same force and effect as if the said carriers had
been named originally in said decision, except that the effective date
shall be May 16, 1922, instead of December 16, 1921, as shown in
Decision No. 501, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE MAY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 501, the following carriers:
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co.
Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Co.
DECISIONS.
1099
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO DECISION NO. 501.-DOCKET 450.
Chicago, Ill., May 20, 1922.
Decision No. 501 (Docket 475).—Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers.
Entry.-Relating to the St. Louis & Hannibal Railroad Co. and Certain Em-
ployees in the Maintenance of Way Departments Thereof.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 501 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its employees, as defined in Article
I of Decision No. 501, with the same force and effect as if the said
carrier had been named originally in said decision, except that the
effective date shall be June 1, 1922, instead of December 16, 1921, as
shown in Decision No. 501, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 501, the following carrier:
St. Louis & Hannibal Railroad Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 630.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., January 27, 1922.
Decision No. 630 (Docket 475).—Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees, et al.
Entry. Relating to the Chicago Junction Railway Co. et al. and Certain
Clerical and Station Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 630 shall apply to the
carriers hereinafter named and to their clerical and station em-
ployees, as defined in Article I of Decision No. 630, with the same
force and effect as if the said carriers had been named originally in
said decision, and hereby issues the following—
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 630, the following carriers:
Chicago Junction Railway Co.
Chicago River & Indiana Railway Co.
20936°—23——70
1100
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 630.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 8, 1922.
Decision No. 630 (Docket 475).-Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, et al.
Entry.-Relating to the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co. and
Certain Clerical and Station Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 630 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its clerical and station employees,
as defined in Article I of Decision No. 630, with the same force and
effect as if the said carrier had been named originally in said de-
cision, except that the effective date shall be February 16, 1922, as
set out below, instead of February 1, 1922, as shown in Decision No.
630, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 630, the following carrier:
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO DECISION NO. 630.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., February 10, 1922.
Decision No. 630 (Docket 475).-Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees, et al.
Entry-Relating to the Chesapeake and Ohio Lines and Certain Clerical and
Station Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 630 shall apply to
the carrier hereinafter named and to its clerical and station em-
ployees, as defined in Article I of Decision No. 630, with the same
force and effect as if the said carrier had been named originally
in said decision, except that the effective date shall be February 16,
1922, as set out below, instead of February 1, 1922, as shown in
Decision No. 630, and hereby issues the following—
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 630, the following carrier:
Chesapeake & Ohio Lines.
DECISIONS.
1101
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 721.--DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., March 16, 1922.
Decision No. 721 (Docket 475).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. American Train Dispatchers
Association.
Entry. Relating to the Zanesville & Western Railway Co. and Its Train
Dispatchers.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 721 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its train dispatchers, as defined
in Article I of Decision No. 721, with the same force and effect as
if the said carrier had been named originally in said decision, except
that the effective date shall be March 16, 1922, as set out below,
instead of March 1, 1922, as shown in Decision No. 721, and hereby
issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE MARCH 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 721, the following carrier:
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 725.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., March 24, 1922.
Decision No. 725 (Docket 475).-Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers.
Entry. Relating to the New York Central Railroad Co. and Certain Specified
Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 725 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its employees as specified in rule 1
of Decision No. 725, with the same force and effect as if the said
carrier had been named originally in said decision, except that the
effective date shall be April 1, 1922, as set out below, instead of
March 1, 1922, as shown in Decision No. 725, and hereby issues the
following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 475, Decision No. 725, the following carrier:
New York Central Railroad Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 757.—DOCKETS 1, 2, 3,
AND 1606.
Chicago, Ill., March 13, 1922.
Decision No. 757 (Dockets 1, 2, 3, and 1606).—Ala-
bama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers.
Entry-Relating to the Inclusion of the Delaware & Hudson Co. et al. and
Limiting the Application of Decision No. 757 to Certain Specified Rules.
The Railroad Labor Board, acting upon the written application
of the carriers hereinafter named, hereby renders a decision upon a
1102
C
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
series of controversies in Docket 353, undisposed of by Decision No.
147, involving the question of what shall constitute a just and
reasonable overtime rule. The various controversies were considered
in conference between representatives designated and authorized by
the parties, and not having been decided in such conference were
referred to the Labor Board for hearing and decision.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 757 shall apply to the
carriers hereinafter named and to their employees, as defined in
rule 1 of Decision No. 757, with the same force and effect as if the
said carriers had been named originally in said decision, except that
the application of the rules governing hours of service and working
conditions shall be limited as hereinafter prescribed, and hereby
issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE MARCH 16, 1922.
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Dockets 1, 2, 3, and 1606, Decision No. 757, the carriers hereinafter
named under the caption "Parties to the dispute."
2. Limit the application of the rules approved by the Labor Board
in Decision No. 757 to rule 4, hereinafter reproduced under the cap-
tion, “Hours of service and working conditions governing employees
herein named."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carriers hereby added as parties to the dispute in Dockets 1, 2,
3, and 1606, Decision No. 757, each of which has a dispute with the
organization named therein, are:
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.
New York Central Railroad Co.
(Buffalo and East).
New York Central Railroad Co.
(West of Buffalo).
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
OVERTIME.
RULE 4. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, time in ex-
cess of eight hours, exclusive of meal period, on any day, will be
considered overtime and paid on the actual minute basis at the pro
rata rates for the ninth hour, and at time and one-half thereafter.
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 757.-DOCKETS 1, 2, 3,
AND 1606.
Chicago, Ill., March 16, 1922.
Decision No. 757 (Dockets 1, 2, 3, and 1606).-Ala-
bama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers.
Entry.-Relating to the Central Vermont Railway Co. and Certain Specified
Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 757 shall apply to the
carrier hereinafter named and to its telegraphers et al., as specified
DECISIONS.
1103
in Rule 1 of Decision 757, with the same force and effect as if the
said carrier had been named originally in said decision, and hereby
issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE MARCH 16, 1922.
Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in Dock
ets 1, 2, 3, and 1606, Decision No. 757, the following carrier:
Central Vermont Railway Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO DECISION NO. 757.-DOCKETS 1, 2, 3,
AND 1606.
Chicago, Ill., April 12, 1922.
Decision No. 757 (Dockets 1, 2, 3, and 1606).-Ala-
bama & Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. Order of Rail-
road Telegraphers.
Entry.-Relating to the inclusion of the Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
et al. and Limiting the Application of Decision No. 757 to Certain Specified
Rules.
The Railroad Labor Board, acting upon the written application
of the carriers hereinafter named, hereby renders a decision upon a
series of controversies in Docket 353, undisposed of by Decision No.
147, involving the question of what shall constitute a just and rea-
sonable overtime rule. The various controversies were considered in
conference between representatives designated and authorized by the
parties, and not having been decided in such conference were referred
to the Labor Board for hearing and decision.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 757 shall apply to
the carriers hereinafter named and to their employees, as defined in
rule 1 of Decision No. 757, with the same force and effect as if the
said carriers had been named originally in said decision, except that
the application of the rules governing hours of service and working
conditions shall be limited as hereinafter prescribed, and hereby
issues the following—
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE APRIL 16, 1922,
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Dockets 1, 2, 3, and 1606, Decision No. 757, the carriers hereinafter
named under the caption "Parties to the dispute."
2. Limit the application of the rules approved by the Labor Board
in Decision No. 757 to rule 4, hereinafter reproduced under the cap-
tion, "Hours of service and working conditions governing employees
herein named."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carriers hereby added as parties to the dispute in Dockets
1, 2, 3, and 1606, Decision No. 757, each of which has a dispute with
the organization named therein, are:
Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
1104
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYEES
HEREIN NAMED.
OVERTIME.
RULE 4. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, time in ex-
cess of eight hours, exclusive of meal period, on any day, will be
considered overtime and paid on the actual minute basis, at the pro
rata rates for the ninth hour, and at time and one-half thereafter.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 1028.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., June 20, 1922.
Decision No. 1028 (Docket 1300).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers
et al.
Entry.-Relating to the Inclusion of a Carrier and Organization of Em-
ployees and Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1028 shall apply to the
carrier and the organization hereinafter named, and to the specific
classes of employees named or referred to under each of the car-
riers named in Article I, with the same force and effect as if the said
carrier, organization, and employees had been named originally in
said decision, and hereby issues the following—
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1922.
1. Add to the Gulf Coast Lines, wherever listed in Decision No.
1028, the name of another subsidiary hereinafter named in connec-
tion with this carrier under the caption, "Parties to the dispute."
2. Add to the list of organizations named as parties to the dispute
in Docket 1300, Decision No. 1028, the organization hereinafter
named under the caption, "Parties to the dispute."
3. Add to Article I of Decision No. 1028 certain specific classes
of employees named or referred to under each of the carriers herein-
after renamed under the caption, "Article I.-Carriers and employees
affected."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carrier listed below has been previously designated as a party
to the dispute in Docket 1300, and is relisted herein for the purpose
of naming another subsidiary line:
Gulf Coast Lines.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
The organization hereby added as a party to the dispute in Docket
1300, Decision No. 1028, which has a dispute with one or more of the
carriers named in said decision, is:
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
ARTICLE I.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
DECISIONS.
1105
States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its employees
named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases
and rules governing reference to article and section numbers hereto-
fore printed in Decision No. 1028.
NOTE. An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1028. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for the
purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or referred
to in said decision.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1028 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section num-
bers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes or to
include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case may be.
* Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
Section 8.
* Boston & Maine Railroad.
and its subsidiaries.
Section 9, Drawbridgemen.
* Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail-
way Co.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Rail-
way Co.
* Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
* Delaware & Hudson Co.
* Section 7.
* Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroad Co.
* Sections 4, 6, and 8.
* Fort Worth & Denver City Railway
Co.
Wichita Valley Railway Co.
* Section 3.
Sections 7 and 8.
*Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Rail-
way Co.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient
Railway Co. of Texas.
Section 8.
* Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.
Sections 7 and 8.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Atlantic Railroad Co.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad
Co.
Chester & Delaware River Rail-
road Co.
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway
Co.
Middletown & Hummelstown Rail-
road Co.
North East Pennsylvania Railroad
Co.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Rail-
road Co.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York
Railroad Co.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.
Port Reading Railroad Co.
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.
Tamaqua, Hazelton & Northern
Railroad Co.
Williams Valley Railroad Co.
* Section 9.
Subforemen-includ-
ing track, work
train, extra gang,
and other gang
subforemen.
* Terminal Railroad Association of
St. Louis.
and its subsidiaries.
* Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8.
* Western Pacific Railroad Co.
* Section 3.
Assistant section,
track, and main-
tenance foremen.
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 1028.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Decision No. 1028 (Docket 1300).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers
et al.
Entry. Relating to the Inclusion of the Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. et al.
and Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1028 shall apply to
the carriers hereinafter named, and to the specific classes of em-
1106
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ployees named or referred to under each of the carriers named in
Article I, with the same force and effect as if the said carriers and
employees had been named originally in said decision, except that the
effective date shall be July 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of July
1, 1922, as shown in Decision No. 1028, and hereby issues the fol-
lowing-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JULY 16, 1922.
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 1300, Decision No. 1028, the carriers hereinafter named
under the caption, "Parties to the dispute."
2. Add to Article I of Decision No. 1028 certain specific classes
of employees named or referred to under each of the carriers here-
inafter named under the caption, "Article I.-Carriers and em-
ployees affected."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carriers hereby added as parties to the dispute in Docket 1300,
Decision No. 1028, which have a dispute with one or more of the
organization of employees named in said decision, are:
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Galveston Wharf Co.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
Louisiana Southern Railway.
Memphis Union Station Co.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
ARTICLE 1.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board for the specific classes of its em-
ployees named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of
decreases and rules governing reference to article and section num-
bers heretofore printed in Decision No. 1028.
NOTE.-An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously
listed in Decision No. 1028. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for
the purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or
referred to in said decision.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1028 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section num-
bers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes or to
include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case may be.
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Galveston Wharf Co.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Section 9. Bridge watchmen,
extra-gang foremen,
extra-gang laborers,
bluff watchmen.
Louisiana Southern Railway.
Section 3. Section foremen.
Section 6. Section laborers.
Memphis Union Station Co.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Section 9. Extra - ga ng foremen,
extra-gang laborers.
* Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.
Section 8.
Section 9. Sand driers.
Section 8.
DECISIONS.
1107
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO DECISION NO. 1028.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., October 25, 1922.
Decision No. 1028 (Docket 1300).—Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers et al.
Entry. Relating to the Inclusion of the Georgia, Florida & Alabama Rail-
way Co. and Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1028 shall apply to
the carrier hereinafter named and to the specific classes of employees
named or referred to under the carrier named in Article I, with the
same force and effect as if the said carrier and employees had been
named originally in said decision, except that the effective date shall
be November 1, 1922, as set out below, instead of July 1, 1922, as
shown in Decision No. 1028, and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1922.
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 1300, Decision No. 1028, the carrier hereinafter named under
the caption "Parties to the dispute."
2. Add to Article I of Decision No. 1028 certain specific classes of
employees named or referred to under the carrier hereinafter named
under the caption "Article I.-Carriers and employees affected."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carrier hereby added as party to the dispute in Docket 1300,
Decision No. 1028, which has a dispute with one or more of the
organizations of employees named in said decision, is:
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.
ARTICLE I.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
The following carrier shall make deductions from the rates of
wages heretofore established by the authority of the United States
Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its employees named
or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases and
rules governing reference to article and section numbers heretofore
printed in Decision No. 1028.
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.
Section 1. Bridge foremen.
Section 2. Assistant bridge foremen.
Section 3. Section foremen.
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO DECISION NO. 1028.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., December 21, 1922.
Decision No. 1028 (Docket 1300).-Alabama &
Vicksburg Railway Co. et al. v. United Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers et al.
Entry-Relating to the Inclusion of Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1028 shall apply to
the specific classes of employees hereinafter named or referred to,
1108
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
with the same force and effect as if the said employees had been
named or referred to originally in said decision, except that the effec-
tive date shall be January 1, 1923, as set out below, instead of July 1,
1922, as shown in Decision No. 1028, and hereby issues the follow-
ing-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1923.
Add to Article I of Decision No. 1028 certain specified classes of
employees named or referred to under the carrier hereinafter named
under the caption, "Article I.—Carriers and employees affected."
ARTICLE 1.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
The following carrier shall make deductions from the rates of
wages heretofore established by the authority of the United States
Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its employees named
or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases and
rules governing reference to article and section numbers heretofore
printed in Decision No. 1028.
NOTE.-An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1028. This carrier is renamed in this addendum for the pur-
pose of including certain classes of its employees not named or referred to in
said decision.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1028 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section num-
bers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes or to
include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case may be.
* BANGOR AND AROOSTOK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Section 6. All common laborers in and around shops and roundhouses.
* Section 7. Crossing watchmen or flagmen.
Section 8.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 1036.—DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., July 1, 1922.
Decision No. 1036 (Docket 1300).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' Depart-
ment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry.-Relating to the Inclusion of a Carrier and Certain Specific Classes
of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1036 shall apply to
the carrier hereinafter named, and to the specific classes of employees
named or referred to under each of the carriers named in Article I,
with the same force and effect as if the said carrier and employees
had been named originally in said decision, and hereby issues the
following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1922.
1. Add to the Gulf Coast Lines, wherever listed in Decision No.
1036, the name of another subsidiary hereinafter named in connec-
tion with this carrier under the caption, "Parties to the dispute."
•
DECISIONS.
1109
2. Add to Article I of Decision No. 1036 certain specific classes
of employees named or referred to under each of the carriers herein-
after named under the caption, "Article I-Carriers and employees
affected."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carrier listed below has been previously designated as a party
to the dispute in Docket 1300, and is relisted herein for the purpose
of naming another subsidiary line:
Gulf Coast Lines.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
ARTICLE I-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its employees
named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases
and rules governing reference to article and section numbers hereto-
fore printed in Decision No. 1036.
NOTE.-An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1036. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for the
purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or referred
to in said decision.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1036 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section
numbers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes
or to include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case
may be.
Gulf Coast Lines,
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
Section 2. Machinists,
boilermakers, blacksmiths,
workers, electrical workers and carmen.
Sections 3 and 4.
* Pere Marquette Railway Co.,
Fort Street Union Depot Co.
* Section 3.
sheet-metal
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 1036.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Decision No. 1036 (Docket 1300).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' Depart-
ment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry.-Relating to the Inclusion of the Galveston Wharf Co. et al. and
Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1036 shall apply to
the carriers hereinafter named, and to the specific classes of em-
ployees named or referred to under each of the carriers named in
Article I, with the same force and effect as if the said carriers and
employees had been named originally in said decisions, except that
the effective date shall be July 16, 1922, as set out below, instead of
July 1, 1922, as shown in Decision No. 1036, and hereby issues the
following-
1110
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JULY 16, 1922.
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 1300, Decision No. 1036, the carriers hereinafter named un-
der the caption "Parties to the dispute."
2. Add to Article I of Decision No. 1036 certain specific classes of
employees named or referred to under each of the carriers herein-
after named under the caption "Article I.-Carriers and employees
affected."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carriers hereby added as parties to the dispute in Docket 1300,
Decision No. 1036, each of which has a dispute with one or more of
the organizations of employees named in said decision, are:
Galveston Wharf Co.
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Co.
Louisiana Southern Railway Co.
Memphis Union Station Co.
Pullman Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway
Co. of Texas.
Tennessee Central Railway Co.
Washington Terminal Co.
ARTICLE 1.—CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its em-
ployees named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of
decreases and rules governing reference to article and section num-
bers heretofore printed in Decision No. 1036.
NOTE. An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1036. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for the
purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or referred
to in said decision.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1036 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section
numbers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes
or to include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case
may be.
Galveston Wharf Co.
Sections 2, 3, and 4.
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.
Section 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sections 3 and 4.
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Co.
Section 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sections 3 and 4.
Louisiana Southern Railway Co.
Section 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, and carmen.
Section 3.
Memphis Union Station Co.
Section 2. Machinists, boiler makers, sheet-metal workers, electrical work-
ers, and carmen.
Sections 3 and 4.
New York Central Railroad Co. (lines east and west).
* Section 2.
DECISIONS.
1111
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Section 4.
Pullman Co.
Sections 2, 3, and 4.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas.
Section 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sections 3 and 4.
Tennessee Central Railway Co.
Sections 2, 3, and 4.
Washington Terminal Co.
Section 2. Machinists, boiler makers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers,
electrical workers, and carmen.
Sections 3 and 4.
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO DECISION NO. 1036.-DOCKET 1300–160A.
Chicago, Ill., August 2, 1922.
Decision No. 1036 (Docket 1300).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. Railway Employees' Depart-
ment, A. F. of L. (Federated Shop Crafts).
Entry.-Relating to the Inclusion of the Green Bay & Western Railroad.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1036 shall apply to
the carrier hereinafter named with the same force and effect as if
the said carrier had been named originally in said decision except
that the effective date shall be August 16, 1922, as set out below, in-
stead of July 1, 1922, as shown in Decision No. 1036, and hereby
issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 16, 1922.
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 1300, Decision No. 1036, the carrier hereinafter named under
the caption," Parties to the dispute."
}
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
The carrier hereby added as party to the dispute in Docket 1300,
Decision No. 1036, which has a dispute with one or more of the or-
ganizations of employees named in said decision, is:
Green Bay & Western Railroad.
ARTICLE 1.- CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
The following carrier shall make deductions from the rates of
wages heretofore established by the authority of the United States
Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its employees named
or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases and
rules governing reference to article and section numbers heretofore
printed in Decision No. 1036.
Green Bay & Western Railroad.
Sections 2, 3, and 4.
1112
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 1074.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., July 1, 1922.
Decision No. 1074 (Docket 1300).-Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Company et al. v. Brotherhood of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees.
Entry.-Relating to the Inclusion of Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1074 shall apply to
the specific classes of employees named or referred to under each
of the carriers named in Article I, with the same force and effect
as if the said employees had been named or referred to originally in
said decision, and hereby issues the following—
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1922.
1. Add to Article I of Decision No. 1074 certain specific classes
of employees named or referred to under each of the carriers here-
inafter renamed under the caption, "Article I.-Carriers and em-
ployees affected."
ARTICLE I.—CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its employees
named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of decreases
and rules governing reference to article and section numbers here-
tofore printed in Decision No. 1074.
NOTE.-An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1074. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for the
purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or referred
to in said decision.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1074 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section
numbers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes
or to include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case
may be.
*Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail-
way Co.
Grand Canyon Railway Co.
Sunset Railway Co.
Group I. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
*Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Rail-
way Co.
Group II. Sections 1, 2, and 3.
*Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of
Indiana.
*New
Group III. Section 2.
York Central Railroad Co.
(lines east and west).
Group III. Section 4.
*Southern Railway Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
Group I. Sections 1, 2, and 3.
*Terminal Railroad Association of St.
Louis and its subsidiaries.
*Group II. Section 2.
*Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Group II. Sections 1, 2, and 3.
Group VII. Section 1. Drafting
room, dining car (excluding
dining car stewards), hotel,
restaurant and police depart-
ment employees, red caps.
DECISIONS.
1113
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 1074.-DOCKET 1300.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Decision No. 1074 (Docket 1300).—Alabama & Vicks-
burg Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Sta-
tion Employees.
Entry.-Relating to the Inclusion of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad
Co. et al. and Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1074 shall apply to
carriers hereinafter named, and to the specific classes of employees
named or referred to under each of the carriers named in Article
I, with the same force and effect as if the said carriers and em-
ployees had been named or referred to originally in said decision, ex-
cept that the effective date shall be July 16, 1922, as set out below,
instead of July 1, 1922, as shown in Decision No. 1074, and hereby
issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE JULY 16, 1922.
1. Add to the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute in
Docket 1300, Decision No. 1074, the carriers hereinafter named under
the caption, " Parties to the dispute."
2. Add to Article II of Decision No. 1074 certain specific classes.
of employees named or referred to under each of the carriers here-
inafter named under the caption, "Article I.-Carriers and employees
affected."
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.
Carriers hereby added as parties to the dispute in Docket 1300,
Decision No. 1074, each of which has a dispute with one or more of
the organizations of employees named in said decision, are:
Page 2.-Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 1074, Docket 1300.)
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
Galveston Wharf Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway
Co. of Texas.
Washington Terminal Co.
Louisiana Southern Railway.
Memphis Union Station Co.
ARTICLE I.—CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make deductions from the
rates of wages heretofore established by the authority of the United
States Railroad Labor Board, for the specific classes of its em-
ployees named or referred to in this article, using the schedule of
decreases and rules governing reference to article and section num-
bers heretofore printed in Decision No. 1074.
NOTE. An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1074. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for the
purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or referred
to in said decision.
1114
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1074 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section num-
bers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes or to
include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case may be.
Memphis Union Station Co.-Con.
*Belt Railway of Chicago.
Group II. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
*Central Railroad Company of New
Jersey.
Group I. Secs. 4, 5, 6, and 10.
*Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-
way Co.
Group I. Sec. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, and 10.
*Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail-
road Co.
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Dining-car
employees as follows: Chefs,
second, third, and fourth cooks,
pantrymen and waiters. Hotel
department employees as fol-
lows: Managers, chefs, sec-
ond cooks, night cooks, short-
order cooks and bakers, bak-
ers' helpers, kitchen helpers,
waiters, pantry girls, laun-
dresses, dishwashers, porters,
housekeepers, yardmen, house-
men, scrubmen, chambermaids,
collectors, cashiers, and store-
keepers. Engineering depart-
ment employees as follows:
Assistant engineers, instru-
ment men, chainmen and rod-
men. Police department em-
ployees as follows: Sergeants
and patrolmen. Train au-
ditors. City and traveling
freight and passenger traffic
agents.
*Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Rail-
way Co.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Top dock
workers.
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.
Group I. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, and 10.
Galveston Wharf Co.
Group I. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, and 10.
Group II. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Louisiana Southern Railway.
Group I. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Timekeeper
cashier at New Orleans.
Watchmen.
Memphis Union Station Co.
Group I. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, and 10.
+
Group II. Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group III. Secs. 3 and 4.
Group VII. Sec. 1. Matrons.
*Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
Gulf Terminal Co.
Meridian Terminal Co.
Group I. Sec. 1, 2, and 3.
*Sec. 4.
*Sec. 5.
Sec. 6.
Sec. 10.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway
Co. of Texas.
Group I. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Sec. 7. Freight handlers
or truckers.
Secs. 8, 9, and 10.
*Southern Railway Co.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad
Co.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.
Cincinnati, Burnside & Cumber-
and River Railway Co.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas
Pacific Railway Co.
Georgia Southern & Florida Rail-
way Co.
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad
Co.
New Orleans & Northeastern Rail-
road Co.
New Orleans Terminal Co.
Northern Alabama Railway Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
Group I. Sec. 4.
Group II.
*Sec. 5.
Sec. 6.
Secs. 7 and 8.¹
1
*Sec. 9.¹ All common la-
borers in and around ·
stations and ware-
houses (at points spe-
cifically mentioned in
submission only).
Sec. 10.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3.
Group VII. *Sec. 1. Porters.
Group VII. *Sec. 1.2 Train por-
ters.
Washington Terminal Co.
Group III. Secs. 2, 3, and 4.
1 Applies to Southern Railway Co., Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co., Atlantic &
Yadkin Railway Co., New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co., and New Orleans Ter-
minal Co. only.
2 Applies to Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company and New
Orleans & Northeastern Railroad only).
vity
DECISIONS.
1115
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 1266.—DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., October 26, 1922.
Decision No. 1266 (Docket 475).-Baltimore & Ohio
Chicago Terminal Railroad Co. et al. v. Railroad Yard-
masters of America.
Entry.—Relating to the Exclusion of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
At the time of the issuance of Decision No. 1266 there was on file
with the Labor Board a submission containing a bona fide dispute
between the Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. and the Railroad
Yardmasters of America relating to the question of what should
constitute just and reasonable rules and working conditions, and
this carrier was accordingly named as a party to said decision.
Subsequently information was filed by the carrier and verified by
the chief executive of the yardmasters' organization to the effect
that an agreement had been reached between the carrier named
herein and the employees party to the dispute, prior to the issuance
of Decision No. 1266, disposing of all questions contained in the
submission above mentioned.
The Labor Board therefore decides that Decision No. 1266 shall
not apply to the carrier hereinafter named, and hereby issues the
following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER, 16, 1922.
1. Exclude from the list of carriers named as parties to the
dispute in Docket 475, Decision No. 1266, the following carrier:
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 1266.—DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., October 28, 1922.
Decision No. 1266 (Docket 475).—Baltimore & Ohio
Chicago Terminal Railroad Co. et al. v. Railroad Yard-
masters of America.
Entry.-Relating to the Exclusion of the Union Railway Co. (Memphis,
Tenn.).
At the time of the issuance of Decision No. 1266 there was on file
with the Labor Board a submission containing a bona fide dispute
between the Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.) and the Railroad
Yardmasters of America relating to the question of what shall con-
stitute just and reasonable rules and working conditions and this
carrier was accordingly named as a party to said decision. Sub-
sequently, information was filed by the carrier and verified by the
chief executive of the yardmasters' organization to the effect that
an agreement had been reached between the carrier named herein
and the employees party to the dispute, prior to the issuance of
20936°-23-71
1116
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Decision No. 1266, disposing of all questions contained in the sub-
mission above mentioned.
The Labor Board therefore decides that Decision No. 1266 shall
not apply to the carrier hereinafter named, and hereby issues the
following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, 1922.
Exclude from the list of carriers named as parties to the dispute
in Docket 475, Decision No. 1266, the following carrier:
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.)
•
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 1267.-DOCKET 2500.
Chicago, Ill., November 16, 1922.
Decision No. 1267 (Docket 2500).-United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers et al. v. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway
Co. et al.
Entry. Relating to Inclusion of Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
The Labor Board decides that Decision No. 1267 shall apply to the
specific classes of employees named or referred to in section 6, Arti-
cle I of said decision, with the same force and effect as if the said
employees had been named or referred to originally in said decision,
and hereby issues the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, 1922.
Add to Article II of Decision No. 1267 certain specified classes of
employees named or referred to under the carriers hereinafter re-
named under the caption "Article II.-Carriers and employees
affected."
ARTICLE II.-CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.
Each of the following carriers shall make increases in the rates of
wages heretofore established by the authority of the United States.
Railroad Labor Board in Decision No. 1028 for the specific classes
of its employees named or referred to in this article using the sched-
ule of increases and rules governing reference to section numbers
heretofore printed in Decision No. 1267.
NOTE.-An asterisk is used to indicate the names of carriers previously listed
in Decision No. 1267. These carriers are renamed in this addendum for the
purpose of including certain classes of their employees not named or referred
to in said decision,
An asterisk is also used to indicate the section numbers previously used in
Decision No. 1267 for naming certain classes of employees. Such section num-
bers are used again for the purpose of naming certain additional classes or to
include the remainder of the classes covered by said section, as the case may be.
* Maine Central Railroad Co.
* Portland Terminal Co.
* Section 6.
DECISIONS.
1117
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 1267.-DOCKET 2500–43A.
Chicago, Ill., November 22, 1922.
Decision No. 1267 (Docket 2500-43A).- United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers et al v. Alabama & Vicksburg
Railway Company et al.
Entry. Relating to the Exclusion of Certain Specific Classes of Employees.
At the time of the issuance of Decision No. 1267 there was on file
with the Labor Board a submission containing a bona fide dispute
between the St. Louis-SanFrancisco Railway System and the United
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers relating to the question of what shall constitute just and
reasonable wages for "all classes of employees coming within the
scope of the maintenance of way," but the scope was not specifically
limited in the submission. Subsequently, information has been
brought to the board's attention by the carrier, and verified by the
chief executive of the maintenance-of-way employees' organization,
showing that Decision No. 1267, as applied to this carrier, should not
have made reference to section 6 in so far as laborers in and around
shops and roundhouses are concerned, nor should it have included
section 8.
The Labor Board, therefore, decides that said decision shall be
modified with respect to the carrier named herein, and hereby issues.
the following-
ADDENDUM, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, 1922.
Eliminate the particular section numbers, referring to the schedule
of increases, used in connection with the St. Louis-San Francisco
Railway System in Decision No. 1267, and substitute the following:
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway System.
Sec. 3.
Sec. 6. Track laborers and all common laborers in the maintenance-of-way
department.
Sec. 7.
PART 3
INTERPRETATIONS :: 1922
1119
Interpreta-
LIST OF INTERPRETATIONS RENDERED.
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 2.
tion No.
23. Dated December 8, 1922--
Page.
1123
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 119.
6. Dated July 12, 1922---
1123
INTERPRETATIONS TO ADDENDUM 2 TO DECISION NO. 119.
2. Dated January 14, 1922.
1124
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 222.
1. Dated May 25, 1922_
1125
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 501.
1. Dated May 6, 1922-
2. Dated August 17, 1922-
1127
1129
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 630.
1. Dated July 28, 1922–
2. Dated August 4, 1922.
1130
1130
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 707.
1. Dated July 14, 1922___
1130
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISION NO. 721.
1. Dated July 21, 1922----——
1131
1121
INTERPRETATIONS TO DECISIONS.
INTERPRETATION NO. 23 TO DECISION NO. 2.-DOCKET 671.
Chicago, Ill., December 8, 1922.
Question. Shall the increase of 80 cents for passenger service
specified in Decision No. 2 be applied to the rate of pay of engine
crew on passenger train No. 97 running between Tamaqua and New-
berry junction, on the Shamokin division, a distance of 105 miles?
Statement.--In the fall of 1917 a rate of pay for the run known as
97 was agreed to between the employees and the carrier. The rate.
agreed to and in effect on December 31, 1917, was $6.93 for engineers
and $4.10 for firemen. General Order No. 27 increased the engineer's
rate to $7.68 and the fireman's rate to $5.28; the rates thus estab-
lished by General Order No. 27 were retained as minimum rates
under Supplements 15 and 24 account of their being in excess of the
rates specified therein.
Decision. The rate of $7.68 for passenger engineers and $5.28
for passenger firemen are rates established by or under the authority
of the United States Railroad Administration and as such they
should each be increased 80 cents.
INTERPRETATION NO. 6 TO DECISION NO. 119.-DOCKET 1342.
Chicago, Ill., July 12, 1922.
Question.-Request from the Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.,
the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, representing employees there-
on, for ruling on Interpretation 2 to Decision No. 119, with re-
gard to its application to inside and outside hostlers and outside hos-
tler helpers, based on the following facts:
Statement. The facts are quoted from the joint submission:
Prior to the promulgation of any order of the United States Railroad Ad-
ministration, particularly Supplement 15 to General Order No. 27, effective
January 1, 1919, this class of employees of the Kansas City Terminal was paid
pro rata rate. From January 1, 1919, to July 1, 1921, these employees were paid
rate and one-half for overtime in excess of eight hours. Since receipt of De-
cision No. 119 and Addendum 2, Interpretation 2 thereto, we have paid these
employees pro rata rate for overtime, in view of the fact that the exceptions
listed in Interpretation 2 (quoted in part below) does not specifically mention
hostlers or hostler helpers.
"Decision No. 119 in no wise affects the agreements, supplements, or orders
executed with or issued by the United States Railroad Labor Board as applied
to engineers, firemen, conductors
Decision. The board intended that all employees covered by the
existing schedules or agreements of the train, engine, and yard em-
ployees would suffer no change in the method of compensation or
1123
1124
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
overtime payments as in effect prior to Decision No. 119; therefore,
no change should be made in the method of computing overtime pay-
ments to inside hostlers, outside hostlers, and outside hostler helpers.
INTERPRETATION NO. 2 TO ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO.
119.-DOCKETS 1, 2, AND 3.
Chicago, Ill., January 14, 1922.
Question.-How should overtime, under the provisions of Adden-
dum 2 to Decision No. 119, apply to employees of the maintenance.
of way department from July 1, 1921, to December 16, 1921, the
effective date of Decision No. 501 of the Labor Board?
Statement.-A number of disputes have been presented to the
Labor Board regarding the meaning and intent of the following
paragraph of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119:
1. All overtime in excess of the established hours of service shall be paid
for at the pro rata rate: Provided, That this will not affect classes of employees
of any carrier which have reached an agreement as to overtime rates, nor
classes of employees of any carrier who by agreement or practice were receiv-
ing a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of any general order
of the United States Railroad Administration relating to wages and working
conditions. Inasmuch as this board has not as yet given consideration to any
dispute on overtime rates, this order should not be construed to indicate the
final action and decision of the Labor Board on disputes as to overtime rates
which have been or may be referred to the board.
Prior to the promulgation of any general order of the United
States Railroad Administration relative to wages and working con-
ditions, varying methods of overtime payment were in effect on the
various roads-some paying time and one-half after nine hours, some
paying time and one-half after 10 hours, and others paying on still
different bases. A number of disputes have been filed with the
Labor Board regarding the meaning and intent of that portion of
Addendum 2 quoted above. It is the claim of the employees that
if time and one-half was paid after any stipulated number of hours
immediately prior to Federal control, such punitive rate should be.
allowed after eight hours under Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119.
It is the position of the carrier that Addendum 2 to Decision
No. 119 reestablished the overtime provisions in effect immediately
prior to Federal control and that they have so applied that
addendum.
In view of the issuance of Decision 501, effective December 16,
1921, the following decision shall apply only for the period July 1,
1921, to December 16, 1921.
Decision. The pro rata overtime rate specified in that portion
of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 quoted in this decision shall
apply for the period July 1 to December 16, 1921, except on carriers
and for classes of employees having a more favorable method of
payment prior to the effective date of any supplement to General
Order No. 27 promulgated by the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration, or that have reached an agreement providing a more favor-
able method of payment; in either event the more favorable method
of payment shall apply.
DECISIONS.
1125
INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 222 AND ADDENDA.-
DOCKET 1269.
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1922.
Question.-(a) Does rule 6 of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto require the posting of a special bulletin at each point, naming
and regularly assigning certain employees to work on Sundays and
holidays that are necessary in power houses, millwright gangs, heat-
treating plants, train yards, running repair and inspection forces
for the performance of the work absolutely essential to the continu-
ous operation of the railroad?
(b) If so, how would an employee be paid filling the position of
one of the employees as covered in question (a), who might be ab-
sent from duty on a Sunday or a holiday?
(c) How would an employee be paid if not regularly assigned
by bulletin to work on Sundays or holidays as provided for in ques-
tion (a), who has been or may be required to work on a Sunday or
a holiday, performing work absolutely essential to the continuous
operation of the railroad as per rule 6?
(d) How would an employee who is regularly assigned by bulletin
to a designated shift on Sundays and holidays be paid if required
to work on a Sunday or a holiday on other than his regular shift?
Statement.—The following rules, or parts thereof, relating to this
dispute are quoted from Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto :
RULE 6. All overtime continuous with regular bulletined hours will be paid
for at the rate of time and one-half until relieved, except as may be provided
in rules hereinafter set out.
Work performed on Sundays and the following legal holidays, namely, New
Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas (provided when any of the above holi-
days fall on Sunday the day observed by the State, Nation, or by proclamation
shall be considered the holiday), shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-
half, except that employees necessary to the operation of power houses, mill-
wright gangs, heat-treating plants, train yards, running-repair and inspection
forces, who are regularly assigned by bulletin to work on Sundays and holidays,
will be compensated on the same basis as on week days. Sunday and holiday
work will be required only when absolutely essential to the continuous opera-
tion of the railroad.
RULE 7. * • * * Employees called or required to report for work and
reporting but not used will be paid a minimum of four hours at straight-time
rates.
Employees called or required to report for work and reporting will be
allowed a minimum of 4 hours for 2 hours and 40 minutes or less, and will be
required to do only such work as called for or other emergency work which
may have developed after they were called and can not be performed by the
regular force in time to avoid delays to train movement.
*
*
RULE 8. Employees regularly assigned to work on Sundays or holidays, or
those called to take the place of such employees, will be allowed to complete
the balance of the day unless released at their own request. Those who are
called will be advised as soon as possible after vacancies become known.
RULE 11. *
At points where sufficient number of employees are em-
ployed, employees shall not (except as provided in rule 6 of Decision No. 222)
work two consecutive Sundays (holidays to be considered as Sundays).
*
RULE 13. Employees changed from one shift to another will be paid overtime
rates for the first shift of each change. Employees working two shifts or more
on a new shift shall be considered transferred. This will not apply when shifts
are exchanged at the request of the employees involved.
Decision.-(a) Yes.
1126
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
(b) At the established overtime rate provided in rule 6, with the
minimum guarantee and dobule-time provisions of rule 7; rule 8
applying as to completing the balance of the day.
(c) At the established overtime rate provided in rule 6 with the
minimum guarantee and double-time provisions of rule 7.
(d) Preceding decision (c) to apply, except when such employee
takes the place of a regularly assigned seven-day employee, in which
case preceding decision (b) will apply.
DISSENTING OPINION.
We dissent from the decision reached by a majority of the board
in Docket 1269 for the following reason:
At the time rule 6 was under consideration it was clearly the
understanding that employees necessary to perform work absolutely
essential to the continuous operation of the railroad would be com-
pensated on the same basis as employees on week days, which is evi-
denced by the following portion of opinion contained in Decision
No. 222:
•
The policy of paying time and one-half for work performed on Sundays and
holidays is also approved in rule 6, but an important exception is provided.
Certain kinds of work, which are unavoidably and regularly performed on
Sundays and holidays and which are absolutely essential to the continuous
operation of the railroad to meet the requirements of the public, are not
treated as overtime work. The carrier has no choice as to the performance
of this work, and does not arbitrarily require it. It is not just to penalize
the carrier for that which it can not escape. Manufacturing plants can, as a
rule, control or eliminate Sunday and holiday work; therefore, a comparison
of such plants with a railroad is unfair, except in so far as the "back shop
is concerned, and the method of paying for overtime in the back shop has not
been disturbed by these rules.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
HORACE BAKER.
SAMUEL HIGGINS.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
At the time rule 6 was under consideration it was clearly the
understanding that Sunday and holiday work would only be required
when absolutely essential to the continuous operation of the railroads.
and that the employees necessary to perform this absolutely essential
work would be "regularly assigned by bulletin." The method of
procedure in regularly assigning by bulletin is set forth in rule 18,
reading:
When new jobs are created or vacancies occur in the respective crafts, the
oldest employees in point of service shall, if sufficient ability is shown by trial,
be given preference in filling such new jobs or any vacancies that may be
desirable to them. All vacancies or new jobs created will be bulletined.
Bulletins must be posted five days before vacancies are filled permanently.
Employees desiring to avail themselves of this rule will make application to
the official in charge and a copy of the application will be given to the local
chairman.
An employee exercising his seniority rights under this rule will do so with-
out expense to the carrier; he will lose his rights to the job he left; and if
after a fair trial he fails to qualify for the new position he will have to take
whatever position may be open in his craft.
By reading rules 6, 11, and 18 herein quoted, it is readily under-
stood that men were to be regularly assigned by bulletin; that em-
DECISIONS.
1127
ployees regularly assigned were to be paid pro rata for the work
performed on Sundays and holidays; that all employees not regu-
larly assigned to perform Sunday and holiday service would be
paid in accordance with the rules governing "emergency service"
as set out in rules 6, 7, and 13 herein quoted.
INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 501.-DOCKET 1668.
Chicago, Ill., May 6, 1922.
Question. Shall the overtime provisions incorporated in Decision
No. 501 be made retroactive to July 1, 1921.
Statement. The Labor Board is in receipt of joint submission
wherein it is indicated that there is a difference of opinion regard-
ing the proper application of the overtime provisions of Decision No.
501. The statement of facts indicates that prior to July 1, 1921,
overtime for employees in the maintenance of way department was
computed in the manner prescribed in sections (a-7) and (a-8) of
Article V of the national agreement between the Director General
of Railroads and the employees represented by the United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers.
Effective July 1, 1921, under the provisions of Addendum 2 to
Decision No. 119, overtime in excess of the established hours of
service for these classes of employees was paid for at the pro rata.
rate for the reason that the payment of higher than pro rata rate
prior to the promulgation of any of the general orders of the United
States Railroad Administration was not in effect.
Decision No. 501 provides that the ninth and tenth hours, when
worked continuous with regular work period, shall be paid for at
pro rata hourly rate; beyond the tenth hour shall be paid for at rate
of time and one-half.
This decision also provides that rules approved by the Labor
Board are to be made effective December 16, 1921.
The carrier and the representatives of the employees can not agree
as to the proper rate for overtime worked by these employees between
July 1 and December 16, 1921.
Paragraph 3, under the caption "Decision" of Decision No. 119,
reads as follows:
The Labor Board will promulgate such rules as it determines just and
rasonable as soon after July 1, 1921, as is reasonably possible and will make
them effective as of July 1, 1921, and applicable to those classes of employees
of carriers parties hereto for whom rules have not been arrived at by agree-
ment.
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, which has reference to the
payment of overtime, reads in part as follows:
The Labor Board directs as follows, effective July 1, 1921, with the under-
standing that if the rules promulgated by the Labor Board to be effective
July 1 are more favorable to the employees, adjusment in compensation due
to the employees will be made by the carrier.
Section (m), Article VI, of Decision No. 501, reads in part as
follows:
This agreement shall be effective as of December 16, 1921, and shall con-
tinue in effect until it is changed as provided herein or under the provisions
of the Transportation Act, 1920.
1128
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
It is the contention of the employees that in accordance with that
portion of Decision No. 119 and Addendum 2 thereto, above quoted,
the overtime provisions of Decision No. 501 should be made retroac-
tive to July 1, 1921, inasmuch as the overtime provisions of that
decision are more favorable to the employees than provided in
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119.
The carrier takes the position that Decision No. 501 established
December 16, 1921, as its effective date and does not in any way
affect the period July 1 to December 16, 1921; and contends that
the overtime provision appearing in Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119 is the only overtime provision authorized by the Labor Board
between the dates mentioned.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the overtime pro-
visions established by Decision No. 501 are more favorable to the
employees than the overtime provisions applied during the period
July 1 to December 16, 1921, the more favorable conditions shall be
applied for that period and the employees compensated accordingly.
DISSENTING OPINION.
I dissent from the decision of the majority of the board in In-
terpretation 1 to Decision No. 501 for the reason that the effective
date of the rule governing overtime payments was specified as
December 16, 1921, and there is no justification for making the over-
time rule provisions retroactive to July 1, 1921. If it had been
the intention of the Labor Board, at the time Decision No. 501 was
under consideration, to make the rules retroactive it would have been
so stated therein. Furthermore, Interpretation 2 to Addendum 2
to Decision No. 119, issued under date of January 14, 1922, with a
question reading—
How should overtime, under the provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119, apply to employees of the maintenance of way department from July
1, 1921, to December 16, 1921, the effective date of Decision No. 501 of the
Labor Board?-
and the decision reading-
The pro rata overtime rate specified in that portion of Addendum 2 to De-
cision No. 119 quoted in this decision shall apply for the period July 1 to
December 16, 1921, except on carriers and for classes of employees having a
more favorable method of payment prior to the effective date of any supplement
to General Order No. 27 promulgated by the United States Railroad Administra-
tion, or that have reached an agreement providing a more favorable method
of payment; in either event the more favorable method of payment shall apply-
clearly indicates that the question asked in this case is answered in
the interpretation to Addendum 2 issued January 14, 1922, which
was subsequent to the date of Decision No. 501.
HORACE BAKER.
SUPPORTING OPINION.
The position stated in the dissenting opinion in regard to Interpre-
tation 1 to Decision No. 501 is not well taken for the following
reasons:
Subsequent to the issuance of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119
and prior to the issuance of Decision No. 501, there were filed with
the Labor Board several disputes relative to the proper application
12
DECISIONS.
1129
of that addendum to employees of the maintenance of way depart-
ment. Due to the press of other matters the Labor Board was unable
to pass upon these questions until January 14, 1922, on which date
Interpretation 2 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 was issued.
This interpretation, as previously indicated, had specific reference
to the application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 and not upon
the application of Decision No. 501.
While Interpretation 2 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, herein
referred to, was issued subsequent to the promulgation of Decision
No. 501, and while Decision No. 501 is mentioned in that interpreta-
tion (Decision No. 501 being mentioned specifically for the purpose
of establishing the effective period of Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119), it can not be construed as deciding a question or questions not
at that time before the Labor Board for decision.
Since the issuance of Decision No. 501 the question has been raised
as to the application of the overtime features of that decision, and
it is upon Decision No. 501 that this interpretation is predicated.
This interpretation is in accordance with a specific stipulation em-
bodied in Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 which reads:
The Labor Board directs as follows, effective July 1, 1921, with the under-
standing that if the rules promulgated by the Labor Board to be effective
July 1 are more favorable to the employees, adjustment in compensation due
to the employees will be made by the carrier.
INTERPRETATION NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 501.-DOCKET 2114.
Chicago, Ill., August 17, 1922.
Question. (a) Do the instructions as contained in section 3 of
general instructions, Decision No. 501, dated Chicago, Ill., Decem-
ber 12, 1921, issued by the Labor Board, remand to the carrier and
its employees for the purpose of adjustment under the provisions of
section 301 of the transportation act, 1920, the rules as contained in
the joint submission pursuant to the issuance of Decision No. 119 and
not referred to in Decision No. 501-the subject matter of which was
not regulated by the rules of the national agreement?
(b) Are the rules as set forth in Decision No. 501 to be substituted
for similar disputed rules as contained in joint submission pursuant
to Decision No. 119, even though the rules set forth in Decision No.
501 do not cover all of the principles involved in the disputed rules
as contained in the joint submission?
Decision. (a) The provisions of Decision No. 501 are only appli-
cable to the rules and conditions specifically mentioned therein. It
was the intention of the Labor Board in the promulgation of this
decision that disputed rules not specifically referred to therein
would be remanded for further negotiations between the interested
parties, and in the event of failure to agree to again submit the mat-
ter to the Labor Board for decision in conformity with the pro-
visions of section 301 of the Transportation Act, 1920.
(b) The principle as enunciated in paragraph (a) above is like-
wise applicable to this question. There is nothing in Decision No.
501 to prevent either party from creating a dispute with respect to
the application of the various rules or portions thereof, when such
dispute is handled in conformity with the agreement in effect and
the provisions of the Transportation Act, 1920.
1130
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 630.-DOCKET 2467.
Chicago, Ill., July 28, 1922.
Question. Are the overtime provisions of rule 57, Decision No.
630, retroactive to July 1, 1921?
Statement.-Rule 57 of Decision No. 630 reads as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in these rules, time in excess of eight hours,
exclusive of meal period, on any day, will be considered overtime and paid on
the actual minute basis, at the pro rata rates for the ninth hour and at time
and one-half thereafter.
The decision is effective February 1, 1922. A dispute has arisen
as to whether the overtime provision of the rule above quoted is
retroactive to July 1, 1921.
Prior to July 1, 1921, overtime for the classes of employees covered
by Decision No. 630 was computed on the basis prescribed in the
rules of the clerks' national agreement, except on a few carriers
where local agreements were executed after Federal control. Adden-
dum 2 to Decision No. 119, which has reference to the payment of
overtime, reads in part as follows:
The Labor Board directs as follows, effective July 1, 1921, with the under-
standing that if the rules promulgated by the Labor Board to be effective
July 1, are more favorable to the employees, adjustment in compensation due
to the employees will be made by the carrier.
Paragraph 3 of Decision No. 119 reads as follows:
3. The Labor Board will promulgate such rules as it determines just and
reasonable as soon after July 1, 1921, as is reasonably possible and will make
them effective as of July 1, 1921, and applicable to those classes of employees
of carriers parties hereto for whom rules have not been arrived at by
agreement.
Decision. The Labor Board decides that if the overtime pro-
visions established by Decision No. 630 are more favorable to the
employees than the overtime provisions applied during the period
July 1, 1921, to February 1, 1922, the more favorable conditions
shall be applied for that period and the employees compensated
accordingly.
INTERPRETATION NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 630.-DOCKET 2391.
Chicago, Ill., August 4, 1922.
Question. Shall the rules and practices in effect prior to the
issuance of Decision No. 630, pertaining to vacations with pay and
pay for time absent account sickness for employees referred to
therein, remain in effect until such time as rules in lieu thereof are
agreed upon by the employees and carriers or decided by the Labor
Board?
Decision.-Yes.
INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 707.-DOCKET 475.
Chicago, Ill., July 14, 1922.
Question. This board is in receipt of submissions wherein it is
indicated that there is a difference of opinion as to the proper appli-
cation of Decision No. 707 as it relates to the following questions:
DECISIONS.
1131
(a) What is the proper compensation for time worked beyond 10
hours, from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(b) What is the proper compensation for time worked on Sun-
days and designated holidays by regular six-day assigned employees,
from July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, inclusive?
(c) What is the proper compensation for employees released from
duty, notified or called to perform work outside of and not contin-
uous with regular working hours, from July 1, 1921, to February 16,
1922, inclusive?
Statement.-Paragraph 3, under the caption "Decision," Decision
119, reads as follows:
3. The Labor Board will promulgate such rules as it determines just and
reasonable as soon after July 1, 1921, as is reasonably possible, and will make
them effective as of July 1, 1921, and applicable to those classes of employees
of carriers parties hereto for whom rules have not been arrived at by agree-
ment.
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, which has reference to the
payment of overtime, reads in part as follows:
The Labor Board directs as follows, effective July 1, 1921, with the under-
standing that if the rules promulgated by the Labor Board to be effective July 1
are more favorable to the employees, adjustment in compensation due to the
employees will be made by the carrier.
Section 6 of Article VII, Decision No. 707, reads in part:
This agreement shall be effective as of February 16, 1922, and shall continue
in effect until it is changed as provided herein or under the provisions of the
transportation act, 1920.
It is the contention of the employees that sections 11, 12, and 13
of Article II, Decision No. 707, having reference to the questions
asked herein, provided a more favorable condition of compensation
for overtime, calls, and Sunday and holiday work than they enjoyed
between July 1, 1921, and February 16, 1922; and, further, it is
their belief that it was the intent of the Labor Board to make such
more favorable conditions effective July 1, 1921, as per paragraph
3, Decision No. 119, and paragraph 4, Addendum 2 to Decision
No. 119.
The carrier does not concur in the views of the employees and
feels that the provisions of Decision No. 707 should be made effective
as of the date therein specified, namely, February 16, 1922.
Decision.-(a) The Labor Board decides that if the overtime pro-
visions established by Decision No. 707 are more favorable to the
employees than the overtime provisions applied during the period
July 1, 1921, to February 16, 1922, that the more favorable condi-
tion shall be applied for that period and the employees compensated
accordingly.
(b) The principle enunciated in the foregoing paragraph shall
apply to service performed on Sundays and holidays.
(c) The principle enunciated in paragraph (a) of this decision
shall also apply to employees called or notified to perform work
outside of and not continuous with regular working hours.
INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 721.—DOCKET 2157.
Chicago, Ill., July 21, 1922.
Question.-Shall the rules in effect prior to the issuance of De-
cision No. 721, pertaining to vacations with pay and pay for time
20936°-23-72
1132
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
absent account sickness for train dispatchers, remain in effect until
such time as rules in lieu thereof are agreed upon by the employees
and carriers or decided by the Labor Board?
Decision. Yes.
DISSENTING OPINION.
The undersigned dissent from the decision of the majority of the
Labor Board in Docket 2157 for the following reasons:
In our judgment Decision No. 721, with the exception of rules
relating to seniority and discipline, superseded all prior rules and
working conditions which may have existed by or under the au-
thority of the United States Railroad Administration, and clearly
expressed the judgment of the Labor Board that the question of
vacations and sick leaves (pay for service not rendered) could only
be continued, if at all, by a rule which must be the result of mutual
agreement.
The foregoing is substantiated by reference to sections 4 and 5,
general instructions of Decision No. 721.
Section 4, general instructions, reads in part:
Because a very large majority of the carriers and their employees have agreed
upon seniority and discipline rules, these subjects are remanded in their en-
tirety
In further negotiations attention is again directed to the principles announced
in Exhibit B of Decision No. 119.
This clearly shows that the board did remand those rules for the
purpose of adjustment under the provisions of section 301 of the
transportation act, and directed attention to Exhibit B of Decision
No. 119.
Section 5, general instructions, reads:
In the opinion of the Labor Board the question of vacations and sick leave
with pay is one which should be left at this time to the carriers and their
respective employees for the adoption of such rules as may be severally and
mutually agreed upon,
Clearly, there is nothing contained in section 5 which, under any
circumstances, continues in effect any rule or practice with regard
to vacations or sick leaves that antedates Decision No. 721, and if
it had been the intention of the Labor Board to recognize a rule cov-
ering vacations and sick leaves, the rule would be contained in De-
cision No. 721; if it had been the intention of the board to remand
a rule relating to vacations and sick leaves, it would have been speci-
fied in Section 4, quoted in the foregoing.
The rule was neither recognized nor remanded, the board be-
ing of the opinion that the question was one to be settled be-
tween the carriers and their employees, and so stated in that portion
of section 5 reading, "such rules as may be severally and mu-
tually agreed upon." There was no provision made nor any instruc-
tions issued as to "failure to agree," due to the fact, as previously
stated, that the board did not recognize rules having to do with
vacations and sick leaves. In other words, Decision No. 721 entirely
disposed of the question so far as the Labor Board was concerned,
and there is no justification for distorting the language to produce
results not contemplated when Decision No. 721 was issued.
DECISIONS.
1133
Under date of May 11, 1922, the American Train Dispatchers' As-
sociation, through its president, brought before the board, in ex parte
form, the question of vacations for the year 1922 for train dis-
patchers employed on the New York Central lines. The question
was identified as Docket 2157 and was heard on its merits before
Bureau No. 1 on May 26, 1922-Messrs. Luhrsen and Selser appear-
ing for the employees and Messrs. Aronson, McLaury, Wright, and
Tompkins appearing for the carrier. Each side set up in a clear
and forceful way its contentions and the hearing should be met by
a decision on the merits of the case as it applies to the New York
Central lines and not by an interpretation which may affect all car-
riers, many of which have no dispute.
The question of allowing dispatchers on the New York Central
lines a vacation based on Decision No. 721, in our opinion, should
not have been docketed, but being docketed should be answerable
only to the parties directly interested and not interpreted for all,
as was done in this case.
The question of pay for vacations and sick leaves, which in the
past, under entirely different rules than those now in effect, has ap-
plied to comparatively few employees of the carriers, is purely a
gratuitous allowance, therefore we feel compelled to say with all
candor possible that it is wrong for the Labor Board, in view of its
declaration of principles and previous decision, to now give its stamp
of approval to rules or practices allowing pay for which no service is
rendered.
J. H. ELLIOTT.
HORACE BAKER.
PART 4
APPENDIX :: 1922
SHOWING RESOLUTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
OF THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD
1135
APPENDIX.
RESOLUTIONS OF THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD.
RESOLUTION.
Chicago, Ill., April 18, 1922.
In view of the fact that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen hold their convention in Houston, Tex., on a date
which is practically in conflict with the date set for the hearing of
the disputes on rules to which they are parties; in view of the fur-
ther fact that the work of this board will not be expedited, but may.
possibly be confused and retarded by beginning lengthy public hear-
ings of the rules of the engineers and firemen on the very day follow-
ing the conclusion of the wage hearings now in progress; and in
consideration of the further fact that the eastern roads are asking
for a separate hearing of their disputes involving the rules of engi-
neers and firemen: Therefore be it
Resolved by the United States Railroad Labor Board, That the
hearing set for the rules disputes of the engineers and firemen May
1, 1922, be canceled for the present, with the understanding that a
subsequent convenient date will be set; and
Resolved, further, That the request of the eastern roads for the
separate hearing above referred to be granted, and that their repre-
sentative and the representatives of the organizations concerned be
notified that a date for such separate hearing will hereafter be set.
RESOLUTION.
Chicago, Ill., June 29, 1922.
Whereas it has come to the knowledge of the United States Rail-
road Labor Board that strike ballots have been submitted by the
responsible officials to the following organizations of railway em-
ployees, namely:
International Association of Machinists;
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders
and Helpers of America;
International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and
Helpers;
Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers International Alliance;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers;
Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L.;
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America;
1137
1138
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and Rail-
way Shop Laborers;
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employees;
International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers;
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America; and
Whereas the board is further informed that the announcement
has been made by the officials of certain of said organizations that
strike orders have been sent out directing or authorizing a walkout
of said employees on Saturday, July 1, 1922, which overt act renders
it certain that a strike of said employees will commence at said
time; and
Whereas a strike by any or all of said classes of employees threat-
ens an interruption of traffic, which the transportation act declares
it shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, employees, and
agents to exert every reasonable effort and adopt every available
means to avoid; and
Whereas it is announced by said organizations of employees that
said strikes are being voted and called on three grounds, which are,
in substance, as follows:
First. The recent wage decisions of this board affecting said
classes of employees.
Second. The respective decisions handed down by this board
covering the rules and working conditions of said employees.
Third. The violation of the wage and rule decisions of the
Railroad Labor Board by certain carriers by means of the con-
tracting out of the labor of railway employees and the violation
by certain carriers of the contract decisions of the board, and
Whereas the board is in possession of information to the effect
that certain carriers have violated the wage and rule decisions of the
board by contracting out the work of the railway employees, with
the result that wages have been unlawfully reduced, and rules and
working conditions unlawfully changed, and that certain carriers
have violated and failed to put into effect the decisions of the board
which held such contracts to be unlawful, and
Whereas it appears that the carriers alleged to have thus violated
the board's decisions are as follows:
Ann Arbor Railroad.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad;
Chicago & Alton Railroad;
Chicago Great Western Railroad;
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway;
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway;
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway;
Chicago & North Western Railway;
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad;
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway;
Colorado & Southern Railroad;
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railway;
Erie Railroad;
Great Northern Railway;
Indiana Harbor Belt Railway;
Michigan Central Railroad;
DECISIONS.
1139
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway;
New York Central Railroad Co.;
Pere Marquette Railway;
Fort Street Union Depot Co.;
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway;
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway;
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railway;
Western Maryland Railroad;
Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad;
Whereas it does not fully appear to the board to what extent
the board's decisions have been violated as above described by other
carriers: Be it therefore
Resolved, That it is hereby ordered by the Railroad Labor Board
that the secretary of the board be directed to cite proper representa-
tives of the carriers and organizations above named to appear before
the board on Friday, June 30, 1922, at 2 p. m. to attend an inquiry
initiated by the board under section 313 of the transportation act in
connection with the violations above alleged; and be it further
Resolved, That the proper representatives of all other Class I car-
riers be requested to attend said hearing in order that a more thor-
ough investigation may be made as to said matter of the contracting
out of railway work.
RESOLUTION.
Chicago, Ill., July 3, 1922.
Whereas the six organizations comprising the Federated Shop
Crafts have notified the Railroad Labor Board that a very large
majority of the employees which they represent have left the service
of the carriers, that the members of said organizations are no longer
employees of the railways, under the jurisdiction of the Railroad
Labor Board or subject to the application of the Transportation Act,
and
Whereas the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, United Brother-
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop
Laborers, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, and
Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen of America have also made known.
to the board that they have put out strike ballots on all or a part
of the carriers which may result in the classes of employees which
they respectively represent leaving the employ of the carriers, and
Whereas in the future submission of disputes involving rules,
wages, and grievances of said classes of employees of the carriers,
it will be desirable, if not a practical necessity, for the employees
of each class on each carrier to form some sort of association or
organization to function in the representation of said employees
before the Railroad Labor Board, in order that the effectiveness of
the transportation act may be maintained: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it be communicated to the carriers and the em-
ployees remaining in the service and the new employees succeeding
those who have left the service to take steps as soon as practicable
1140
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
to perfect on each carrier such organizations as may be deemed nec-
essary for the purposes above mentioned; and be it further
Resolved, That on any carrier where either of the above-named
organizations, by reason of its membership severing their connection
with the carriers, ceases to represent its class of employees, procedure
similar to that above suggested in the case of the shop crafts is rec-
ommended; and be it further
Resolved, That the employees remaining in the service and the
new ones entering same be accorded the application and benefit of
the outstanding wage and rule decisions of the Railroad Labor
Board, until they are amended or modified by agreements with said
employees, arrived at in conformity with the transportation act, or
by decision of this Board; and be it further
Resolved, That if it be assumed that the employees who leave the
service of the carrier because of their dissatisfaction with any deci-
sions of the Labor Board are within their rights in so doing, it must
likewise be conceded that the men who remain in the service and
those who enter it anew are within their rights in accepting such em-
ployment, that they are not strikebreakers seeking to impose the
arbitrary will of an employer on employees; that they have the
moral as well as the legal right to engage in such service of the
American public to avoid interruption of indispensable railway
transportation; and that they are entitled to the protection of every
department and branch of the Government, State and National.
It is suggested that carriers bulletin this resolution which was
adopted by the majority action of the Board.
RESOLUTION.
Chicago, Ill., July 10, 1922.
Whereas J. G. Luhrsen, president of the American Train Dis-
patchers Association; J. L. Eldridge, grand president of the Rail-
road Yardmasters of America; and the representatives of various
other classes of employees, have presented formal complaints, re-
spectively, to the Railroad Labor Board to the effect that employees
of said classes were being required by certain of the carriers to per-
form the work of striking employees of another class, and
Whereas although said complaints are not submitted to the board
in the formal manner prerequisite to a decision, the board feels that
under present conditions it is justified in giving an informal ex-
pression of opinion in regard to them. Be it therefore
Resolved, That it is the judgment of the Railroad Labor Board
that a carrier has no right to require an employee of any class to per-
form work outside the scope of the existing agreement or decision of
the board covering the rules and working conditions of the class to
which such employee belongs, unless the employee performs such
work voluntarily; and, furthermore, that the observance of the
policy here recommended will be conducive to the peaceful and un-
interrupted operation of the carriers at this time and will enhance.
harmonious cooperation among all classes of employees after the
strike is terminated.
DECISIONS.
1141
RESOLUTION.
Chicago, Ill., August 7, 1922.
Whereas the President of the United States recently made certain
suggestions to the railway executives and the representatives of the
railway employees now on strike, looking toward the settlement of
the strike, which suggestions were in part agreed to by both parties,
and
Whereas the one question upon which there was such a wide di-
vergence of opinion that the carriers declined to accept the Presi-
dent's suggestion was that of the reinstatement of the men on strike
with seniority and other rights unimpaired, and
Whereas the President has since suggested that the question of
seniority be submitted to the Railroad Labor Board for hearing and
decision, and
Whereas the Railroad Labor Board on July 3, 1922, passed a
resolution which, while it makes no express reference to seniority,
has been generally construed to have inferential bearing on same, and
Whereas it has been thought that this resolution, although it does
not possess the force and effect of a decision, might stand in the way
of the submission of this question to the Railroad Labor Board in
accordance with the suggestion of the President:. Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Labor Board signify its willingness to extend
to the carriers and any employees concerned ample opportunity to
present, in accordance with the transportation act and the estab-
Îished procedure of the board, any dispute involving the seniority
question or to seek an interpretation of the rules covering said
question, and to submit, on both sides, such testimony and argument
as may be deemed advisable, to the end that. the board may, after
a full and fair hearing of every phase of the question involved,
render a formal decision adjudicating the matters in controversy.
It is the purpose of the board to indicate by this resolution that
it will as promptly and readily consider and determine the questions
of seniority growing out of the present strike, as it will rehear the
wage and rule questions which were originally involved in the
strike. The only difference in the attitude of the board toward
the wage and rule questions on the one hand and the seniority
question on the other, is that, as to the former, the board would be
called upon to rehear matters already formally decided and, as to
the latter, to consider a question which has not been formally heard
and decided, but which has been inferentially touched upon in the
resolution of July 3, 1922."
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD.
ANNOUNCEMENT.
Chicago, Ill., March 16, 1922.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L. (Federated
Shop Crafts).-Dockets 1204, 1205, and 1206.
Since the hearing of the cases styled and docketed as above, infor-
mation has come to the Railroad Labor Board that the Erie Rail-
road Co., without awaiting the decision of the board upon said con-
tract cases, has entered into a further contract by virtue of which
a large part-possibly all-of the shops of the entire Erie System
has been contracted to a newly incorporated company, called the
Meadville Machinery Co.
Public announcement is made of the fact that the officers of the
Meadville Machinery Co. are the recent officials of the Erie Rail-
road Co.
The principal question involved in the above-styled cases is
whether or not the employees of the contractors, whose contracts
are involved in Dockets 1204, 1205, and 1206, are in law and in fact
the employees of the Erie Railroad Co., and therefore still subject
to the rules, working conditions, and wages established by the orders
of the Labor Board, pursuant to the provision of the transportation
act, 1920.
Said contract system having been extended so as to embrace many
other shops on the road, and the board desiring fuller information
as to the contracts involved in the above dockets, it becomes the duty
of the board, upon its own motion, to investigate the facts surround-
ing this alleged contract of the carrier with the Meadville Machinery
Co., and to take further proof in Dockets 1204, 1205, and 1206.
The Labor Board, therefore, on this the 16th day of March, 1922,
orders-
(1) That Dockets 1204, 1205, and 1206 be reopened for the pur-
pose of taking additional proof as to the issues involved in said
cases;
(2) That under the general authority conferred upon the board
under the transportation act, and, particularly, under section 308,
subsection 3, and sections 310 and 311 of said act, a thorough investi-
gation be made of all the facts and circumstances surrounding said
alleged contract, and the operations that are being conducted there-
under;
(3) That a member of this board, accompanied by such expert
and stenographic assistants as may be deemed necessary, be author-
ized and directed to go on the property of said carrier to conduct
said investigation and to institute such legal proceedings as may
1143
1144
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
be deemed necessary to effectuate this order, after having first secured
all the information possible here in Chicago; and
(4) That the member of the board conducting said investigation
be, and is hereby, authorized to invoke the aid and counsel of the
Department of Justice at Washington, if he deems it advisable.
The member of the board who conducts said investigation will be
duly authorized in writing by the Labor Board and will be given a
certified copy of this resolution.
ANNOUNCEMENT.
Chicago, Ill., April 1, 1922.
The Railroad Labor Board has received official notice that the
negotiations between the representatives of the carriers and repre-
sentatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen have been
terminated, and the board, feeling that it is now proper and neces-
sary for it to take up the consideration of the pending disputes con-
cerning the rules and working conditions of said brotherhoods, has
announced its purpose to hold such hearing immediately upon the
termination of the hearings now in progress before the board.
In order that the carriers and the above-named brotherhoods may
have definite notice of the date of said hearing on rules and working
conditions, it becomes necessary to indicate to the parties now before
the board the amount of time that will be given to the completion
of the present hearings.
The board therefore announces that the hearing of the disputes as
to rules and working conditions between the carriers and the above-
named brotherhoods is set for May 1, 1922, at 10 a. m., and that the
hearings now in progress before the board shall be completed before
that date, and all parties will govern themselves accordingly.
GENERAL INDEX.
INDEX TO DECISIONS:
(a) SUBJECTS...
(b) CARRIERS…
(c) ORGANIZATIONS
INDEX TO ADDENDA:
SUBJECTS
1
1
INDEX TO INTERPRETATIONS:
SUBJECTS.
INDEX TO APPENDIX:
(a) RESOLUTIONS.
(b) ANNOUNCEMENTS.
1
1
DOCKETS DISPOSED OF (Table 1):
1
1
1
1
1
(a) DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED..
(b) DOCKETS SHOWING ADDENDA NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
(c) DOCKETS SHOWING INTERPRETATION NUMBERS As-
SIGNED.
CASES DISPOSED OF (Table 2):
(a) CASES SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED
(b) CASES SHOWING ADDENDA NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
(c) CASES SHOWING INTERPRETATION NUMBERS AS-
SIGNED...
DECISIONS AMENDED OR INTERPRETED (Table 3):
(a) DECISIONS HAVING ADDenda RenDERED THEREON..
(b) DECISIONS HAVING INTERPRETATIONS RENDERED
THEREON
-
ADDENDA INTERPRETED (Table 4):
(a) ADDENDA HAVING INTERPRETATIONS RENDERED
THEREON.
1145
Page.
1149
1182
1222
1235
1237
1239
1239
1240
1249
1249
1250
1250
1250
1251
1252
1252
INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL INDEX.
No standard classification of subjects has been devised for index-
ing railroad wage schedules or decisions involving disputes between
carriers and their employees. Therefore it has been necessary to
construct main classifications which have been found most applicable
to the particular questions embodied in the decisions of the Railroad
Labor Board, and in selecting these classifications the chief aim has
been to obtain the fewest possible divisions consistent with the
greatest amount of practical utility.
It must necessarily happen in every scheme of classification
framed with this view that subjects arranged under one class must
also contain references relating to another class, and while this
fact calls for some degree of cross indexing, most subjects have
been confined to a single, dominant classification. Where a decision
involves one or more questions or principles, it is, of course, necessary
to index the decision under two or more appropriate headings.
Accordingly, there has been adopted such principles of arrangement
as would allow the placement of a given subject in its simplest and
most natural category. Proper groupings within each classification.
have been made under appropriate subdivisions, and the minuter
details have been chosen with a view to directing the inquirer most
readily and quickly to the object of his search.
The following table shows the main classifications used in this
index:
TABLE OF MAIN CLASSIFICATIONS.
(a) DECISIONS.
Abolishment of Positions.
Assignment of Work . . .
Classification of Positions and Rates.
Combination Service...
Contract Work..
Deadhead Service..
Demotions.
Discipline.
Disputes, Method of Handling.
Dissenting Opinions..
Eating and Sleeping Accommodations.
Express Employees.
•
Federal Boards of Adjustment, Decisions of.
Hostling Service.
Hours of Service.
•
Housing Conditions.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board Decisions, Application of.
Leaves of Absence.
•
National Agreement Rules, Application of.
Notices, Posting of.
Pay-day Regulations.
Piecework.
Promotions.
•
•
•
Page.
1149
1149
1149
1152
1152
1153
1153
1153
1156
1158
1158
1158
1159
1159
1159
· 1159
1159
1160
1165
1165
1167
1167
1167
1167
1146
INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL INDEX.
1147
Page.
• •
Railroad Administration Orders, Application of.
Rates of Pay.
Reduction in Forces.
Rehearing on Decisions.
Representation Rights.
Rules and Working Conditions.
Runarounds
Seniority Districts.
Seniority Rights.
Short Line Railroads.
Strikes.
•
•
Sunday and Holiday Service.
Supporting Opinions.
Terminal Delay and Work by Road Crews.
Terminals, Changes of … ·
Time Clocks and Checking in.
Time Lost.
Transporation Act, 1920
Transportation Privileges.
Turnaround Service..
Union Laber Membership
Vacancies, Filling of..
Withdrawal of Application for Decision.
Work-train Service.
•
1167
1168
1174
1174
1174
1174
•
1176
1176
1176
1177
•
•
1177
1177
•
1178
1178
•
1178
1178
•
1178
•
1179
·
1179
•
1179
1179
•
•
1179
1180
•
1181
Yard Service...
1181
(b) ADDENDA.
Carriers Added as Parties to Decisions.
1235
Carriers Excluded from Decisions.
1236
Employees Added to Decisions.
1236
Employees Excluded from Decisions.
1236
•
Modification of Decisions..
1236
Organizations Added as Parties to Decisions
1236
(c) INTERPRETATIONS.
Classifications of Positions and Rates.
Labor Board Decision, Interpretation of.
Rates of Pay.
Rules and Working Conditions.
20936°—23———73
1237
1237
•
1237
1237
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
A. DECISIONS INDEXED BY SUBJECTS.
[NOTE.-Figures printed in regular type at end of detail line refer to decision numbers, while the italicized
figures indicate the page upon which the decision may be found, e. g., "609, 21" following the index reference
to "Right of carriers to abolish positions" refers to Decision No. 609 appearing on page 21 of this volume.
Abolishment of Positions:
Right of carriers to abolish positions.
Decision No. and Page.
.609, 21; 855, 238;
991, 348; 992, 349; 1085, 557; 1237, 711; 1368, 963
Right of employees to make displacement.
Assignment of Work:
Assignments-
Apprentices to machinists.
Ten-hour assignments....
Clerical work, reapportionment of.
Coal chutes, operation of.
Conductors on work trains.
Crews in passenger service.
Dispatchers, train..
Drivers in express service.
Express service, drivers in
Firemen on self-propelled unloading hoists.
Freight service, bulletining of irregular.
Maintenance of way work.
Mechanics' work, supervisory employees performing.
Messenger runs, rearrangement of .
.934, 292; 964, 319
1116, 592
1364, 953
740, 151
780, 179
646, 63
1312, 866
623, 28
939, 295
939, 295
1398, 979
1322, 878
646, 63
921, 286
1368, 963
•
1337, 894; 1338, 895
1312, 866
1032, 420
1054, 471
1091, 562
1184, 643
1038, 457
1242, 727
1364, 953
Messenger service.
Passenger service, crews in.
Qualifications to govern..
Seniority, failure of carrier to respect.
Signal interlocking plant...
Signal maintainers on supervisor's territory, number of assistant.
State laws, affect on
Telegraph operators..
Ten-hour assignments.
Train dispatchers.
Transportation to new position.
623, 28
909, 279
Classification of Positions and Rates:
Clerical and station forces-
Agents, traveling.
Baggage and mail handlers.
Baggagemaster and switchman.
Callers, train-crew.
Car distributor-
Chief...
Unspecified
Cashier.
Checkers-
Baggage...
986, 343
854, 237; 1471, 1075
765, 166
1196, 655
•
•
1151, 619
1151, 619
856, 239
1196, 655
Yard..
Clerks-
Chief-
Agent, to.
Claim.
Assistant....
Night....
Regional accounting department.
Counter...
621, 26
730, 146; 835, 227
1151, 619
1042, 461
1151, 619
933, 292
621, 26
1149
1150
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Classification of Positions and Rates-Continued.
Clerical and station forces-Continued.
Clerks-Continued.
File.
Decision No. and Page.
1201, 659
General
1371, 970
Less than one year's experience.
783, 181
On-hand..
904, 276
Pay-roll..
856, 239
Shop.
1089, 560
Stenographic...
626, 29; 1371, 970
Ticket...
935, 293
Transfer.
846, 233
Unspecified
622, 26;
761, 164; 783, 181; 839, 230; 852, 235; 853, 236; 1414, 986
Collector, unspecified..
856, 239
Dispatchers, engine………..
741, 152
Foremen-
Baggage-room
General
Assistant.....
621, 26
1477, 1081
Mail...
1275, 810
984, 341
621, 26
Unspecified
Warehouse.
Freight-station employees.
Gatemen...
Guards.....
Helpers, station.
Investigators, claim.
Janitor red caps.
Laborers-
Common.
Station...
Mail and baggage handlers.
Mail distributors, railroad.
Mail porters...
Messengers, unspecified..
Office and station employees.
Personal office forces..
Porters, mail..
Railroad mail distributors.
Red caps..
Shop watchmen.
Stations, definition of larger.
Station and office employees..
Storekeeper-
Assistant supply-train.
Unspecified..
Switchman and baggagemaster..
Train and engine crew callers.
Train announcers.
Warehouse employees..
Watchmen-
Clock pullers.
Gatemen.
General.
Shop...
Yard checkers.
Dining-car employees, steward.
Engine-service employees-
Hostlers, inside.
Messengers on dead engines.
Express employees-
Clerks, in-freight, assistant.
Depot foremen.
Drivers.
Foremen, depot.
In-freight clerk, assistant.
Inspectors...
1202, 660
1131, 609
1196, 655
932, 291
953, 311; 1478, 1082
.1155, 624; 1424, 1002
912, 281
1249, 733; 1412, 985
956, 314
854, 237
952, 310
1472, 1076
863, 244; 1197, 656
632, 54; 633, 56
762, 165
1472, 1076
952, 310
912, 281
838, 230
730, 146
632, 54; 633, 56
988, 344
696, 92
765, 166
782, 181
1196, 655
1373, 973
1033, 421
1033, 421
1033, 421
838, 230
621, 26
1141, 614
891, 263
1095, 581
704, 98
698, 94
697, 93; 703, 98
698, 94
704, 98
666, 75
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1151
Classification of Positions and Rates-Continued.
Express employees-Continued.
Messengers-
Attendants as express messengers.
Unspecified.
Part-time employees.
Platform men..
Way-bill writer.
Maintenance of way. and unskilled forces-
Bridge and building department employees.
Carpenters, bridge and building.
Chauffeurs..
Coal-chute operators.
Drawbridge operators.
Elevator men..
Engineers, stationary
Foremen-
Assistant..
Bridge and building..
Bridge and building, assistant.
Coal-chute..
Fuel..
Monthly-rated.
Roundhouse..
Unspecified.
Water service.
•
Helpers, boiler-washer.
Inspector, scale..
Labor gangs, traveling..
Laborers-
Common.
Coal-chute..
Handling coal..
·
Decision No. and Page.
728, 145
701, 96
905, 277
652, 68; 665, 74
688, 88
1358, 915
894, 266
711, 112
991, 348
1354, 910
788, 183
717, 117; 1354,910
601, 22; 710,112
798, 191; 1434, 1012
798, 191; 1434, 1012
777, 177; 995, 351
1149, 618
898, 270
778, 177; 1481, 1085
710, 112
798, 191
779, 178
1150, 618
794, 187
777, 177; 1066, 482
1439, 1014
777, 177
Roundhouse...
Shop.
Machinist.
Mechanics..
891, 263
779, 178
778, 177
711, 112
Pumpers.
769, 169; 898, 270; 1129, 605
Stockmen.
1167, 632
Storekeeper, road department.
1100, 585
Supervisory positions.
Track employees..
Watchmen-
1436, 1014
1006, 358
Crossing.
808, 202
Engine.
714, 115; 897, 269; 899, 271
Engine watchmen at isolated points.
806, 200
Track.
Tunnel.
Shop employees-
Arbitrary changes prohibited..
Boiler washers.
Carmen..
Coal passers.
Division linemen..
Electricians.
Electric crane operators.
Firemen and oilers.
Helpers-
Carmen helpers doing machinist's work...
Machinist...
Sheet-metal worker.
Laborers.
Layers-out.
589, 5
589,5
1177, 635
974, 327
1099, 584
1347, 905
712, 113; 997, 352
1179, 639; 1180, 640
1091, 562; 1092, 572
999, 356
972, 325
770, 170
770, 170
1347, 905
1177, 635
Linemen..
Lubricator fillers..
712, 113; 1178, 636
1072, 485
1152
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Classification of Positions and Rates-Continued.
Shop employees-Continued.
Mechanics
Foreman, temporarily assigned as.
Sheet-metal workers..
Supervisors of.
Decision No. and Page.
996, 352
768, 168; 946, 299; 947, 304; 994, 350
970, 324
Water service department.
994, 350
Signal-department employees—
Composite mechanics.
Helpers.
Maintainers—
Leading..
795, 189
709, 111
800, 193
Signal.
Signal, assistant.
Subordinate officials-claim agents
795, 189; 800, 193; 903, 274; 1091, 562; 1092, 572
709, 111; 1184, 643
Unspecified.
Mechanics, composite.
Signalmen, unspecified
Supervisors of mechanics.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents-
Agencies-
Supervisory.
Telegraph.
Agents-
Supervisory.
Ticket.
Lever men..
795, 189
903,274
1424, 1002
1352, 909
873, 248
983, 340
983, 340
837, 229
1274, 809
1253, 739
Subordinate officials-agents, claim.
1424, 1002
Train dispatchers—operators.
1029, 417
Train-service employees-
Electrical equipment, handling of. . .
1325, 881
Trainmen performing work of baggagemen..
Train porters...
772, 172
1309, 861
Turn-around service
Combination Service:
Baggagemaster and switchman.
Coal-chute foremen and pumpers.
Deadhead and road trip..
Pumpers and coal-chute foremen.
Road trip and deadhead...
Switchman and baggagemaster.
Contract Work:
Baggage and mail, handling of……….
Calling train and engine crews.
Car cleaning work.
Car repair work.
Clerical and station service.
Coal chutes, operation of.
Coal, handling of.
Coal passers.
Electrical work.
Engine watching.
-
Express agents, employees of.
995, 351
1300, 852
765, 166
1209, 665; 1220, 687
1210, 667
1258, 752
1264, 762
1077.542; 1262, 757
1256, 747
1215, 678; 1254, 741
1223, 690; 1230, 700
1301, 853
765, 166
995, 351
1300, 852
1238, 712
1254, 741
701, 96
Flagmen..
1219, 686
Freight handling
1209,665; 1210, 667; 1232, 705; 1279, 813
Freight-house operations.
Individual employees, contract with.
1119, 594
1230, 700; 1253, 739
Janitor work..
1210, 667
Jurisdiction of Labor Board not affected by-
Clerical and station forces.
1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279, 813
Engine-service employees..
1224, 690
Firemen and oilers..
1213, 673
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
1075, 539;
1079, 539; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1222, 689;
1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1256, 747.
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1153
Contract Work-Continued.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board not affected by-Continued.
Shop employees.
Laborers.
Decision No. and Page.
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1225, 692;
1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754;
1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Locomotive repair work.
1213, 673; 1222, 689
1264, 762
Maintenance of way employees.
Maintenance of way work.
Passenger cars, cleaning of.
Power plant, operation of.
Pumping of water.
Repair work-
Car....
Locomotive..
1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1221, 689; 1226, 696; 1231, 702
Roundhouse work, contracting of..
Shop work..
650, 67
1212, 670;
1214, 675; 1220, 687
1260, 754
1215, 678; 1230, 700; 1254, 741; 1256, 747
1264, 762
1264, 762
982, 332
1076, 540;
1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1225, 692; 1236, 710;
1241, 727; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Track work.
Watchmen.
Western Union Telegraph Co., employees of.
Yard office work...
Deadhead Service:
Maintenance of way employees...
Demotions:
Car inspector demoted to car repairer..
Conductor demoted to brakeman.
Helpers, boilermaker..
Inability to perform work, account of.
Inefficiency of employee.
Restoration to former positions.
Seniority-minor, seniority rights of..
-
Signalmen, assistant, demoted to helpers.
Supervisory employees, rights to other service.
Discipline:
Dismissals-
Clerical and station forces
Anderson, E. C……..
Bianchi, Frank....
Bianchi, Louis.
Brown, H. J..
Bryan, Kenneth....
Calhoun, J. C..
596, 11; 1075, 539; 1079, 545
1219, 686
1238, 712
1210, 667
·
650, 67
587, 3
1387, 977
1148, 618
1032, 420
985, 343
781, 180
727, 144
709, 111
592, 6;
594, 8; 619, 24; 620, 25; 801, 194; 804, 197
641, 61
797, 191
797, 191
739, 151
758, 163
1198, 658
Constable, J. B…….
Coxon, William.
Daniels, Homer J.
Daugherty, J. C...
Furey, Maurice M...
Gardner, E. E....
Grace, W. H..
Grant, E. M...
637,59
756, 156
858, 241
1480, 1085
931, 291
817,206
667, 76
943, 298
Griffis, J. R..
684, 85
Grubbs, A..
880, 257
Guyer, Hazelle M..
965, 321
Harlan, G..
1132, 609
Hill, Anna...
818, 207
Kearns, George L....
736, 150
Kronig, Harry E.
942, 298
Leonard, Fred.
658, 71
Lifschitz, Anna.
608, 21
Lodge, J. P...
1159, 627
1154 •
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Discipline-Continued.
Dismissals-Continued.
Clerical and station forces-Continued.
Marshall, Mrs. C. M..
McGrath, T.
Merkadeau, S. E.
Merritt, L. E..
Moll, J. R.
Montague, W. B.
Morse, C. W
Morton, F. H.
Newcomb, J. R..
Nunn, P. J
Norton, E...
Nussbaum, Harold E.
Owens, R. W..
Peters, W. C.
Pritchard, V.
Raymond, E. L…….
Rose, M. H.
Decision No. and Page.
791, 186
1278, 812
766, 167
663, 74
957, 315
959, 315;1473, 1077
695, 92
636, 59
865, 246
1203, 661
1290, 562
906, 278
763, 165
675, 80
1194, 654
628, 30
954, 312
Scarce, A. R...
1048, 466
Shields, T.
Smith, W. N.
1170, 638
Stem, E.
1420, 997
1200, 659
Van Atta, R. M.
729, 145
Washman, C. C.
Watson, Mrs. M. E…….
784, 182
Weekly, T. J
968, 324
678, 82
Williams, Coral.
612, 22
Withers, R. F.
Wood, Herman S.
1157, 626
Engine-service employees-
Employees unnamed...
Johnson, K. D.
888, 263
1096, 582
Unnamed employees.
Express employees
Sperling, George.
Steele, E. M..
Childs, C. P.....
Davis, G. F...
Employees unnamed.
Gregg, D...
Pew, J...
Ross, Charles…..
Rounsavail, C. E.
1319, 876
1096, 582
680, 83
672, 79
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces-
1348, 906
831, 223
588, 4
1163, 629
Skok, F..
Stevenson, M. L……..
Unnamed employees..
Railway police-
Bergmann, R....
Brady, J. J.
J....
Cornyn, J..
Dowell, H. C....
Klieman, H.
Phillips, E. G.
Shop employees--
Gage, C. E...
Green, William.
1353, 909
715, 116
1340, 897
1438, 1014
1007, 358
588, 4
1419,995
1419,995
1419,995
1419,995
1419,995
1419,995
Harms, Fred..
Hill, Herbert
Johanson, A. P…...
Laster, W. G., et al.
Moore, C. F.
Nelson, A. C...
Osborne, J. B.
Shoemaker, J. E….
1005, 358
928,289
1062, 478
1059, 475
597, 11
584, 2
1059, 475
1106, 589
708, 111
1070, 485
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1155
Discipline-Continued.
Dismissals-Continued.
Shop employees-Continued.
Stengele, A. N….
Tilton, F. J.
Willoughby, T. J.
Signal-department employees-
Faudres, O. G...
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents—
Bennett, O. L.
Markey, T. J...
Train dispatchers—
Corbin, B. H.
Griffin, O. D……….
Train-service employees-
Decision No. and Page.
1106, 589
1062, 478
928,289
1068, 483
1195, 654
1012, 369
1171, 634
1372, 978
Bart, H. J.
Behrn, G. N....
Employees unnamed.
Roberts, T. A…….
Word, R. W....
1384, 976
1399, 980
1096, 582
1406, 981
Unnamed employees.
Thompson, J. M...
Yard-service employees--
Belton, G...
1383,976
1096, 582
1455, 1044
1456, 1045
McManus, R...
Reinstatements-
1050, 466
Clercial and station forces-
Becker, Dora....
1088, 559
Bozonier, S.
Hanson, Ruth M.
Flynn, E. J.
Jackson, J. F....
Kuhn, May.
Lehner, Eva.
Olson, E. C.
·
Tompkins, H. A
Wikertsheim, J. W.
Wortham, Alice..
Engine-service employees—
Silvers, H. E....
Express employees-
Dee, D. M.
Schroeder, W. J
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces-
1186, 647
1037, 456
1189, 651
1248, 732
1088, 559
1088, 559
767, 167
1152, 620
1041, 461
1088, 559
886, 260
1035, 428
1031, 419
Cunis, A. P..
Employees unnamed.
·
Fehrle, W..
Nortcut, A. C..
Stanford, R. P..
1355, 911
1056, 473
1447, 1018
1069, 484
1356, 913
Teller, W...
Tobey, Elwin B...
Unnamed employees.
Other supervisory forces-
Sexton, L. R.
Wethe, Charles J.
Shop employees-
Bass, A. A..
Boyd, H. C..
Coon, H. C....
Drake, C. H.…….
·
Employees unnamed…….
Gjutman, Oscar..
Haley, Thomas.
Hoey, M. J...
Jenkins, E. C…….
Jenkins, M. A…….
Gordan, W. E.
1055, 472; 1359, 917; 1362, 942
927, 288
926, 287
1022, 376
1021, 375
1020, 374
1021, 375
1118, 593
1102, 586
1056, 473
967, 323
625, 29
1021, 375
1019, 373
1019, 373
598, 12
1156
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Discipline—Continued.
Dismissals-Continued.
Shop employees-Continued.
Juneau, E. J...
LaBounty, Homer.
Mathews, C. H…….
May, R. E....
McCusker, Max.
McNamara, J. J.
McRae, J. G..
Ringe, George.
Shaw, Walter.
Smith, Roy..
Stillwell, J. L..
Tate, F. E..
·
-
Unnamed employees.
Welch, J. M..
Williams, H. T…….
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents-
Gaillard, E..
Train-service employees-
Arwood, S. B.
Yard-service employees-
Arwood, S. B.
Glazebrook, O. E.
O'Neil, J..
Silvers, H. E.
Zimmerschied, P. J
Suspension—
Clerical and station forces-
Kinney, L....
Disputes, Method of Handling:
Agreements-
Decision No. and Page.
1055, 472
599, 13
1021, 375
1021, 375
586, 3
1063, 478
792, 186
1018, 373
1058, 474
590, 5
1021, 375
1021, 375
1055, 472; 1359, 917; 1362, 942
1021, 375
1019, 373
1449, 1028
886, 260
886, 260
1052, 469
1053, 470
886, 260
1051, 467
668, 76
Changes in, how to make..
1060, 476;
1081, 551; 1333, 890; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893
Positions not within scope of.
Questions not covered by..
Classification of positions and rates—
1179, 639;
1180, 640
1067, 482
Changes in duties of employee....
Classification for balloting on representative.
Joint investigation to determine duties……….
837, 229
829, 219; 1082, 553
994, 350; 997, 352
Discipline-
Decision of Railroad Labor Board held in abeyance-
Arbitrary or special allowances..
Overtime..
Vacations.
Arbitrary dismissals by carrier..
1328, 882
607, 19
1233, 707
1056, 473
Investigation, employees entitled to..
1031, 419:
1041, 461; 1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1152, 620
Disputes dismissed-
922, 286
990, 347
Agreement on dispute closes case..
Failure to reply to board's communications.
Disputes remanded to interested parties—
Ballots to be taken for choosing representatives..... 583, 1; 629, 31; 631, 50;
775, 175; 825, 215; 826, 217; 998, 353; 1082, 553; 1415, 986; 1416, 991
Conferences to be held-
Clerical and station forces..
582, 1; 729,145; 874,250;
875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256; 929, 289; 1087, 558
Dining-car employees...
Engine-service employees...
Maintenence of way and unskilled forces.
879, 256; 1122, 599
724, 134; 1327, 882
724, 134;
780, 179; 803, 197; 1149, 618; 1357, 914; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
724, 134; 895, 267; 978, 829; 1161, 628
Shop employees.
Signal-department employees..
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents.
924, 287
724, 134;
832, 223; 1274, 808; 1378, 975; 1379,975
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1157.
Disputes, Method of Handling-Continued.
Disputes remanded to interested parties-Continued.
Conferences to be held-Continued.
Decision No. and Page.
Train dispatchers.. 724, 134; 810, 205; 811, 205; 812, 205; 813, 205; 814, 205;
815, 206; 848, 233; 849, 234; 850, 234; 866, 246; 969, 324; 987, 344
Train-service employees.
724, 134; 1295, 845
Yard employees.
Facts to be made clear.
1411, 984
632, 54; 633, 56; 664, 74;
782, 181;
1274, 808
643, 62;
350; 997,
913, 281; 929, 289; 933, 292; 958, 315; 1043, 463; 1132, 609;
Joint investigation to be made..
669, 77; 778, 177; 903, 274; 904, 276; 929, 289; 959, 315; 994,
352; 1001, 356; 1090, 562; 1347, 905; 1378, 975; 1379, 975.
Proper effort must be made to adjust dispute...
650, 67
Proposed rules not decided by board.. 630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 722, 126;
725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156; 1120, 597; 1208, 662; 1266, 765; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of conference to properly apply..
Rates of pay, changes in, how to make.
724, 134
822, 213;
854, 237; 969, 324; 1003, 357; 1253, 739; 1274, 809; 1286, 833; 1288, 837;
1329, 883; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1410, 982.
Representatives, selection of—
Ballots required to determine proper representatives—
Clerical and station forces....
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces..
Shop employees.....
Supervisors of mechanics..
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents.
Train dispatchers....
Carrier requires employees to choose by ballot.
583, 1; 1416, 991
998, 353; 1082, 553
998, 353
629, 31; 631, 50
825, 215; 826, 217; 1415, 986
775, 175
832, 233; 1269, 793
709, 111; 963, 317; 1002, 357;
1160, 627; 1181, 640; 1237, 711; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893; 1359, 917
Rules and working conditions-
Changes in, how to make.
Contracting work of carriers..
1344, 902
Misapplication of rules by carrier.
1234, 708
Piecework determined by ballot of employees..
1360, 921
Separations from service account contracting work-
1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 757
Engine-service employees...
1224, 690
1213, 673
1075, 539;
Clerical and station forces
Firemen and oilers....
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1222, 689;
1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1256, 747.
Shop employees....
982, 332; 1076, 540; 1078, 544;
1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727;
1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Status quo orders, application of employees for..
Submissions used in filing disputes-
Form of....
Must contain specific dispute.
Questions in dispute must be properly stated.
Transportation act, 1920, noncompliance with-
Arbitrary changing of rates...
Arbitrary changing of rules...
Carriers refusing to meet committee..
1234, 708
887, 262
1168, 633
933, 292; 1439, 1014
822, 213; 1177, 635
963, 317; 1181, 640; 1237, 711; 1359, 917
978, 329;
1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
832, 223
Committees refusing to meet carrier...
Conference must be on question in dispute.
Conferences, failure to hold..
1439, 1014
650, 67;
709, 111; -822, 213; 1001, 356; 1002, 357; 1063, 478; 1145, 617; 1146, 617;
1147, 617; 1177, 635; 1199, 658; 1286, 833; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1333, 890.
Decisions of board, failure to comply with..
1160, 627; 1181, 640
Withdrawal of disputes-portions of disputes may be withdrawn... 1081, 551;
1244, 730
1158
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Dissenting Opinions:
Agreements-
Gulf Coast Lines, shopmen's on..
Louisiana Southern Railway, shopmen's on.
Application of Decision No. 147..
Boilermaker, reinstatement of..
Classification of—
Clerical and station employees, certain.
Electrical workers..
Messengers...
Sheet-metal workers..
Signal interlocking plant repairer.
Signal repair man..
Constructive mileage allowances..
Contract work...
Leaves of absence, clerical and station forces.
Mileage allowances, constructive..
Physical examination of employees..
Piecework.
Pile-driver service within yard limits.
Rates of pay-
Clerical and station forces.
Changing of.
Elimination of inequalities in.
Maintenance of way employees.
Shop employees..
Representatives, selection of employees'.
Rules and working conditions-
Express company's rules, scope of..
Maintenance of way employees' rules.
Overtime rules...
Time lost account wrongful assignment.
Eating and Sleeping Accommodations:
Equipment used, charging employees for....
Express Employees:
Agreements, scope of..
Application of schedule rules affecting pay for—
Clerks-
In-freight, assistant……..
On-hand..
Drivers...
Express messengers.
Foreman, stable.
Hostlers..
Messengers, express
Part-time employees
Service outside regular assignment
Basic date of seniority.
Classification of positions and rates.
663, 70; 701, 96; 728, 145; 932, 291; 933, 292.
Discipline....
Free transportation, request for
Hours of service..
Leaves of absence.
Messenger, right to position of express
Pay account sleeping in office
Pay-day regulations..
Preference for employment.
Rates of pay-
Back pay..
Basic rate defined.
·
Decision No. and Page.
833, 224
1008, 359
1268, 791
598, 12
1196, 655
1092, 572
1197, 656
946, 299; 947, 304
1091, 562
1091, 562; 1092, 572
1363, 949
1279, 813; 1361, 934
1229, 698
1363, 949
1362, 942
1360, 921
1316, 872
1074, 486
1410, 982
1448, 1019
1028, 383; 1267, 767
1036, 423
1269, 793; 1366, 959
821, 208
1450, 1029
630, 34
1130, 607
1067, 482
821, 208
704, 98
904, 276
697, 93; 703, 98
615, 23
700, 95
700, 95
615, 23
905, 277
662,73
690, 89
652, 68;
672, 79; 678, 82; 680, 83; 906, 278; 1473, 1077
Changes in not authorized for messengers
Commissions, reduction of.
617, 24
881, 257
689, 89; 691, 90
•
661, 72
900, 272; 907, 278
864, 245
627,30
614, 23
670, 77; 673, 79; 681, 83
638, 59
1206, 662
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1159
Express Employees-Continued.
Rates of pay-Continued.
Inequalities in rates of pay.
Decision No. and Page.
613, 23;
616, 23; 624, 28; 638, 59; 653, 69; 654, 69; 655, 70; 656, 70; 659, 71; 666,
75; 671, 78; 679, 82; 698, 94; 856, 239.
Questions as to proper rate.
Reduction in forces..
Rules and working conditions-agreements, scope of.
Runs, rearrangement of..
Seniority rights of minor.
Sickness, time lost account.
Suspension from service.
Three-shift positions, starting time of.
Transfer of drivers from one stable to another.
Transportation, request for free .
669, 77
687, 87; 727, 144
821, 208
1368, 963
727,144
685, 86; 686, 87
668, 76
1470, 1074
939,295
617, 24
Vacancies, filling of………….
664, 74; 677, 81; 683, 84; 699, 94; 702, 97
Federal Boards of Adjustment, Decisions of:
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1-
Case No. 173
Case No. 1278
Case No. 1505..
Docket No. 1964.
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3—
Docket No. 577 ..
Docket No. 653.
Docket No. 830..
Hostling Service:
Hostler helpers, representation of.
Inside hostlers, classification of .
Rules declined relating to, new.
Hours of Service:
Assignments-
1462, 1058
1463, 1061
1453, 1042
1301, 853
1276, 811
1276, 811
1276, 811
1327, 882
891, 263
1318,875
1158, 627; 1245, 730; 1364, 953
Weekly, reduction of.... 771, 171; 1154, 623; 1242, 727; 1286, 833; 1331, 885
Regular, time worked in excess of…….
Basic day, maintenance of way employees.
Bulletined hours, time outside of.
Dispatchers, chief train.
602, 16; 805, 200
890, 263
987, 344
1423, 1000
1345, 903
Eight hours' time, in excess of.
Engine watchmen.
Foremen-
Coal-chute.
Stable..
General offices..
Holidays, closing shops on.
Hostlers in express service.
Hours of service law.
Hours of weekly assignment, reduction of.
Increase of...
Number of work days per week, reduction of...
Starting time of work...
State laws, affect on assignment.
Time outside of bulletined hours.
713, 114
700, 95
731, 147
1108, 589
Watchmen, engine…..
Weekly assignment, reduction of.
Housing Conditions:
Section foremen, place of residence..
700, 95
718, 118
732, 148
734, 149; 1331, 885
789, 184
881, 257
1038, 457
890, 263
1345, 903
771, 171
1C69, 484
Jurisdiction of Labor Board:
Canadian lines, employees on.
977, 329
Charging employees with equipment used...
1067, 482
Clerical and station employees on transfer platform.
1077, 542
1160
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board-Continued.
Contractor, railroad employees working for—
Clerical and station forces..
Decision No. and Page.
1077, 542; 1119, 594;
1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 575; 1279, 813
Engine-service employees.
1224, 690
Firemen and oilers.
1213, 673
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces
1075, 539;
1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1222, 689;
1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1256, 747.
Shop employees..
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1226,
692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260,
754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Dismissal of general yardmaster.
-
1456, 1045
761,164; 894, 350; 1193, 654;
1289, 838; 1290, 838; 1291, 838; 1304, 855; 1431, 1011; 1433, 1012
Disputes arising prior to creation of board.
Employees outside of United States.
977, 329
Organizational jurisdiction.
1358, 915
Overtime, disputes relating to.
Railroad Administration decisions, questions relating to, compliance
with.
607, 19
1184, 643
Rates of pay, disputes relating to.
1286, 833
Rules, promulgation of..
1351, 907; 1332, 888
Labor Board Decisions, Application of:
Decision No. 2—
Article II-
Section 2.....
783, 181;
Section 3....
841, 232; 935, 293; 953, 311; 1201, 659; 1478, 1082
783, 181; 840, 231; 935, 293
Section 4.
Section 5
·
Section 6.
Section 7.
•
863, 244; 953, 311; 1472, 1076; 1477,1081
788, 183; 952, 810; 1033, 421; 1197, 656; 1201, 659
863, 244; 956, 314; 1197, 656; 1478, 1082
649, 66; 863, 244; 954, 312;
956, 314; 984, 341; 1086, 557; 1249, 733; 1412, 985; 1472, 1076
Section 8.
Section 9.
788, 183
1249, 733; 1412, 985
Section 12..
Section unspecified.
956, 314
1426, 1006;
1427,1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010
Article III—
Section 2.
1066, 482
Section 4.
•
711, 112
Section 5.
Section 6.
975, 328
·
Section 7.
Section 8.
999, 356
898, 270; 1129, 605;
1354, 910
711, 112; 806, 200; 999, 356;
1066, 482
Article IV, section 3..
Article VI-
Nevada Northern Railway, application to………..
Article VII-
Nevada Northern Railway, application to.
Section 1..
994, 350
1302, 854
1302, 854
1294, 844
Section 3.
Section 4.
Stationary engineer...
1365, 959
1321, 877
Article VIII-
Article IX-
Section 9.
Article XIII-
Section 1....
Back pay for engine-service employees.
Basic rates of pay.
Confined to lines in United States.
798, 191; 854, 237; 882, 258
977, 329
1354, 910
649, 66
940, 296
1393, 978
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1161'
Labor Board Decisions, Application of-Continued.
Decision No. 2-Continued.
Contract work, applies to employees on-
Decision No. and Page.
Clerical and station forces..
1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232; 705; 1262, 757; 1279, 813.
Engine-service employees...
1224, 690
Firemen and oilers..
1213, 673
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
1075, 539;
1079, 545; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1226, 696; 1230,
700; 1231, 702; 1256, 747.
Shop employees..
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679;
1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745;
1259, 752; 1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Engineers, stationary….
Fire-train service..
1217, 682;
1257, 750;
716, 117; 1073, 486
1293, 842
Green Bay & Western Railroad.
Increase, proper application of.
Interpretation No. 1.
Interpretation No. 3.
Interpretation No. 19.
Multigraph operators.
Patrolmen..
Porters, train.
Position of watchman..
Rates of pay—
Basic.
Storekeepers.
Establishment of..
Train porters.
Decision No. 3—
Article II-
Stationary engineers.
Watchmen, position of.
1123, 601
693, 91
716, 117
1352, 909
940, 296; 1133, 610
847, 233
1027, 382
1309, 861; 1388, 977
913, 281
798, 191; 854, 237;
882, 258
899, 271
716, 117; 1073, 486
1100, 585
1309, 861; 1388, 977
913, 281
Messenger, express service.
Part-time employees, classification unspecified.
Section 4...
Section unspecified..
Decision No. 11-
Back pay.
Clerk on hand..
614, 23
904, 276
701, 99
905, 2777
932, 291
670, 73; 673, 79; 681, 240; 1034, 422
Principles outlined in, referred to.
1457, 1045
1286, 833
1329, 883
1123, 601; 1443, 1016
Decision No. 91-
Principles outlined in, referred to..
Reimbursements account arbitrary reduction in pay.
Decision No. 108-
Negotiation of wages and working conditions……..
Decision No. 119-
Addendum. No. 2.
595, 9; 602, 16; 644,
1162, 629; 1188, 648;
Interpretation No. 1..
Interpretation No. 2.
Agreements
Clerks, effect on...
593, 6;
63; 645, 65; 648, 65; 816, 206; 971, 325; 1097, 583;
1330, 885; 1362, 942; 1416, 991.
Maintenance of way employees' right to make
March 1, 1920, made subsequent to..
Negotiation of..
1359, 917
644, 63; 645, 63; 651, 68; 805, 200; 1350, 907
1208, 662
1002, 357
1120, 597
1122, 599; 1145, 677; 1146, 617; 1147, 617
1064, 479
978, 329; 1002, 357
Painters, decorators, etc., right to make.
Conferences required between interested parties.
Contract work, applies to employees on-
Clerical and station forces.
1119, 594;
1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279, 813
Engine-service employees.
1224, 690
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces..
1079, 545; 1215, 678;
1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702
1162
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Labor Board Decisions, Application of-Continued.
Decision No. 119-Continued.
Contract work, applies to employees on-Continued.
Shop employees.
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 678;
1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745;
1259, 752; 1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Disputes, method of handling.
Hours of service to be made part of submission.
Interpretation No. 2..
Decision No. and Page.
982, 332;
1217, 682;
1257, 750;
1160, 627
607, 19
1311, 865
Interpretation No. 3.
1104, 588
Interpretation No. 5.
1081, 551
Method of handling disputed rules.
1208, 662
Method of handling disputes.
•
1160, 627
Principle 2..
1364, 953
Principle 7..
1177, 635; 1259, 752;
1362, 942
Principle 12.
731, 147;
1364, 953
Principle 15.
618, 24;
998, 353; 1121, 598; 1416, 991; 1424, 1002;
Rules, method of handling disputed.
Decision No. 147—
Addendum No. 1..
Addendum No. 4.
Article II-
1446, 1017
1208, 662
621, 26; 1268, 754; 1412, 985
720, 120
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4..
Section 5.
Section 7.
1477, 1081
1413, 986
1413, 986
984, 341; 1471, 1075; 1472, 1076; 1477, 1081
952, 310
984, 341; 1412, 985; 1471, 1075; 1472, 1076
Section 9.
Section unspecified.
Article III-
Section 7.
Section 8.
Article V-
Section 1.
...
Article VIII-
•
Stationary engineers..
Article X...
1412, 985
1135, 612
1129, 605; 1354, 910
711, 112
1268, 791
1354, 910
903, 274
Article XI.
720, 120
Article XII-
Section 9 (d).
711, 112
Article unspecified.
1100, 585; 1414, 986
Contract work, applies to employees on-
Clerical and station forces.
1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279,813
Engine-service employees.
1224, 690
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
1079, 545;
1215, 678, 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702
Shop employees.
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1225, 692;
1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754;
1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Foremen, water service.
Green Bay & Western Railroad..
Interpretation No. 1.....
Monthly-rated employees..
Multigraph operators..
Decision No. 214-
Request for rehearing.
Decision No. 217-
Rates of pay, decreases in..
591, 6
1123, 601
1413, 986; 1414, 986
1352, 909
847, 233
1117, 593
822, 213
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1163
Labor Board Decisions, Application of-Continued.
Decision No. 220-
Disputes, method of handling.
Selection of representatives.
Decision No. 221—
Alleged failure of carrier to apply decision...
Decision No. 222—
Addendum No. 3, rule 55...
Addendum No. 6-
Rule 6.
Rule 35
·
Decision No. and Page.
1160, 627
829, 219
1432, 1011
796, 190
Omitted rules, disposition of.
1181, 640
890, 263; 1072, 485; 1107, 589; 1228, 697
1104, 588
Rule 36..
1104, 588
Rule 37.
1104, 588
Rule 42.
976, 328
Rule 48.
1061, 478
Rule 81.
974, 327
Rule 140.
997, 352;
1178, 636
Rule 141
997, 352; 1179, 639;
1180, 640
Rule 142.
1179, 639; 1180, 640
Rule 157.
Rule unspecified.
1099, 584
1060, 476, 1362, 942
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.
1060, 476
Interpretation No. 1..
1107, 589; 1109, 590
Monthly-rated employees.
1352, 909
Rule 6.
1359, 917
Toledo & Ohio Central.
892, 264
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway….
893, 265
Zanesville & Western Railway.
892, 264
Decision No. 226-
Signal-department employees, assignment of..
1184, 643
Decision No. 227—
Principles outlined in, referred to....
1064, 479
Decision No. 251—
Rehearing, request for....
1176, 635
Decision No. 256-
Principle outlined therein referred to………….
1073, 486
Decision No. 332-
Effective date of...
902, 273
Restoration of 3 cent differential.
902, 273
Decision No. 403-
Rehearing, request for......
Decision No. 476—
Classification of employees...
Rehearing, request for.
Decision No. 501-
Article V-
Section a-1...
925, 287
1152, 620
950, 310
1364, 953
Section a-2.
Section a-5.
Section a-6.
Section a-9.
Section a-10.
Section c-1....
1345, 903
1182, 642
1182, 642
1182, 642
1182, 642
1364, 953
Overtime...
Section e.
Section h.
Bridge and building department employees..
Seniority rules.
Supervisors of mechanics, applicable to.
Decision No. 524-
Isolated point, determination of.
Pay on monthly basis...
Decision No. 528—
Refusal to reinstate employees...
Decision No. 553-
Violation of, by carrier....
20936°—2374
593, 6; 1165, 630; 1364, 953
593, 6
1358, 915
1185, 646
1098, 583
1349, 906
806, 200
897, 269
886, 250
1287, 836
1164
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Labor Board Decisions, Application of-Continued.
Decision No. 559—
Discipline of W. B. Montague...
Decision No. 583-
Representatives, selection of. . .
Decision No. 593-
Decision No. 598-
Rehearing requested...
Decision No. 630—
Decision No..and Page.
1473, 1077
829, 219
Overtime, supervisory employees...
Principles outlined in, referred to.
1166, 631
1185, 646
1418, 994
Effective, pending negotiations.
1416, 991
Illness, pay for time lost account.
875, 251;
876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256
Interpretation No. 1..
1175, 635
Kansas City Southern Railway Co....
1081, 551
Leaves of absence pay for time lost account.
1207, 662
Northern Pacific Railway, application to..
1208, 662
Overtime provisions applied to Atlantic Coast Lines.
Rules remanded to interested parties..
Saturday half holidays...
Decision No. 707-
Interpretation No. 1.
1330, 885
1156, 626
1087, 558
1101, 586; 1105, 588
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
Overtime.
1120, 597
1097, 583
Decision No. 721-
Failure of carrier to apply.
1369, 964
Section 1 of General Instructions.
810, 205; 811, 205; 812, 205; 813, 205;
814, 205; 815, 206; 848, 233; 849, 234; 850, 234;
866, 246; 987, 344.
Rule 5.
Decision No. 725—
Rule 6.
Decision No. 757—
Applied to telegraphers on Philadelphia & Reading Railway-
1166, 631
1166, 631
832, 223
1174, 634; 1234, 708
1367, 961
1481, 1085
Rule 3.
Rule 20
Decision No. 778—
Compensation for foremen.
Decision No. 821-
Rehearing, request for......
948, 309
Decision No. 822—
Rehearing, request for.
949, 310
Decision No. 825-
Agreements, negotiation of...
1146, 617; 1147, 617
Rules, method of handling disputed.
1145, 617; 1160, 627
Decision No. 826—
Representatives, selection of.....
1415, 986
Decision No. 830-
Rule 5.
1142, 616
Rule 6.
1142, 616
Decision No. 982-
Principles outlined in, referred to-
Clerical and station forces..
1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279,
Engine service employees.
813
1224, 690
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
1075, 539;
1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1219, 686;
1222, 689; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1256, 747; 1344, 902.
1220, 687;
Shop employees.
1076, 540;
1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1225, 692;
1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752;
1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Decision No. 1001-
Decision No. 1018-
Reopening of decision, request for..
Failure to agree on remanded dispute.
1148, 618
1124, 603.
INDEX TO DECISIONS,
1165
Labor Board Decisions, Application of—Continued.
Decision No. 1019-
Reopening of decision, request for....
Decision No. 1020-
Decision No. 1021-
Decision No. 1022-
Decision No. 1036-
Reopening of decision, request for.
Decision No. and Page.
1125, 603
1126, 604
Reopening of decision, request for.
1127,604
Reopening of decision, request for...
1128, 605
Contract work, applies to employees on
-
1076, 540
Decision No. 1082-
How applied.
1482, 1086
Decision No. 1093-
Overpayments account error in figuring time.....
1431, 1011
Decision No. 1104-
Selection of representatives………….
1161, 628
Decision No. 1152-
Rehearing, request for..
1211, 668
Decision No. 1214-
Principles outlined in, referred to…….
1241, 727
Decision No. 1266-
Yardmasters.
1411, 984
Decision No. 1486-
Principles outlined in, referred to.
1483, 1086
Leaves of Absence:
Candidates for political office..
586, 3
Chairmen, general privileges granted..
606, 18; 1070, 485; 1342, 899; 1351, 907
-603, 16
Physical examination upon return to service.
965, 321
1229, 698
Notice to report for work...
Rules-
In effect prior to April 1, 1922.
Railroad Administration rules governing dispatchers..... 1013, 369; 1014, 370
Time off account-
Personal business.
Sickness..
744, 153; 786, 183; 894, 266
605, 17;
674, 80; 685, 86; 686, 87; 691, 90; 737, 150; 738, 151; 743, 153; 745, 153;
746, 153; 747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154; 751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155;
754, 155; 755, 156; 785, 182; 834, 227; 860, 242; 868, 247; 869, 247;
875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879. 256; 911, 281; 1190, 652.
Vacation.
634, 57;
682, 84; 689, 89; 692, 91; 694, 91; 760, 164; 776, 176; 851, 234; 852, 235;
859, 241; 870, 248; 937, 294; 941, 297; 955, 313; 966, 322; 1013, 369;
1014, 370; 1137, 612; 1153, 622; 1172, 634; 1188, 648; 1207, 662.
National Agreement Rules, Application of:
Clerks' agreement—
Rule 1.
626, 29; 696, 92; 730, 146;
835, 227; 838, 230; 1030, 418; 1033, 421; 1042, 461; 1169, 633; 1202, 660
Rule 2.
Rule 4.
Rule 5..
Rule 6.
Rule 10.
Rule 12.
Rule 14
Rule 15.
Rule 16.
Rule 17.
Rule 21
Rule 22
Rule 27
Rule 29
Rule 32.
Rule 47
Rule 48....
1270, 803; 1271, 805
1024, 378; 1201, 659
1009, 364; 1026, 380; 1271, 805
705, 99; 1011, 368; 1038, 457; 1151, 619; 1476, 1080
917, 282; 1011, 868; 1246, 730
1046, 464
1009, 364; 1026, 380; 1252, 737
1026, 380; 1252, 737
1252, 737
1151, 619
936, 294; 1009, 364; 1040, 459; 1189, 651
1030, 418; 1251, 735
733, 148; 936, 294; 964, 319; 1370, 967
1031, 419; 1037, 456; 1370, 967
1041, 461; 1152, 620
606, 18; 1037, 456; 1239, 724
1040, 459
1166
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
National Agreement Rules, Application of-Continued.
Rule 49..
Rule 57
Rule 64
Rule 65...
Decision No. and Page.
632, 54; 633, 56; 824, 214; 929, 289; 956, 314; 958, 315;
984, 341; 1024, 378; 1037, 456; 1169, 633; 1196, 655; 1425, 1005; 1472, 1076
Rule 50....
944, 298; 1271, 805
731, 147; 734, 149; 839, 230; 1087, 558; 1093, 579; 1431, 1011
764, 165; 960, 316; 1033, 421; 1199, 658; 1270, 803; 1271, 805
1270, 803; 1271, 805
Rule 66.
764, 165;
824, 214; 872, 248; 908, 279; 960, 316; 1010, 366; 1033, 421; 1168, 633;
1199, 658; 1270, 803; 1331, 885; 1426, 1006; 1427, 1007; 1428, 1008;
1429, 1009; 1430, 1010; 1472, 1076; 1478, 1082.
Rule 67
Rule 68..
Rule 71.
Rule 72...
Rule 74...
Rule 77.
Rule 84.
Scope of..
Express employees' agreement-
Rule 4.
Rule 8
Rule 24
Rule 28..
Rule 53..
Rule 95.
Firemen and oilers' agreement-
Rule 5.
Rule 7..
Maintenance of way employees' agreement-
Article II-
Section c-2..
Section e....
Section f....
Section g.
Section h
Section i...
Article III-
-
-
Section a...
Article V-
Section a-5.
....
1479, 1084
1474, 1078
1155, 624
1010, 366; 1240, 726
1474, 1078
1337, 894; 1338, 895
855, 238; 1010, 366; 1237, 711
1275, 810
677, 81; 687, 87
677, 81; 683, 84
683, 84
687,8'7
1470, 1074
685, 86
595, 9; 1166, 631
595, 9
799, 192
804, 197
804, 197
804, 197
809, 203
804, 197
809, 203
993, 350
Section a-7.
600, 13
Section a-8.
.
600, 13
Section a-12.
•
589, 5; 714, 205;
769, 247; 806, 200; 808, 202; 897, 269; 898, 270; 899, 271; 1129, 605
Section b...
647, 64; 991, 8348
Section e...
Section f.
593,6
650, 67
Section h.
Section i..
593, 6; 896, 268; 979, 330
647, 64; 794, 187.
771, 171
647, 64; 794, 187
794, 187
Section ..
Section m.
Section n...
Shop crafts' agreement-
Rule 7.
1162, 629
Rule 10..
1004, 357
Rule 13.
920,285
Rule 16.
1115, 592; 1183, 642
Rule 18..
Rule 27
Rule 23..
793, 187; 972, 325; 1108, 589; 1362, 942
895, 267
Rule 31...
Rule 32...
895, 267
895, 267
921, 286; 923, 287; 1110, 590; 1111, 591
Rule 35.
1113, 591
Rule 36.
1113, 591
Rule 42.
1116, 592
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1167
National Agreement Rules, Application of-Continued.
Shop crafts' agreement-Continued.
Rule 45..
Rule 46.
Rule 47.
Rule 54.
Rule 60..
Rule 81.
Decision No. and Page.
712, 113
793, 187; 1362, 942
793, 187
1115, 592
971, 325; 1114, 592
779, 178; 974, 327
Rule 108.
Rule 119
Rule 124.
Rule 140..
Rule 141...
Signalmen's agreement-
Article I-
Section 3...
Article IV-
Section 8....
Article V-
Section 3..
Notices, Posting of:
Bulletins in violation of agreement.
Notices of interest to employees..
Seniority rosters.
Sunday and holiday service, notification of.
1183, 642
1181, 640
1181, 640
712, 591; 1091, 562; 1092, 572; 1178, 636
1091, 562; 1092, 572
1184, 643
801, 194
800, 193
1405, 981
1138, 612
819, 207
1107, 589
864, 245
872, 248
1360, 921
Mechanical department, proposal to apply to.
1076, 540; 1144, 616; 1257, 750
1346, 905
Pay-Day Regulations:
Changing weekly pay days to semimonthly basis.
Piecework:
Dispute adjusted by interested parties.
Locomotive shops, Elkhart, Ind..
Promotions:
Rights to.
Section foremen, qualifications to govern.
809, 203
Seniority not affected by....... 594, 8; 619, 24; 620, 25; 801, 194; 804, 197; 1084, 555
Railroad Administration Orders, Application of:
General Order No. 27-
Supplement No. 4—
Article II-
Section a.
•
Section 1-a.
Article III-
Section unspecified
Article unspecified..
Supplement No. 7—
Article II-
Section a.
Article III-
Section a.
Section unspecified...
Article V-
795, 189
903,274
710, 112; 1434, 1012
778, 177; 994, 350; 1184, 643
716, 117
1371, 970
1434, 1012
1066, 482
622, 26
788, 183; 824, 214; 863, 244; 953, 311;
Section a.
•
Article VIII, section a.
Article unspecified..
955, 313; 1093, 579; 1155, 624; 1251, 735; 1270, 803; 1271, 805; 1276, 811
Interpretation No. 8....
Supplement No. 8—
Article I-
Section b.
Section d.
Article XI, section a..
Article unspecified...
1371,970
1066, 482
601, 15
713, 114
994, 350; 1184, 643
1168
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Railroad Administration Orders, Application of-Continued.
General Order No. 27—Continued.
Supplement No. 12.
Decision No. and Page.
1309, 861
Supplement No. 13-
Article IV..
Article unspecified
Interpretation No. 3.
Interpretation No. 8.
Interpretation No. 10...
Supplement No. 15—
Article IV..
1333, 890; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893
873, 249; 1029, 417
1154, 623; 1273, 808
1448, 1019
1253, 739
1313, 867
1328, 882
1328, 882
1328, 882
1328, 882
1289, 838; 1291, 838
1457, 1045; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
1363, 949
1293, 842
Article X.
Article XVI.
Article XVII
·
Article XVIII..
Discontinuance of differentials by carrier.
Interpretation No. 1..
Supplement No. 16-
Article VI...
Article IX...
Article unspecified…….
Interpretation No. 1
Supplement No. 19—
Article I-
Section b.
-
Section d...
Section unspecified.
Supplement No. 24-
Article IV...
Article XI...
Article XVIII.
1294, 844; 1321, 877; 1365, 959
1298, 850; 1299, 851
666, 75; 671, 78; 698,94; 703, 98; 704, 98
697,93
679, 82; 685, 86; 686,87
1313, 867
1281, 826; 1283, 828
1307, 589
Article IX.
Article XX.. 1280, 824; 1282, 827; 1284, 830; 1292, 839; 1313, 867; 1315, 871
Interpretation No. 1.
Supplement No. 25—
Article VII..
1327, 882
1365, 959
1293, 842
1307, 859
1303, 854
1294, 844
1297,850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851
1141, 614
1141, 614
1122, 599; 1140, 613
903, 274
Article XVIII.
Article XX...
Article unspecified.
Interpretation No. 1.
Supplement No. 27—
Article VI..
Article VII.
Article unspecified.
Supplement No. 28—
·
Article unspecified……….
Rates of Pay:
Arbitary reduction of-
Commissions, express service.
Differential in pay for freight carmen.
Differential rates.
Schedule rates.
1206, 662
1176, 635
1181, 640
822, 213; 1003, 357; 1027, 382; 1140, 613;
1286, 833; 1287, 836; 1288, 837; 1329, 883; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1410, 982
Basic rates of pay defined... 622, 26; 670, 77; 673, 79; 681, 83; 857, 240; 863, 244; 904,
276; 1034, 422; 1426, 1006; 1427, 1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010
Changes in, how to make... 822, 213; 854, 237; 969, 324; 1003, 357; 1253, 739;
1274, 809; 1286, 833; 1288, 837; 1329, 883; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1410, 982
Changes not authorized for-
Express messengers…….
Train directors and lever men..
638, 59; 679, 82; 698, 94
Consideration of, deferred—arbitrary or special allowances.
611, 22
1309, 861
1328, 882
Train porters...
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1169
Rates of Pay-Continued.
Decreases, application to-
Agents, telegraphers, and telephoners.
Clerical and station forces-
Baggage and mail handlers.
Foremen-
Baggage-room.
Day mail.
Night mail...
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces-road department store-
keeper.
Decreases, authorized for-
Agents, telegraphers, and telephoners.
Clerical and station forces.
Dining-car and restaurant employees..
Dispatchers, train.
Engine-service employees....
Decision No. and Page.
1268, 791
1471, 1075
1477, 1081
984, 341
984, 341
1100, 585
1123, 601
1074, 486; 1123, 601
1074, 486
1074, 486; 1123, 601
1123, 601
1074, 486
Floating equipment employees..
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad, employees on.
Shop employees.
Signal-department employees.
Stationary-engine and boiler-room employees...
Station employees.
Telegraphers..
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents..
Telephoners, telegraphers, and agents..
Train dispatchers..
Train-service employees.
Yard-service employees...
Differentials..
Guaranties in local freight service.
Increases, application to-
晶
​Clerical and station forces-
1028, 544; 1123, 601
724, 134
1036, 423; 1123, 601
1074, 486;
1123, 601
1074, 486
1448, 1019
1448, 1019
1123, 601
1123, 601
1074, 486; 1123, 601
1123, 601
1123, 601
1289, 838; 1291, 838
1297, 850
1429, 1009
Accountant..
Baggagemen
Clerks-
Experience of one or more years.
File.
Ticket...
1426, 1006; 1427, 1007
935, 293
1201, 659
Unspecified.
Elevator men....
Employees resigning prior to July 20, 1920...
July, 20, 1920-
Employees in service on.
935, 298; 1428, 1008; 1430, 1010
693, 91;
840, 231; 841, 232; 882, 258; 1331, 885
788, 183
940, 296
1133, 610
Separations from service prior to.
1133, 610
Laborers-
Common..
1249, 733
Station.
956, 314
Mail distributers, railroad……….
952, 310
Messengers...
1197, 656
Dispatchers, train..
1332, 888
Engine-service employees, arbitrary or special allowances.
1328, 882
Express employees-
Clerks, receiving.
671, 78
Guards...
932, 291
Part-time employees..
905, 277
Coal-chute.
Unspecified...
Receiving clerks.
Floating equipment employees-freight handlers..
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces-
Laborers-
Overtime.
Patrolmen...
671, 78
1086, 557
1066, 482
649, 66
644, 63; 645, 63; 648, 65
1027, 382
1170
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Train dispatchers.....
Rates of Pay-Continued.
Increases, application to-Continued.
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces-Continued.
Watchmen-
Crossing.
Tunnel.
Overpayments account error in figuring time..
Position unspecified.
Shop employees—
Engineers, stationary.
Firemen and oilers..
Helpers-
Sheet-metal workers' helpers.
Water-service department..
Oilers and firemen....
Mechanics in water-service department.
Sheet-metal workers.
Sheet-metal workers' helpers.
Supervisors of mechanics-monthly rated employees.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents-agencies, supervisory.
Train-service employees, monthly guaranty in passenger service..
Decision No. and Page.
973, 326
975, 328
1093, 579
1034, 422
716, 117; 1073, 486
999, 356
994, 350
994, 350
999, 356
994, 350
994, 350
994, 350
1352,909
873, 249
1332, 888
1294, 844
Yard-service employees-switch tenders..
1321, 877
Increases, authorized for-
Agents, telegraphers, and telephoners..
1123, 601
Clerical and station forces..
1123, 601
Dispatchers, train……...
1123, 601
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
Changing shifts……
Foremen in bridge and building department.
Engine-service employees..
Nevada Northern Railway Co. employees.
Shop employees..
Signal-department employees.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents…….
Telephoners, telegraphers, and agents.
Train dispatchers....
Train-service employees.
Yard-service employees.
Overpayments prior to March 1, 1920.
Overtime-
Afternoons before holidays.
Basic day.
Clerical and station forces.
Engine-service employees.
Hours in excess of eight....
Interpretation No. 2 to Decision No. 119, effect on.
Lever men and train directors.
Lighterage employees...
Meal hour, working...
Monthly-rated employees.
Maintenance of way employees.
Saturday afternoon work.
Shop employees.
Signal-department employees.
602, 16; 644, 63; 645, 63
1421,997
979, 330
607, 19
585, 2; 1359, 917
1123, 601
1123, 601; 1267, 767
1302, 854
1123, 601
1123, 601
1123, 601
1123, 601
1123, 601
1123, 601
1123, 601
1431, 1011
610, 22
651, 68
920, 25
1175, 635; 1330, 885
1454, 1043
1185, 646
1422, 998
805, 200
610, 22
787, 183
648, 65; 1097, 583
Sleeping in office after completing assignment.
Supervisory employees...
Telegraph employees..
900, 272; 907, 278
693, 91; 1364, 953
1287, 836
Time worked in excess of regular assignment.... 607, 19; 890, 263; 1101, 586;
1105, 588; 1143, 616; 1162, 629; 1227, 697; 1265, 763; 1445, 1016
Train directors and lever men.
Watchmen, crossing..
Yard service, work outside of regular assignment.
Piecework, establishment of..
Rates applicable to new positions.
610, 22
808, 200
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
1360, 921
1274, 809
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1171
Rates of Pay-Continued.
Rate inequalities—
Clerical and station forces.
Express employees...
Decision No. and Page.
843, 232; 1276, 811
613, 23; 616, 23; 624, 28; 638, 59; 653, 69; 654, 69;
655, 70; 656, 70; 659, 71; 666, 75; 671, 78; 679, 82; 698, 94; 856, 239
Firemen and brakemen.
Investigators, claim.
Station employees.
Telegraphers....
Train dispatchers.
Reduction of, protest against.
Schedule rules affecting pay-
Clerical and station forces-
Baggage and mail handlers..
Callers, crew...
Checkers-
Baggage.
Regular..
Clerks
Chief clerks to-
Agent at larger stations..
Supervisory agents.
Hourly rated...
Information bureau..
One year's experience, less than…..
1389, 977
1155, 624
1448, 1019
1448, 1019
720, 120
970, 324
929,289
1196, 655
1196, 655
1010, 366
730, 146
1
835, 227
1168, 633
824, 214
783, 181
Shifts, clerks working two successive.
Unspecified
839, 230
622, 26; 1093, 579; 1139, 613
Yard..
Daily rated employees.
1205, 662
945, 299
640, 61; 960, 316
Dispatchers, engine……...
741, 152
824, 214
741, 152
Days not notified to work.
Elevator operators.
Engine dispatchers..
Foremen-
Assistant..
Unspecified.
Gatemen..
Investigator, overcharge-paid claim.
Lay-off on holidays.
Mail sorters..
Messengers-
Express..
Unspecified..
Office and station employees.
Overtime....
Overtime and calls.
Piecework..
Relief service at passenger station.
Saturday afternoon work..
Shop accountant.
Station employees...
Sunday and holiday service...
Telephone-switchboard operators.
Temporary assignments.
Train announcers..
Train directors..
Yard checkers..
Engine-service employees
Annulment of assigned run.
Deadheading.
Drag service..
621, 26; 824, 214
621, 26; 824, 214
824, 214; 1196, 654
1155, 624
764, 165
824, 214
615, 23
845, 233
632, 54; 633, 56
787, 183; 1175, 635
1330, 885
872, 248
1479, 1084
640, 61; 1087, 558
742, 152
1024, 378
1134, 610; 1270, 803; 1271, 805
824, 214
1474, 1078
824, 214
824, 214
621, 26
1391, 978
1453, 1042
1284, 830; 1313, 867
1459, 1049
1320, 876
Emergency service outside of regular assignment.
Engine inspection at end of trip..
Engines
Passenger service, large engines in...
Taking into terminal for repairs.
Firemen, preparatory time for..
1290, 838
1469, 1072
1468, 1072
1172
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Rates of Pay-Continued.
Schedule rules affecting pay-Continued.
Turnaround trip.
Turning trains at terminal..
Yard crews—
Helping trains out of yards.
Outside yard limits..
Performing wreck-train service.
Engine service employees-Continued.
Firemen's duties at end of trip.
Freight crews making short trips..
Guaranty in work-train service.
Inspection of engines...
Messengers on dead engines.
Overtime in yard service.
Decision No. and Page.
1320, 876
1281, 826
1461, 1056
1457, 1045
1095, 581
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
Rerailing car en route..
Runarounds..
.
1323, 878
774, 174;
1460, 1052; 1464, 1063; 1465, 1065; 1466, 1068; 1467, 1070
Runs not less than 100 miles..
1363, 949
Short trips in addition to straightaway runs.
1283, 828
Tip-ups..
1454, 1043; 1461, 1056
1458, 1047
719, 119
1285, 832
1280, 824
1282, 827
1292, 839
728, 145
704, 98
Drivers....
703, 98
700, 95
700, 95
728, 145
652, 68; 665,74
662, 73
700, 95
652,68
688, 88
894, 266
902, 273
991, 348
650, 67
Used in road service..
Express employees-
Attendants acting as messengers.
Clerk, assistant in-freight.
Foremen, stable.
Hostlers...
Messengers-attendants acting as messengers.
Platform men.
Service outside regular assignment.
Stable foremen.
Sunday and holiday work.
Waybill writers..
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces-
Carpenters-
Bridge and building.
Unspecified..
Coal-chute operators..
Deadheading to point of employment..
Drawbridge operators...
Engine watchmen
Engineers, stationary.
Foremen-
Assistant.
Bridge and building.
Coal-chute..
Monthly-rated..
Roundhouse.
Section..
Holiday and Sunday service.
Labor gangs, traveling .
Laborers, section...
•
1354, 910
897, 269; 899, 271
717, 117; 1354, 910
601, 15
1185, 646; 1434, 1012
995, 351
896, 268
1481, 1085
979, 330
993, 350
794, 187
1182, 642
771, 171
Lay-off on Saturday.
Monthly-rated employees.
Pumpers.
Section men working on turntable...
Stationary engineers..
Sunday and holiday service.
Supervisory employees.
Time worked in excess of regular assignment.
Travel time, roustabout carpenter...
Watchmen-
Engine.
595, 9; 714, 115; 1185, 646
769,169; 898, 270; 1129, 605
1485, 1089
717, 117
993, 350; 1185, 646; 1228, 699
1165, 630
808, 202; 1143, 616 .
647, 233
897, 269; 899, 271
Track..
Tunnel.
589,5
589, 5
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1173
Rates of Pay-Continued.
Schedule rules affecting pay-Continued.
Bulletins notifying employees to work Sundays and holidays.
Shop employees—
Boiler maker, step rate.
Boiler-maker helper..
Checking in and out.
Electricians..
Laborers, roundhouse.
•
Changing shifts, working different hours, account of.
Linemen..
Overtime.
Sunday and holiday service.
Wrecking crews..
Signal department employees—
Maintainers-
Four years' experience, less than.
Leading.
Signal.
Signal, assistant.
Overtime..
Decision No. and Page.
1183, 642
974, 327
1107,589
971, 325
920, 285
712, 113
891, 263
712, 113; 1178, 636
890, 263
1109, 590; 1142, 616; 1228, 697
1004, 357
795, 189
800, 193
800, 193; 903, 274
1184, 643
1097, 583
Signalmen, unspecified.
903,274
Sunday and holiday service…….. 1101, 586; 1105, 588; 1227, 697; 1445, 1016
Time worked in excess of regular assignment...
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents-
Agents...
Express commissions.
Failure to be called for work.
Lever man.
Overtime..
Service outside regular assigned hours.
Sunday and holiday service..
Telegraph operators..
Telegraphers..
Ticket sellers....
Train dispatchers-
Telegrapher towermen..
Vacancies, temporary.
Sickness, loss of time account of...
:
Train-service employees-
Vacations..
Baggage, handling of.
Brakemen-
1101, 586;
1105, 588; 1227, 697; 1445, 1016
1379, 975; 1382, 976
1367, 961
1016, 372
861, 243; 862, 244
1421, 997; 1422, 998
1265, 763
1273, 808
609, 203
1374, 974; 1378, 975; 1381, 975
1375, 974; 1376, 974; 1377, 974; 1380, 975
1423, 1000
1017, 372
676, 80; 785, 182
1153, 622
772, 172
Passenger.
Swing.
718, 118
1451, 1041
Cars en route, setting out.
Constructive mileage allowances..
Deadheading to fill vacancy caused by sickness.
Deadhead trip and road service.....
•
1400, 980
1363, 949
1314, 869
1300, 852; 1308, 860
Extra service outside regular assignment
1390, 977
Fire-train service...
1293, 842
Mixed runs..
1298, 850
Monthly guaranties
1365, 959
Runs not less than 100 miles.
1363, 949
Short runs in addition to regular service.
1306, 858
Terminal switching and delay.
-
1295, 845
Turnaround service.
1301, 853
Turning trains at terminal.
719, 119
Work-train service.
1299, 851
Yard crews assisting trains beyond yard limits...
Yard crews helping trains out of yards.
1303, 854
1285, 832
Yard crews outside yard limits...
1280, 824
Yardmen used temporarily as yardmasters..
Yard foreman.
1305, 857
1392, 978
1174
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Rates of Pay-Continued.
Schedule rules affecting pay-Continued.
Yard service crews-
Road service, used in..
Transfer service.
•
Yardmasters..
Yard-service employees-road crew on work train within yard
limits...
Reduction in Forces:
Apprentices, effect on.
Displacements. right to make
Fitness and ability.
Decision No. and Page.
1404, 981
1452, 1042
1411, 984
1316, 872
976, 328
759, 163; 836, 229; 989, 346
768, 168
Junior employees, retention of……..
Justification of demotion.
Minors, rights of.
Reduction of hours to avoid..
Reducing weekly assignment.
Return to service, right to...
Senior employees, laying off of.
Seniority to govern...
Work transferred to another department.
Rehearing on Decisions:
Application of Decision No. 1082.
Carrier's request denied..
1482, 1086
885, 260; 925, 287; 949, 310; 950, 310; 1117,593;
1124, 603; 1125, 603; 1126, 604; 1127, 604; 1128, 605; 1211, 668; 1418, 994
799, 192; 807, 201; 817, 206
1001, 356
687,87
732, 148
771, 171
603, 16; 972, 325
768, 168; 1164, 629
587, 3; 1189, 651
780, 179
Organization's request denied
831, 223; 948, 309;
1176, 635
Representation Rights:
Carriers to meet representatives in conference..
978, 329;
1357,914; 1446, 1017;
1483, 1086
Chairman dismissed from service, general.
1366, 959
Conflict over jurisdiction.... 1064, 479; 1091, 562; 1179, 639; 1180, 640;
1358,915
Hostlers, representation of...
1327, 882
Injury cases, personal...
1061, 478
Refusal to recognize committee...
978, 329;
1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
Representative, highest duly authorized.
1360, 921
583, 1;
Representatives, selection of-
Clerical and station forces.
829, 219; 998, 353; 1160, 627; 1366, 959; 1416, 991; 1475, 1079
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
998, 353;
1082, 553; 1121, 598; 1269, 793
946, 299;
Shop employees.
Superisors of mechanics.
Telegraphers
947, 304; 998, 353; 1099, 584; 1104, 588; 1181, 640
629, 31; 631, 50
825, 215; 826, 217; 832, 223; 1415, 986
775, 175
Train dispatchers.
Rules and Working Conditions:
Agreements-
Arbitrary changing of.
Caption of...
Contracting parties, signatures of.
Contract work, application to....
1103, 589; 1311, 865; 1341, 898; 1344, 902
963, 317; 1140, 613; 1396, 979
1341, 898
982, 332;
1075, 539; 1076, 540; 1077, 542; 1078, 544; 1079, .545; 1080, 548;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1212, 670; 1213, 673; 1214, 675;
1215, 678; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1222, 689;
1224, 690; 1225, 692; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1232, 705;
1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1256, 747; 1257, 750; 1259, 752;
1260, 754; 1262, 757; 1263, 758; 1279, 813; 1361, 934.
Incorporation of rates of pay in schedule...
Negotiated, with whom―
Clerical and station forces.
1311, 865
583, 1; 998, 353; 1081, 551;
1145, 617; 1146, 617; 1147, 617; 1160, 627; 1416, 991; 1424, 1002
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.. 998, 353; 1082, 553; 1121, 598
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1175
Rules and Working Conditions—Continued.
Agreements Continued.
Negotiated, with whom-Continued.
Shop employees ..
Supervisors of mechanics.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents.
Train dispatchers.
Revision of...
Right to negotiate denied..
Rules, necessity for separate set of.
Scope of
Clerical and station forces.
Decision No. and Page.
618, 24; 998, 353; 1064, 479
629, 31; 631, 50
825, 215; 826, 217
775, 175
1136, 612
1369, 612
1008, 359
696, 92;
700, 95; 730, 146; 821, 208; 838, 230; 986, 344; 988, 344; 1081, 551;
1160, 627; 1236, 710; 1275, 810; 1475, 1079.
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
Shop employees.
777, 177; 1358, 915
833, 224;
892, 264; 893, 265; 1064, 479; 1179, 639;
1180, 640
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents..
825, 215;
826, 217; 873, 249; 910, 281; 930, 289; 1334, 891; 1335, 892;
Train dispatchers.
1336, 893
1173, 634
Termination of...
1208, 662
Thirty days' notice required to change..
930, 289;
1060, 476; 1295, 845; 1333, 890; 1367, 961
Violation of, by carrier.
Beginning and ending of day.
Changes declined for-
1054, 471
Working agreement, right of employees to.
-
1002, 357;
1057, 474; 1357, 914; 1369, 964; 1446, 1017
1364, 953
Hostlers and hostler helpers..
Porters, train..
1318, 875
1388, 977
Dining-car stewards....
Forces, reduction in..
Physical examination of employees.
Train-service employees.
Consideration deferred, remanded to interested parties.
Disputes withdrawn from board-
Clerical and station forces..
Engine-service employees.
Train-service employees...
Equipment used, charging employees with..
Filling of water cars en route..
Firemen taking fuel en route.
Leaves of absence rule.
Negotiations of rules.
Overtime, maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
Personal-injury claims...
Reporting and relieving point..
Residence of section foreman.
Rules authorized covering-
Clerical and station forces.
Dispatchers, train…….
Express employees..
Firemen and oilers..
1303, 854
1122, 599
1192, 654
827, 218; 828, 218
1385, 976; 1395, 979
1385, 976; 1395, 979
1067, 482
1296, 848
1397, 979
1112, 591
1229, 698
883, 260;
884, 260; 916, 282; 938, 295; 951, 310; 961, 316; 962, 317; 980, 330
1350, 907
1061, 478; 1071, 485
965, 321; 1362, 942; 1449, 1028
1307, 859
1069, 484
630, 34; 1208, 662
721, 121
722, 126; 723, 132
725, 137
Guarantees in local freight service.
1297, 850
Maintenance of way employees.
Oilers and firemen.
Signalmen..
Shop-craft employees..
Supervisors of mechanics..
Telegraphers....
Train dispatchers.
Yardmasters...
Rules declined relating to―
Baggage, handling of..
Checking in and out of shops..
Foremen, residence of section foremen
Shoveling coal forward on locomotives..
1098, 583; 1187, 647; 1450, 1029
725, 137
707, 100; 1120, 597
1008, 859
726, 141; 1349, 906
757, 156; 832, 223; 1233, 707
721, 121
1266, 765
631, 50
1339, 896
1069, 484
1310, 862
1176
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Rules and Working Conditions-Continued.
Decision No. and Page.
Rules, procedure for handling disputed...
582, 1;
810, 205; 811, 205; 812, 205; 813, 205; 814, 205; 815, 206; 887, 262;
963, 317; 1060, 476; 1081, 551; 1156, 626; 1208, 662.
Rules remanded for further conference, representation of hostler helpers
Running crews through terminals.
1327, 882
1312, 866
Status quo order, application for.
1234, 708
Steam and operating engineers..
830, 220
Three-shift positions, starting time of.
1470, 1074
Time allowed for meals....
1345, 903
Yardmasters, working conditions of...
1408, 982; 1409, 982
Yard crews, filling temporary vacancies in..
Runarounds:
At terminal after being called....
Coupling light engines with trains at terminal.
Engineer not qualified for passenger service.
Helper service, pooled freight crew coupled into trains.
Two or more runarounds, compensation for..
Seniority Districts:
Assignments restricted to one district..
Creation of....
Limitation of……、
Seniority Rights:
Abolishment of positions...
1324, 879
774, 174
1464, 1063
1465, 1065
1460, 1052
1466, 1068; 1467, 1070
1065, 480
1039, 458
1164, 629
934, 292;
1371, 970
1317, 874
792, 186;
Train...
Displacements-
Agent telegraphers.
Conductors and brakemen..
Section foremen..
Right to make.
Districts-
Assignments restricted to one..
Specified districts, confined to...
Electrical equipment, handling of..
Foremen-
Coal-tipple.
Section foremen, right to promotion of.
Leave of absence, effect on.
Messengers--
Express.
Express, residence of...
Military or naval service, effect on continuity of employment.
964, 319; 1000, 356; 1026, 380; 1370, 967;
Baggagemen in steam or electric service.
Basic date of seniority.
642, 62; 643, 62; 690, 89; 790, 185;
4
918, 284; 1009, 364; 1015, 371;1030, 418; 1239, 724; 1243, 728; 1251, 735
Cancellation of, by carrier..
Changing from one division to another..
Clerks-
Delivery.
Roundhouse..
Superintendent of motive power, in office of.
Unspecified.
Dispatchers-
1063, 478
781, 180
1239, 724
1277, 813
1011, 368
844, 232; 871, 241
623, 28
635, 58; 639, 60
Chief train dispatcher, right to position of.
Dispatcher, right to position of.
866, 246; 867, 246; 1025, 879; 1045, 463; 1084, 555; 1272, 807
Agents' positions when not excluded...
Arbitrary displacement by carrier.
1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893
1243, 728
1054, 471
1386, 977
1440, 1015
1083, 554; 1191, 653
1065, 480
981, 330
1325, 881
1343, 901
809, 203
.1015, 871; 1484, 1087
627, 30
661, 72
1239, 724
Minor not protected by....
727, 144
Office employees to road service, right of.
Personal office force..
699, 94
1011, 368
Promotion, effect on.
552, 6; 594, 8; 619, 24;
620, 25; 801, 194; 804, 197; 895, 267; 1030, 418; 1045, 463; 1084, 555
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1177
Seniority Rights-Continued.
Reduction in forces..
Decision No. and Page.
587, 3;
603, 16; 657, 71; 660, 71; 687, 87; 727, 144; 768, 168; 780, 179; 799, 192;
807, 201; 817, 206; 842, 232; 901, 273; 976, 328; 989, 346; 1063, 478;
1164, 629.
Refusing permission to exercise..
Reinstatement by carrier, effect on seniority.
Representatives of employees…….
Restored upon reinstatement-
Clerical and station forces..
1247, 731
642, 62
1342, 899
767, 167;
1037, 423; 1041, 461; 1088, 559; 1152, 620; 1186, 647; 1189, 651, 1248, 732
Express employees.
1031, 419; 1035, 423
1056, 473;
1102, 586; 1118, 593; 1355, 911; 1356, 913; 1447, 1018
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
Supervisory forces.
Shop employees.
967, 323
586, 3;
590, 5; 598, 12; 599, 13; 792, 186; 927, 288; 1018, 373; 1019, 873; 1020, 374;
1021, 375; 1022, 376; 1055, 472; 1063, 478; 1359, 917; 1362, 942
Returning to former positions.
Right to exercise....
Roster-
Dispatchers on telegraphers' roster..
Employees not on roster.
Limitation of time for protest against.
594, 8
1191, 653
1084, 555
759, 163
Rule promulgated by United States Railroad Administration..
Seniority to govern assignments when qualified..
Simultaneous employment, effect on seniority standing..
Store-department employees.....
Striking employees returned to service.
Supervisory employees.
Telegraphers...
Temporary assignments...
Temporary positions, acceptance of..
Trainmen to baggage handling on trains, rights of..
Short Line Railroads:
Classification of carriers....
Strikes:
Reduction of wages, account of....
Reinstatement of striking employees...
Rules, account misapplication of.
Sunday and Holiday Service:
Armistice Day, time lost on.
Bulletins notifying employees to work.
California Admission Day, time lost on.
Chief clerk to agent at larger stations.
Clerical and station forces.
Engineers, stationary.
Express employees.
Firemen and oilers.
-
Foremen on monthly basis.
1030, 418; 1044, 463
1025, 379
735, 149; 1011, 368
918, 285
1204, 661
724, 134
889, 263; 1000, 356
1334, 891
1441, 1015
802, 196
772, 172
1123, 601
724, 134
724, 134
1360, 921
979, 330; 1199, 658
1107, 589
960, 316; 1199, 658
730, 146
1134, 610; 1270, 803
1142, 616
652, 68
1166, 631
593, 6
1182, 642
993, 350
Laborers, section...
Maintenance of way employees.
Monthly-rated employees.
Notified not to work.
Paid when notified not to work.
Repair work, running.
Saturday half holidays..
Shop craft employees...
Time lost on Armistice Day..
593, 6; 595, 11; 717, 117; 1271, 805; 1273, 808
960, 316
764, 165
1228, 697
731, 147; 1087, 558
1109, 590; 1359, 917
Six-day assigned employees, regular.... 1101, 586; 1105, 588; 1227, 697; 1445, 1016
Work-train gangs..
979, 330
600, 13
1178
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Supporting Opinions:
Agreement, shopmen's on Louisiana Southern Railway.
Leaves of absence...
Mileage allowances, constructive..
Physical examination of employees..
Rates of pay, maintenance of way employees..
Representatives, selection of employees.....
Rules governing maintenance of way employees..
Sheet-metal workers, classification of...
Signal interlocking plant repairmen, classification of.
Terminal Delay and Work by Road Crews:
Engines, inspection of..
On runs less than 100 miles.
Rates of pay, initial terminal delay…..
Switching...
Turning trains at terminal.
Terminals, Changes of:
Freight terminal.
Running crews through terminals.
Time Clocks and Checking in:
Pay for time account checking in..
Punching clocks outside work period..
Time Lost:
Abolishing positions, account of..
Assignment to new shift.
Changing shifts.
Classification, account of improper.
Days worked, reduction in number of.
Dismissals, account of.
Decision No. and Page.
1008, 359
1229, 698
1363, 949
1362, 942
1074, 486; 1267, 767
1269, 793; 1366, 959
1450, 1029
946, 299; 947, 304
1091, 562
1457, 1045
1304, 855
1295, 845
1295, 845
719, 119
1094, 581
1312, 866
1437, 1014
1339, 896
964, 319; 992, 349
1130, 607
1161, 628
622, 26; 853, 236; 854, 237
789, 184
590, 5;
598, 12; 599, 13; 706, 100; 767, 167; 792, 186; 926, 287; 927, 288; 967, 323;
1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1020, 374; 1021, 375; 1022, 376; 1031, 419; 1035, 423;
1037, 456; 1041, 461; 1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1055, 472; 1056,
473; 1058, 474; 1063, 478; 1088, 559; 1102, 586; 1152, 620; 1186, 647;
1189, 651; 1248, 732; 1356, 913; 1362, 942; 1447, 1018.
Displacements-
·
Denial of right to make.
Refusing permission to make.
Wrongful displacement, account of...
Express commissions, withholding of...
Forces, account of reduction in...
Pay-
934, 292; 1026, 380; 1370, 967; 1371, 970
735, 149; 768, 168; 989, 346
981, 330; 1023, 376; 1054, 471
1367, 961
587,3; 603, 16; 780, 179; 807, 201; 972, 325
1287, 836; 1288, 837
Arbitrary reduction of, account of.
Improper application of.... 898, 270; 899, 271; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1421, 997
Personal business, account of……..
Physical examinations, account of..
Notified not to work...
786, 183; 874, 250; 911, 281
793, 187
640, 61; 764, 165; 1040, 459; 1154, 623
1039, 458
802, 196; 1009, 364
605, 17;
Seniority district, establishment of.
Seniority rights, refusing permission to exercise.
Sickness, account of..
674, 80; 676, 80; 685, 86; 686, 87; 737, 150; 738, 151; 745, 153; 746, 153;
747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154; 751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155; 754,
155; 755, 156; 785, 182; 834, 227; 860, 242; 868, 247; 869, 247; 875, 251;
876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256; 1190, 652.
Suspension from service..
668, 76; 1010, 366; 1403, 981; 1407, 982
Vacations, account of.... 634, 57; 682, 84; 692, 91; 760, 164; 776, 176; 851, 234; 852,
235; 859, 241; 870, 248; 937, 294; 941; 297; 955, 313; 1013, 369; 1014, 370
Weekly assignments--
Days, reduction in.
Hours, reduction in..
1286, 833
732, 148
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1179
Transportation Act, 1920:
Application of section 307, paragraph (d), principle 7..
Carriers cited under section 313-
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Erie Railroad Co..
Interstate Railroad Co.
Noncompliance with—
Decision No. and Page.
798, 191
1369, 964
1287,836
886, 260
Carrier refusing to meet committee..
978, 329;
1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
832, 223
Committee refusing to meet carrier.
Conferences, failure to hold...... 650, 67; 709, 111; 822, 213; 1002, 357; 1063,
478; 1145, 617; 1146, 617; 1147, 617; 1177, 635;
1199, 658; 1286, 833.
Contracting work—
Clerical and station forces.
1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279,
813.
Engine service employees....
Firemen and oilers..
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces.
1224, 690
1213, 673
1075, 539;
1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1222,
689; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1256, 747.
Shop employees.
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1225,
692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1254, 741; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752;
1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Rates, arbitrary changing of..
822, 213; 1003, 357;
1140, 613; 1286, 833; 1288, 837; 1329, 883; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1410, 982
Representatives, failure to determine proper.
Rules, arbitrary changing of.
1160, 627
963, 317;
1140, 613; 1181, 640; 1237, 711; 1287,836; 1369,964; 1396, 979
Seniority of employee, cancellation of...
1063, 478
Transportation Privileges:
Express employees..
General chairman representing employees..
617, 24
1342, 899; 1351, 907; 1483, 1086
Maintenance of way employees.
Irregular road service.
Vacancies to be bulletined promptly.
Refund of fare..
Turnaround Service:
Method of computing pay.
Union Labor Membership:
Dismissals, account of..
Vacancies, Filling of:
Ability, right to trial to prove..
Abolishment of positions closes dispute.
Agents, traveling.
Assignments-
Fitness and ability necessary for.
State laws, effect on.
Time lost account wrongful assignment.
Baggagemen on electric trains...
Brakemen used as firemen in emergency.
Bulletining of—
New positions.
Positions transferred from another office.
Temporary positions..
Vacant positions..
Bulletins service, to indicate kind of.
Clerks-
Seniority district, clerks within same..
Shop accountant, stenographic clerk to.
Dispatchers, positions of train.
20936°-23-75
1089, 560; 1246, 730; 1250, 734
917,282
1011, 368
626, 29
635, 58; 639, 60; 1023,376
1442, 1016
909, 279
1281, 826; 1283, 828; 1301, 853
1056, 473
677, 81; 702, 97; 855, 238; 1250, 734
702, 97
986, 343
1011, 368
1038, 457
1130, 607
1317, 874
773, 173
1322, 878
1151, 619
1476, 1080
1252, 737
1046, 464
1180
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Vacancies, Filling of-Continued.
Decision No. and Page.
Disputes arising prior to creation of board.
Express service, drivers in..
Fitness and ability necessary for assignment..
Laborers, rights to positions of helpers..
Messengers, express..
Seniority to govern when qualified.
Telegraphers.
Temporary vacancies-
Clerical and station service.
Unspecified..
Trainmen's positions.
Yard service.
Withdrawal of Application for Decision:
Adjusted by interested parties--
Clerical and station forces.
1193, 654
939, 295
705, 99; 733, 148; 836, 229
770, 170
661, 72; 699, 94
735, 149; 1247, 731
1333, 890
1252, 737
802, 196; 809, 203
1402, 980
1401, 980
743, 153;
744, 153; 745, 153; 746, 153; 747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154;
751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155; 754, 155; 755, 156; 756, 156; 758, 163;
845, 233; 872, 243; 1131, 609; 1138, 612; 1156, 626; 1158, 627; 1169,
633; 1172, 634; 1192, 654; 1198, 658; 1204, 661; 1236, 710; 1278, 813;
1373, 973.
Engine-service employees
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces specified.
Shop employees.
1393, 978; 1396, 979
1221, 689;
1435, 1013; 1436, 1014;
1440, 1015-
921, 286;
922, 286; 923, 287; 924, 287; 928, 289; 1005, 358; 1115, 592; 1116, 592;
1144, 616; 1162, 629; 1228, 697; 1258, 752; 1264, 762.
Signal-department employees.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents..
Train dispatchers..
862, 244; 884, 260;
1171, 634; 1173, 634;
Train-service employees.
1227, 697; 1441, 1015
861, 243:
1206, 662; 1264, 762
1174, 635; 1272, 807
Train porters...
Agreement to hold conferences—
Clerical and station forces.
Dining-car employees.
Shop employees..
Docket closed-shop employees.
Ex parte request for withdrawal-
Clerical and station forces.
1396, 979
1388, 977
643, 62
827, 218; 828, 218
1001, 356
1443, 1016; 1444, 1016
820, 208; 1081, 551; 1425, 1005
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces specified.
Shop employees.
596, 11;
604, 17; 706, 100; 710, 112; 715, 116; 803, 197; 1442, 1016
591, 6; 708, 111; 793, 187; 796, 190; 889, 263; 1057,
474; 1061, 478; 1062, 478; 1071, 485; 1110, 590; 1111, 591; 1112, 591; 1113,
591; 1114, 592; 1261, 756.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents.
Train dispatchers..
Joint request for withdrawal-
Clerical and station forces.
1380, 975
966, 322
608, 21;
613, 23; 614, 23; 615, 23; 616, 23; 617, 24; 624, 28; 627, 30; 628, 30; 657,
71; 658, 71; 660, 72; 674, 80; 675, 80; 692, 91: 693, 91; 694, 91; 695, 92;
737, 150; 738, 151; 739, 151; 741, 152; 742, 152; 766, 167; 787, 183; 791,
186; 818, 207; 819, 207; 823, 214; 840, 231; 841, 232; 842, 232; 843, 232;
844, 232; 846, 233; 847, 233; 865, 246; 870, 248; 871, 248; 901, 273; 908,
279; 911, 281 912, 281; 914, 282; 915, 282; 931, 291; 936, 294; 944, 298;
1044, 463; 1047, 465; 1048, 466; 1049, 466; 1083, 554; 1135, 612; 1136, 612:
1137, 612; 1139, 613; 1157, 626; 1159, 627; 1191, 653; 1194, 654; 1203
661; 1205, 662; 1240, 726; 1245, 730; 1277, 813.
Engine-service employees..
1383, 976; 1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977;
1387, 977; 1389, 977; 1391, 978; 1394, 978; 1397, 978; 1398, 979; 1455, 1044
Maintenance of way and unskilled forces specified.
973, 326,
975, 328; 980, 330; 1006, 358; 1143, 616; 1149, 618; 1150, 618; 1223, 690
Shop employees. 1004, 357; 1070, 485; 1072, 485; 1106, 589; 1108, 589; 1148, 618
Signal-department employees.
Supervisors of mechanics..
1068, 483
1000, 356
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1181
Withdrawal of Application for Decision—Continued.
Joint request for withdrawal-Continued.
Telegraphers, telephoners, and agents.
Decision No. and Page.
867, 246;
910, 281; 916, 282; 1016, 372; 1017, 372; 1374, 974; 1375, 974; 1376, 974;
1377, 974; 1381, 975; 1382, 976.
Train dispatchers.. 883, 260; 938, 295; 951, 310; 961, 316; 962, 316; 1244, 730
Train-service employees.
1383, 976;
1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977; 1387, 977; 1390, 977; 1392, 978; 1399,
980; 1400, 980; 1401, 980; 1402, 980; 1403, 981; 1404, 981; 1405, 981;
1406, 981; 1407, 982; 1455, 1044.
Yard-service employees..
Partial withdrawal of disputes—
Clerical and station forces.
Train dispatchers.
Work-train Service:
Dumping cars by trainmen, operation of.
Yard Service:
Drag service beyond switching limits....
Handling wreck trains within yard limits.
Herders, filling positions of...
Pile-driver service within yard limits..
Service in addition to regular assignment..
Switching limits, work outside of
Switch tenders, rates of pay for
Work or wreck trains in yard limits.
Yard crews-
Assisting trains beyond yard limits.
Helping trains out of yards.
Yard enginemen, preparatory time for..
Yard limit boards, changing of..
Yardmasters, general-jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Yardmen used-
In transfer service.
Temporarily as yardmasters.
1408,982; 1409, 982
1081, 551
1244, 730
1326, 881
1284, 830
1282, 827
1325, 881
1316, 872
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
1280, 824; 1282, 827
1282, 827
1303, 854
1321, 877
1285, 832; 1292, 839
1468, 1072
1315, 871
1456, 1045
1452, 1042
1305, 857
B. DECISIONS INDEXED BY CARRIERS.
Decisions 582 to 1485, inclusive.
NOTE.-Figures printed in regular type at end of detail line refer to decision numbers, while the itali-
cized figures indicate the page upon which the decision may be found; e. g., "1028, 883" following the
index reference to "Dissenting opinion" refers to Decision No. 1028 appearing on page 383 of this volume.]
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767
721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Alabama Great Southern Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay…….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Alton & Southern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
American Railway Express Co.:
Abolishment of positions.
Assignment of work.
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
934, 292; 1368, 963
909, 279; 939, 295; 1337, 894; 1338, 895; 1368, 963
Classification of positions and rates.
652, 68;
665, 74; 666, 75; 688, 88; 697, 93; 698, 94; 701, 96; 703, 98; 704, 98; 728,145;
846, 233; 856, 239; 904, 276; 905, 277; 932, 291; 933, 292.
Contract work..
Demotions..
Discipline.
701, 96
727, 144
628, 30;
636, 59; 637, 59; 667, 76; 668, 76; 672, 79; 678, 82; 680, 83; 736, 150; 784,
182; 817, 206; 858, 241; 880, 257; 906, 278; 959, 315; 1031, 419; 1035, 423;
1090, 562; 1157, 626; 1159, 627; 1198, 658; 1473, 1077; 1480, 1085.
Disputes, method of handling..
Hours of service.
664, 74;
669, 77; 904, 276; 933, 292; 959, 315; 1031, 419; 1090, 562
700, 95; 881, 257
614, 23; 670, 77; 673, 79;
Labor Board decisions, application of.
681, 83; 701, 96; 857, 240; 904, 276; 905, 277; 1034, 422; 1473, 1077
Leaves of absence..
685, 86; 686, 87; 689, 89; 691, 90
National agreement rules, application of.
677,81; 683, 84; 685, 86;
687, 87; 917, 282; 1031, 419; 1246, 730; 1337, 894; 1338, 895; 1470, 1074
Pay-day regulations..
864, 245
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
666, 75;
671, 78; 679, 82; 685, 86; 686, 87; 697, 93; 698, 94; 703, 98; 704, 98
Rates of pay.
613, 23; 615, 23;
616, 23; 624, 28; 638, 59; 652, 68; 653, 69; 654, 69; 655, 70; 656, 70; 659, 71;
662, 73; 665, 74; 666, 75; 670, 77; 671, 78; 679, 82; 681, 83; 688, 88; 698, 94;
700, 95; 703, 98; 704, 98; 728, 145; 843, 232; 845, 233; 856, 239; 857, 240;
900, 272; 904, 296; 905, 277; 907, 278; 932, 291; 1034, 422.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights....
700, 95; 722, 126; 1470, 1074
627, 30; 661, 72; 687, 87; 690, 89;
727, 144; 842, 232; 934, 292; 1031, 419; 1035, 423; 1044, 463; 1191, 653
Sunday and holiday service.
652, 68
Time lost..
668,76; 685, 86; 686, 87; 934, 292; 1031, 419; 1035, 423
Transportation privileges.
617, 24; 909, 279
Vacancies, filling of.. 661, 72; 677, 81; 699, 94; 702, 97; 917, 282; 939, 295; 1246, 730
Withdrawal of application for decisions
613, 23;
614, 23; 615, 23; 616, 23; 617, 24; 624, 28; 627, 30; 628, 30; 842, 232; 843,
232; 845, 233; 846, 233; 1044, 463; 1157, 626; 1159, 627; 1191, 653; 1198, 658
1182
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1183
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work...
Demotions..
Dissenting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
1072, 485
1264, 762
587, 3
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1036 423; 1074, 486
587,3
1072, 485
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Reduction in forces.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion
Time lost.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Arkansas & Memphis Railway Bridge & Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Arkansas Western Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.:
Assignment of work..
1450, 1029
587, 3
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
587, 3
1072, 485; 1264, 762
1028, 383
1028, 383
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1242, 727
Classification of positions and rates.
769, 169;
808, 202; 873, 249;
912, 281; 1092, 572; 1149, 618;
1202, 660
Contract work..
1221, 689
Discipline...
Disputes, method of handling
599, 13; 763, 187; 818, 207; 1005, 358;
887, 262; 913, 281; 1149, 618;
1356, 913
1168, 633
Dissenting opinion....
630, 34;
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1092, 572; 1267, 767; 1366, 959; 1450, 1029
Hours of service.
1242, 727
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1193, 654
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
913, 281
769, 169;
808, 202; 1092, 572; 1168, 633; 1202, 660
808, 202
873, 249
•
769, 169; 808, 202;
Overtime..
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay..
873, 249; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1143, 616; 1168, 633; 1267, 767
Representation rights.
1366, 959
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34;
599, 13; 867, 246; 1356, 913
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 873, 249; 887, 262; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Vacancies, filling of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
599, 13; 1356, 913
1193, 654
818, 207; 867, 246;
912, 281; 914, 282; 915, 282; 1005, 358; 1143, 616; 1149, 618; 1221, 689
Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay….
Atlanta Joint Terminals:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
•
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1028, 383;
1036, 423
1036, 423
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1184
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Atlantic City Railroad Co.:
Decision No. and Page.
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Assignment of work..
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.:
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1184, 643
Classification of positions and rates.
762, 165; 835, 227; 863. 244;
Discipline..
Dissenting opinion.
761, 164;
1184, 643
684, 85; 1348, 906
1036, 423; 1074, 486
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
761, 164; 1184, 643
Labor Board decisions, application of... 863, 244; 1086, 557; 1184, 643; 1330, 885
National agreement rules, application of..
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
835, 2:27; 1184, 643
863, 244; 1184, 643
Rates of pay..835, 227; 863, 244; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1086, 557; 1184, 643; 1330, 885
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights..
Supporting opinion
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Co.:
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.:
Assignment of work……..
Classification of positions and rates
Demotions...
Discipline.
707, 100; 884, 260
660, 72
1074, 486
660, 72; 884, 260
1411, 984
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1411, 984
630, 34; 707, 100; 726, 141; 830, 220; 1266, 765
1074, 486
740, 151
709, 111;
1042, 461; 1089, 560; 1151, 619; 1373, 973; 1424, 1002
Disputes, method of handling.
709, 111
1041, 461; 1088, 559
709, 111; 1041, 461; 1087, 558
Dissenting opinion... 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Hours of service.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence.
789, 184
796, 190; 816, 206; 1087, 558; 1424, 1002
682, 84; 760, 164; 870, 248; 937, 294; 955, 313
705, 99; 872, 248;
National agreement rules, application of..
1040, 459; 1041, 461; 1042, 461; 1046, 464; 1087, 558; 1151, 619; 1251, 735
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
955, 313; 1251, 735
Rates of pay....………. 872, 248; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1087, 558; 1267, 767
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 1089, 560; 1424, 1002; 1450, 1029
790, 185; 1041, 461; 1088, 559; 1251, 735; 1343, 901
1087, 558
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
682, 84; 760,
Seniority rights.
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
164; 789, 184; 870, 248; 937, 294; 955, 313; 1040, 459; 1041, 461; 1088, 559
Vacanies, filling of..
705, 99; 1046, 464; 1089, 560; 1151, 619
Withdrawal of application for decision... 796, 190; 870, 248; 872, 248; 1373, 973
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.-N. Y. Terminals:
Dissenting opinion....
630, 34
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34
Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Co.:
Rules and working conditions..
721, 121
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad":
Contract work...
1257, 750
Disputes, method of handling.
1257, 750
Dissenting opinion.. 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
1257, 750
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1257, 750
Piece work...
1257, 750
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1185
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad-Continued.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Barre & Chelsea Railroad:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Supporting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767
630, 34; 1257, 750; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1257, 750
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Belt Railway Co. of Chicago:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
·
Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Co.:
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion.
Birmingham Terminal Co.:
Classification of positions and rates. .
Dissenting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121;726, 141; 757, 156
1074, 486
.1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
.1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
721, 121
1000, 356
1000, 356
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay..
Boston & Albany Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates...
Contract work……..
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion....
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1196, 655
1196, 655
1196, 655
1196, 655
1179, 639; 1180, 640
1238, 712; 1258, 752
1179, 639; 1180, 640
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1179, 639; 1180, 640
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1179, 639; 1180, 640
757, 156
1074, 486
1258, 752
765, 166; 770, 170; 1275, 810
765, 166
Dissenting opinion.. 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Boston & Maine Railroad:
Classification of positions and rates.
Combination service.
Federal Boards of Adjustment, decisions of.
Hours of service..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Piece work.
1276, 811
1108, 589
651, 68; 1121, 598; 1349, 906
1108, 589; 1275, 810
1144, 616
1186
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Boston & Maine Railroad-Continued.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Decision No. and Page.
1276, 811
Rates of pay......
651, 68; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1276, 811
Representation rights..
Rules and working conditions.
1121, 598
630, 34;
726, 141;757, 156; 1121, 598; 1192, 654; 1275, 810; 1349, 906; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Vacancies, filling of.
802, 196
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
802, 196
770, 170; 802, 196
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1108, 589; 1144, 616; 1192, 654
Brownwood North & South Railway:
Dissenting opinion..
Rules and working conditions.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad Corporation:
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion...
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay...
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
•
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion...
·
Labor Board decisions, application of..
National agreement rules, application of.
Promotions.
Rates of pay.
630, 34
630, 34
826, 217; 1415, 986
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1415, 986
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
826, 217; 1415, 986
826, 217; 1396, 979
1074, 486
Rules and working conditions. 707, 100; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1350, 907; 1450, 1029
1396, 979; 1415, 986
1396, 979
896, 268
1160, 627
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1160, 627; 1350, 907
809, 203; 896, 268
809, 203
896, 268; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267,767
Seniority rights...
Supporting opinion.
Vacancies, filling of…….
809, 203
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
809, 203
Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Co.:
Rules and working conditions..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway:
Dissenting opinion…….
Rates of pay.
1395, 979
1395, 979
1036, 423
1036, 423
Rules and working conditions..
757, 156
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of South Carolina:
Dissenting opinion.
1036, 423
Rates of pay..
1036, 423
Rules and working conditions.
757, 156
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay….
Supporting opinion.
Central Indiana Railway:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1187
Central New England Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Central of Georgia Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion..
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey:
Assignment of work.
Classification of positions and rates.
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service.
•
Labor Board descisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Time clocks and checking in..
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100; 757, 156
1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
646, 63
589, 5
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
805, 200
805, 200
589, 5
589, 5; 805, 200; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100; 1339, 896; 1450, 1029
Central Union Depot & Railway Co. of Cincinnati:
Dissenting opinion...
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rules and working conditions..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Central Vermont Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates……….
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1339, 896
630, 34
1135, 612
630, 34; 757, 156
1135, 612
994, 350
994, 350
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
994, 350
994, 350
994, 350; 1028, 383; 1036, 428; 1074, 486
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1060, 476
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1060, 476
1036, 423;
1074, 486
721, 121; 757, 156;
1060, 476
1074, 486
1
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
Charleston Union Station Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
Labor Board decisions, application of…….
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion....
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Promotions.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
902, 27.3
1346, 905
902, 273; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100
1074, 486 ·
י
1188
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay…..
Supporting opinion..
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work..
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion……….
Jurisdiction of Labor Board………
Labor Board decisions, application of..
National agreement rules, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
714, 115; 795, 189; 1066, 482
1254, 741
629, 31; 1254, 741
630, 34; 1450, 1029
1254, 741
1066, 482; 1254, 741; 1369, 964
714, 115; 908, 279; 1476, 1080
795, 189; 1066, 482
714, 115; 795, 189; 1066, 482
629, 31
629, 31;
630, 34; 721, 121; 830, 220; 1254, 741; 1369, 964; 1450, 1029
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Vacancies, filling of...
1450, 1029
1254,741; 1369, 964
1476, 1080
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates...
Discipline.
908, 279
1412, 985; 1439, 1014
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
758, 163
1439, 1014
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1412, 985
Rates of pay.
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.. 630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1437, 1014;
1450, 1029
Seniority rights..
1277, 813
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486;
1450, 1029
Time clocks and checking in.
1437, 1014
Transportation privileges..
1442, 1016
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1277, 813; 1442, 1016
Chicago & Erie Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
1028, 383; 1074, 486
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
1028, 383; 1074, 486
707, 100
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates………
710, 112;
778, 177; 806, 200; 898, 270; 1150, 618; 1197, 656; 1434, 1012; 1481, 1085
Contract work..
1215, 678
650, 67
Deadhead service..
Discipline...………. 1058, 474; 1102, 586; 1171, 634; 1203, 661; 1355, 911; 1438, 1014
Disputes, method of handling.
631, 50; 650, 67; 778, 177; 1215, 678
Dissenting opinion.. 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1197,656; 1450, 1029
Hours of service.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
713, 114
1215, 678
716, 117; 806, 200;
898, 270; 975, 328; 1034, 422; 1098, 583; 1197, 656; 1215, 678; 1481, 1085
Leaves of absence..
676, 80;
743, 153; 744, 153; 745, 153; 746, 153; 747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154;
751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155; 754, 155; 755, 156; 1013, 369; 1014, 370;
1153, 622.
National agreement rules, application of……….
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
650, 67; 806, 200; 898, 270
710, 112;
713, 114; 778, 177; 1434, 1012
650, 67;
676, 80; 716, 117; 898, 270; 975, 328; 1028, 383; 1034, 422; 1036, 423;
1074, 486; 1139, 613; 1153, 622; 1197, 656; 1434, 1012; 1469, 1072; 1481,
1085; 1485, 1089.
Representation rights..
631, 50
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1189
Chicago & North Western Railway Co.-Continued.
Rules and working conditions..
Decision No. and Page..
630, 34;
631, 50; 707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 951, 310; 1098, 583; 1173,
634; 1215, 678; 1450, 1029.
Seniority rights...
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
1102, 586; 1355, 911
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
676, 80;
743, 153; 745, 153; 746, 153; 747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154; 751, 155;
752, 155; 753, 155; 754, 155; 755, 156; 898, 270; 1013, 369; 1014, 370;
1058, 474; 1102, 586.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1215, 678
710, 112;
743, 153; 744, 153; 745, 153; 746, 153; 747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154;
751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155; 754, 155; 755, 156; 951, 310; 975, 328; 1139,
613; 1150, 618; 1171, 634; 1173, 634; 1203, 661; 1435, 1013.
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad:
Discipline...
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates…..
Demotions...
Dissenting opinion.
1449, 1028
1036, 423
1036, 423
630, 34; 1449, 1028
956, 314;
974, 327; 984, 341; 1006, 358; 1029, 417
801, 194
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
956, 314; 974, 327;
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Leaves of absence.
National agreement rules, application of..
Promotions.
984, 341; 1101, 586
868, 247; 869, 247
793, 187;
801, 194
1029, 417
861, 243;
801, 194; 956, 314; 974, 327; 984,341
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay….
1074, 486; 1101, 586
862, 244; 956, 314; 984, 341; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
630, 34; 707, 100; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
Rules and working conditions..
Seniority rights.
Sunday and holiday service.
801, 194
1101, 586
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Time lost..
793, 187; 868, 247; 869, 247
Withdrawal of application for decisions... 793, 187; 861, 243; 862, 244;
1006, 358
Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.:
Contract work.
1075, 539; 1076, 540; 1077, 542; 1225, 692;
1226, 696
Disputes, method of handling.
963, 317;
Dissenting opinion....
1075, 539; 1076, 540; 1077, 542; 1225, 692; 1226, 696
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.. 1075, 539; 1076, 540; 1077, 542; 1225, 692; 1226, 696
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1075, 539;
1076, 54); 1077, 542; 1225, 692; 1226, 696; 1432, 1011
1076, 540
1028, 383; 1036, 426; 1074, 486
707, 100; 721, 121; 725,137;
Piecework..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
963, 317; 1075, 539; 1076, 540; 1077, 542; 1225, 692; 1450, 1029
1074, 483; 1450, 1029
963, 317;
Supporting opinion.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
1075, 539; 1076, 540; 1077, 542; 1225, 692; 1226, 696
1394, 978; 1432, 1011
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
Hours of service.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
607, 19
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
771, 171
607, 19
1190
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.-Continued.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Leaves of absence...
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay….
Decision No. and Page.
607, 19; 649, 66; 1182, 642
649, 66; 771, 171; 979, 330; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
Reduction in forces.
Rules and working conditions... 630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121;
Seniority districts..
Seniority rights..
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion...
Transportation privileges..
Chicago Junction Railway Co.:
Discipline....
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay…….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railroad Co.:
Rules and working conditions..
Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway:
Dissenting opinion.
Rules and working conditions.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.:
1342, 899
771, 171; 979, 330
607, 19;
1074, 486; 1182, 642
771, 171; 1164, 629
757, 156; 1450, 1029
1164, 629
1164, 629; 1342, 899
979, 330; 1182, 642
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1342, 899
1012, 369
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1074, 486
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
630, 34; 757, 156
1074, 486
707, 100; 757, 156
630, 34
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156
623, 28
626, 29
Assignment of work.
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work...
Discipline..
1222, 689; 1223, 690
612, 22; 625, 29; 767, 167
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion
1043, 463; 1222, 689; 1333, 890;
630, 34; 1028, 383;
1334, 891;
1036, 423;
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
775, 175; 850, 234;
1335, 892; 1336, 893
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1222, 689
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay
-
350, 234; 1064, 479
626, 29
1333, 890;
1334, 891; 1335, 892;
1336, 893
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Representation rights..
1064, 479
Rules and working conditions
630, 34;
707, 100; 725, 137; 757, 156; 775, 175;
890; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893; 1450, 1029.
Seniority rights.
1064, 479;
1222, 689; 1333,
623, 28; 635, 58;
639, 60; 767,167; 775, 175; 1025, 379; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Time lost.
767, 167; 1023, 376
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
1222, 689
Vacancies, filling of.. 623, 28; 626, 29; 635, 58; 639, 60; 850, 234; 1023, 376; 1333,890
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1223, 690
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay…….
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.
757, 156; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1-191
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Supporting opinion.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co.:
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates.
Combination service……….
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service.
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1038, 457
995, 351
995, 351
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1038, 457
1038, 457
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Vacancies, filling of..
995, 351; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1038, 457
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates...
Combination service.
Contract work……..
Demotions..
Discipline...
995, 351
995, 351
1256, 747
781, 180
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion...
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
Jurisdiction of Labor Board...
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights..
Supporting opinion.
Time lost..
641, 61; 1194, 654
1122, 599; 1256, 747
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
591, 6; 1122, 599; 1256, 747
1256, 747
1026, 380
1122, 599
995, 351; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34;
721, 121; 757, 156; 1122, 599; 1256, 747; 1450, 1029
781, 180; 871, 248; 1026, 380
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1026, 380
1256, 747
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
591, 6; 871, 248; 1158, 627; 1194, 654
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
1244, 902
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1185, 646
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions.
... 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1185, 646; 1451, 1041; 1452, 1042
630, 34; 721, 121; 725, 137; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Yard service...
Cincinnati, Burnside & Cumberland River Railway Co.:
Rates of pay.
Dissenting opinion.
Supporting opinion..
Contract work..
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Co.:
1244, 730
1452, 1042
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
1224, 690; 1262, 757; 1263, 758
Disputes, method of handling... 825, 215; 1224, 690; 1262, 757; 1263, 758; 1416, 991
Dissenting opinion..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1262, 757; 1263, 758
885,260;
1224, 690; 1262, 757; 1263, 758; 1416, 991
1011, 368
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Rehearing on decisions..
Representation rights..
825, 215;
885, 260
1416, 991
Rules and working conditions... 825, 215; 1224, 690; 1262, 757; 1263, 758; 1416, 991
Seniority rights..
1011, 368
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Vacancies, filling of..
1224, 690; 1262, 757; 1263, 758
1011, 368
1192
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Cincinnati Northern Railroad:
Contract work..
Decision No. and Page.
1036. 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121
1074, 486
1238, 712
Disputes, method of handling.
1145, 617
Dissenting opinion....
Labor Board decisions, application of..
·Rates of pay.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1145, 617
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486;
1450, 1029
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34; 721, 121; 1145, 617;
1450, 1029
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Loris Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates..
1167, 6.3.2
Contract work.
1119, 594; 1238, 712;
1259, 752
Disputes, method of handling.
1119,594; 1146, 617; 1259, 752
Dissenting opinion...
630, 34; 1028, 383;
1036, 423;
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1119, 594; 1259, 752
Labor Board decisions, application of.. 1119, 594;
Leaves of absence..
1146, 617;
1156, 626; 1259, 752
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
605, 17
1004, 357
1004, 357; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100;
Rules and working conditions.
721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1119, 594; 1146, 6177; 1156, 626; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost...
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Colorado & Southern Railway Co.:
1243, 728
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
605, 17
1119, 594; 1259, 752
1004, 357; 1049, 466;
1156, 626
717, 117
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486;
1450, 1029
644, 63;
1321, 877
1321, 877
Classification of positions and rates.
Dissenting opinion.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay........ 644, 63; 717, 117; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
Rules and working conditions.... 630, 34; 721, 121; 726, 141;
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion..
Yard service.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions..
Cupples Station (St. Louis, Mo.):
Dissenting opinion..
Rules and working conditions..
Delaware & Hudson Co.:
Assignment of work..
Disputes, method of handling.
1074, 486; 1321,877
757,156; 1450, 1029
717, 117
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1321, 877
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1028, 383; 1036, 423
721, 121; 757, 156
630, 34
630, 34
780,179
931, 291
780, 179
Discipline..
Dissenting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1027, 382
Rates of pay.
1027, 882; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Seniority rights..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Time lest
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
707, 100
780, 179; 901, 273
1074, 486
780, 1'79
901, 273; 931, 291
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1193
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates..
Contract work.
Discipline...
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Decision No. and Page.
1129, 605
1279, 813
588, 4; 1107, 589
1269, 793
630, 34;
1028, 333; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1269, 793; 1279, 813; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of .
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
1279, 813
1109, 590; 1129, 605;
1279, 813
1129, 605
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1109, 590;
1129, 605
807, 201
630, 34;
707, 100; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1279, 813; 1450, 1029
807, 201
1109, 590
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
807, 201
1279, 813
Reduction in forces
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights...
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost..
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad System:
Abolishment of positions.
Classification of positions and rates.
Discipline.
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
Express employees..
991, 348
882, 258; 991, 348
729, 145; 965, 321; 1059, 475
729, 145; 814, 205; 848, 233
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence..
National agreement rules, application of.
1206, 662
595, 9; 814, 205; 848, 233; 882, 258
965, 321
595, 9; 991, 348
Rates of pay.... 595, 9; 882, 258; 991, 348; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1206, 662; 1389, 977
Rules and working conditions...
Sunday and holiday service.
630, 34;
721, 121; 814, 205; 965, 321; 1310, 862; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
595, 9
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1206, 662; 1389, 977
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.:
Discipline..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay..
Reduction in forces.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights...
Time lost.
Denver Union Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
•
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.:
Discipline.
Labor Board decisions, application of . -
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay-
Reduction in forces
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Time lost..
1447, 1018
971, 325
971, 325; 972, 325
971, 325
972, 325
721, 121
1447, 1018
972, 325; 1447, 1018
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1206, 662; 1389, 977
1447, 1018
971, 325
971, 325; 972, 325
971, 325
972, 325
721, 121
1447, 1018
972, 325; 1447, 1018
1194
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Denver Union Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.:
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rehearing on decisions.
Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co.:
Rules and working conditions.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1117, 593
1117, 593
1057, 474
1057, 474
Detroit, Bay City & Western Railroad Co.:
Rules and working conditions..
721, 121
Direct Navigation Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co.:
Discipline....
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Time lost.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Dunleith & Dubuque Bridge Co.:
Rules and working conditions..
926, 287; 927, 288
721, 121
927,288
926, 287; 927, 288
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
East St. Louis Connecting Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Eastern Texas Railroad Co.:
Rules and working conditions.
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway:
Rules and working conditions.
El Paso & Juarez Railway, Joint Car Association of:
Discipline.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
El Paso & Southwestern System:
Abolishment of positions..
Disputes, method of handling.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
707, 100
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
757, 156
707, 100; 757, 156
708, 111
708, 111
609, 21; 1237, 711
1237, 711; 1327, 882; 1328, 882
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Dissenting opinion...
Hostling service.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence...
National agreement rules, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
Representation rights.
1327, 882
1328, 882
851, 234; 859, 241; 860, 242
1009, 364; 1237,711
1327, 882; 1328, 882
609, 21; 1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1320, 876; 1328, 882
1327, 882
Rules and working conditions.. 630, 34; 721, 121; 726, 141; 1327, 882; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights...
Supporting opinion.
Time lost..
1009, 364
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
851, 234; 859, 241; 860, 242; 1009, 364
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1195
El Paso Union Passenger Depot Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rules and working conditions.
Erie Railroad Co.:
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34
630, 34
1141, 614
1210, 667; 1214, 675; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1241, 727
1359, 917; 1362, 942
Classification of positions and rates..
Contract work...
Discipline...
Disputes, method of handling.
1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1241, 727; 1286, 833; 1331, 885;
Dissenting opinion.. 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1188, 648;
Hours of service.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
1210, 667; 1214, 675;
1332, 888; 1359, 917
1362, 942; 1450, 1029
1286, 833; 1331, 885
1210, 667;
1214, 675; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1241, 727; 1286, 833; 1331, 885; 1332, 888.
Labor Board decisions, application of.. 1188, 648; 1210, 667; 1214, 675; 1218, 683;
1219, 686; 1241, 727; 1286, 833; 1287, 886; 1329, 883; 1359, 917; 1362, 942
Leaves of absence...
1137, 612; 1188, 648
1331, 885; 1362, 942
1084, 555
National agreement rules, application of..
Promotions..
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
1140, 613; 1141, 614
1028, 383; 1074, 486;
1140, 613; 1286, 833; 1287, 836; 1329, 883; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1359, 917
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 1140, 613;
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
1210, 667; 1214, 675; 1218, 683; 1219, 686; 1241, 727; 1362, 942; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights.
1084, 555; 1359, 917 ·
1359, 917
1074, 486; 1362, 942; 1450, 1029
1286, 833; 1287, 836; 1331, 885; 1332, 888; 1362, 942
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.. 1140, 613; 1210, 667; 1214, 675; 1218, 683;
1219, 686; 1241, 727; 1286, 833; 1287, 836; 1329, 883; 1331, 885; 1332, 888
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
Time lost..
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Florida East Coast Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad:
•
Discipline....
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion....
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay.
..
Rehearing on decisions..
Representation rights...
Rules and working conditions
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Fort Street Union Depot Co.:
Contract work..
Disputes, method of handling.
1137, 612
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1028, 383; 1036, 423
757, 156
584, 2; 598, 12
1416, 991
598, 12; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1450, 1029
1416, 991; 1418, 994
721, 121; 1416, 991; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1418, 994
1416, 991
598, 12
1450, 1029
598, 12
1260, 754
1260, 754
Dissenting opinion...
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
20936°-23-76
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rates of pay.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1260, 754
1260, 754
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1260, 754
1074, 486
1260, 754
-
1196
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co.:
Demotions.
Discipline.
Dissenting opinion.
Leaves of absence.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions...
Seniority rights.
592, 6
590, 5
911, 281
630; 34; 1028, 383; 1036; 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1187, 647; 1450, 1029
590, 5; 592, 6
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
590, 5; 911, 281
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rules and working conditions.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Vacancies, filling of……….
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
911, 281
630, 34
630, 34
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1401, 980
1401, 980
Galveston Wharf Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
630, 34
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion....
1450, 1029
Rules and working conditions.
1450, 1029
Supporting opinion..
1450, 1029-
Georgia Railroad:
Abolishment of positions...
1085, 557
Dissenting opinion..
1036, 423
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
921, 286
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
1036, 423
921, 286
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion
1074, 486
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Rates of pay..
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Grand Canyon Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion... 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Rates of pay.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767
Rules and working conditions.... 630,34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion...
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Grand Trunk Railway System (Lines in United States):
Rates of pay.
Dissenting opinion.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1197
Great Northern Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work.
Discipline.
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence...
Rates of pay.
Decision No. and Page.
1249, 733
1213, 673
586, 3; 968, 324;
1456; 1045
1213, 673
1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486;
718, 118; 1423, 1000
977, 329; 1213, 673; 1456, 1045
977, 329; 1213, 673; 1249, 733
586, 3
718, 118; 1028, 383; 1036,
423; 1074, 486; 1249, 733; 1265, 763; 1421, 997; 1422, 998; 1423, 1000
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
1475, 1079
718, 118;
721, 121; 725, 137; 1213, 673; 1450, 1029; 1475, 1079
Seniority rights...
586, 3
Supporting opinion
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Time lost...
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Yard service..
Green Bay & Western Railroad:
►
1421,997; 1422, 998
1213, 673
1456, 1045
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rates of pay….
1123, 601
1123, 601
Short-line railroads.
1123, 601
Gulf Coast Lines:
Classification of positions and rates..
930, 289
Dissenting opinion.
833, 224; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Hours of service.
1345, 903
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay.
925, 287
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Rehearing on decisions.
925, 287
Rules and working conditions.
725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156; 833, 224; 930, 289; 1345, 903;
721, 121;
1450, 1029
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
839, 230; 1478, 1082
Discipline.
Dissenting opinion.. 630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767;
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
1372, 973
1450, 1029
1478, 1082
839, 230; 1478, 1082
Rates of pay …
839, 230; 1028, 383;
1036, 423;
1074, 486; 1267,767
Rules and working conditions.... 630, 34; 707, 100;
Supporting opinion...
721, 121;
757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34
630, 34; 757, 156
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Co.:
Abolishment of positions.
Discipline...
Dissenting opinion.
Leaves of absence..
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Seniority rights..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Gulf Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay- ..
Supporting opinion.
855, 238
1420, 997
1028, 383; 1036, 423
606, 18
606, 18; 855, 238; 1240, 726
1028, 383; 1036, 423
844, 232
844, 232; 1240, 726
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
1198
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions
Supporting opinion...
Hocking Valley Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion..
Decision No. and Page.
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121
1074, 486
895, 267
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
890, 263
720, 120; 816, 206; 890, 263
895, 267
720, 120; 890, 263; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
895, 267
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1074, 486
Rules and working conditions... 707, 100; 725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
Houston & Shreveport Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.
707, 100
1074, 486
Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co.:
Assignment of work.
1312, 866
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
•
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100; 1312, 866
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Terminals, changes of.
1312, 866
Vacancies, filling of..
1402, 980
1402, 980
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay. -
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion
Iberia & Vermillion Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Illinois Central Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
777, 177
865, 246: 888, 263
604, 17
630, 34; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1174, 634
1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 777, 177; 1450, 1029; 1408, 982
Supporting opinion.
1450, 1029; 1074, 486
Withdrawal of application for decisions... 604, 17; 865, 246; 1174, 634; 1408, 982
Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.:
Assignment of work..
Discipline...
1054, 471
1050, 466; 1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1055, 472;
1056, 473
Disputes, method of handling.
1051, 467;
1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1054, 471; 1055, 472;
1056, 473
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1199
Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.-Continued.
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights..
Time lost..
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383
1003, 357; 1028, 383
1054, 471
1054, 471; 1055, 472; 1056, 473
1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1054, 471; 1055, 472; 1056, 473
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
Union labor membership.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad:
Contract work.
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
·
Labor Board decisions, application of……
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion..
Time lost.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Indianapolis Union Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion……..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
International & Great Northern Railway:
Classification of positions and rates.
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
1003, 357; 1054, 471
1056, 473
982, 332; 1079, 545; 1235, 709; 1238, 712
608, 21
1079, 545; 1235, 709
1028, 383; 1074, 486
1079, 545; 1235, 709
1079, 545; 1235, 709
1370, 96'7
1028, 383; 1074, 486
982, 332; 1079, 545; 1235, 709
1370, 967
1074, 486
1370, 967
982, 332; 1079, 545; 1235, 709
608, 21
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 106
1074, 480
782, 181; 1177, 635; 1274, 809; 1309, 861
782, 181; 849, 234; 1177, 635; 1274, 809
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1130, 607; 1450, 1029
849, 234; 1177, 635; 1309, 861
1426, 1006; 1427, 1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
1427, 1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
1426, 1006
1309, 861
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1274, 809;
1309, 861; 1426, 1006; 1427, 1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010
721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1130, 607
1130, 607
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Vacancies, filling of…….
Interstate Railroad Co.:
Transportation Act, 1920, violation of………….
Jacksonville Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion....
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority districts..
Seniority rights.
Joplin Union Depot Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Rules and working conditions.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway Co.:
Contract work..
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
886, 343
630, 34
630, 34; 707, 100
1065, 480
1065, 480
582, 1
582, 1
1238, 712
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1200
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121; 830, 220; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Ry.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Rates of pay..
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.:
Discipline.....
Dissenting opinion..
Hours of service.....
970, 824
970, 324
818,207
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
602, 16
Rules and working conditions..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay…….
602, 16
602, 16; 1028, 389;
1036, 423;
630, 34; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156;
1074, 486;
1323, 878
1450, 1029
Runarounds...
Supporting opinion.
1324, 879
1074, 486;
1450, 1029
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
818, 207
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. of Texas:
Dissenting opinion………….
630, 34; 1028, 383;
Rules and working conditions..
Rates of pay...
Supporting opinion.
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074,486; 1450, 1029
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.:
Discipline....
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions..
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co. of Texas:
Rules and working conditions.....
Kansas City Southern Railway Co.:
Discipline....
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion...
1340, 897
1036, 423
1036, 423
721, 121
721, 121
1163, 629
1081, 551
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Leaves of absence..
1081, 551
1351, 907
---
Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.:
Supporting opinion....
Transportation privileges...
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Classification of positions and rates.
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay….
648, 65; 1028, 383;
Rules and working conditions.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.. 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1081, 551; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1308, 860;
1314, 869
1074, 486; 1450, 10:9
1351, 907
1081, 551
854, 237
854, 237
Sunday and holiday service..
Supporting opinion..
Time lost....
Keokuk Union Depot Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Railroad:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion...
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rules and working conditions..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
648, 65; 854, 237
1036, 423; 1074, 486
725, 137; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
648, 65
854, 237
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
1002, 357
630, 34
1002, 857
630, 34; 1002, 357
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1201
Dissenting opinion..
Lake Charles & Northern Railroad Co.:
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad. Co.:.
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Leaves of absence..
Rates of pay..
Representation rights...
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
Decision No. and Page.
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
998, 353
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074; 486; 1229, 698
998, 353
1229, 698
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
998, 353
998, 353;
1229, 698
1074, 486; 1229, 698
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co.:
Contract work..
Disputes, method of handling.
1238, 712
998, 353
Dissenting opinion....
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486;
1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
998, 353
Rates of pay.
1028, 385; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Representation rights..
-
998, 353
Rules and working conditions.... 630, 34; 707, 100; 729, 145; 998, 353;
1450, 1029
Seniority rights...
1045, 463
Supporting opinion...
1074, 486;
1450, 1029
Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Co.:
Rules and working conditions..
707, 100
Lehigh & New England Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates..
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service..
1028, 383, 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
696, 92; 853, 236; 1347, 905
643, 62; 1347, 905
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of…….
732, 148; 734, 149
1166, 631; 1175, 635
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
600, 13
600, 13
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
757, 156; 1450, 1029
600, 13
Rates of pay..
696, 92;
733, 148; 734, 149; 799, 192; 936, 294; 1010, 366; 1031, 418; 1166, 631
1273, 808
787, 183;
1010, 366; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1175, 635; 1273, 808; 1445, 1016
Reduction in forces...
732,148; 799, 192
Rules and working conditions. 630, 34; 696, 92; 707, 100; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights..
643, 62; 735, 149; 799, 192; 918, 284;
Sunday and holiday service..
Supporting opinion..
Time lost.
Vacancies, filling of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Litchfield & Madison Railway Co.:
Rules and working conditions
642, 62;
1015, 371; 1030, 418
1166, 631; 1273, 808; 1445, 1016
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
732, 148; 735, 149; 853, 236; 1015, 371
643, 62; 787, 183;
733, 148; 735, 149
823, 214; 936, 294
721, 121
1202
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Long Island Railroad Co.:
Decision No. and Page.
Discipline..
1419,995
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.....
813, 205
1028, 383; 1074, 486
813, 205
1028, 383; 1074, 486
721,121; 757, 156;
813, 205
1074, 486
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion.
Lorain & West Virginia Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Leaves of absence.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
630, 34; 1028, 383;
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay
.... 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486;
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion....
Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.:
Rules and working conditions
Louisiana Southern Railway:
Dissenting opinion....
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Louisiana Western Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion..
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion...
Rules and working conditions..
630, 34; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
966, 322
1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 757, 156; 962,317
1074, 486
962,317; 966, 322
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1289, 838; 1290, 838; 1291, 838
.1289, 838; 1291, 838
1289, 838; 1290, 838; 1291, 838
630, 34; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
721, 121; 757, 156
1008, 359
1008, 359
1008, 359
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423
757, 156; 961, 316; 1450, 1029
1450, 1029
961, 316
630, 34;
1028, 383;
1028, 383;
1036, 423; 1074,486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 725, 137
1074, 486
Classification of positions and rates.
779, 178; 999, 356; 1301, 853; 1371, 970
Combination service.
Discipline..
Dissenting opinion
1300, 852
792, 186; 928, 289
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence..
1301, 853
928, 289; 999, 356; 1100, 585
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Louisville & Nashville Railroad:
785, 182; 834, 227
923, 287; 993, 350
1371, 970
National agreement rules, application of... 647, 64; 779, 178;
Railroad Administration orders, application of...
Rates of pay......... 647, 64; 785, 182; 993, 350; 999, 356; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486; 1100, 585; 1300, 852; 1301, 853
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
792, 186; 1371, 970
993, 350
Rules and working conditions . .
Seniority rights....
Sunday and holiday service.
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1203
Louisville & Nashville Railroad-Continued.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Turnaround service.
Withdrawal of application for decisions
Maine Central Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion....
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Decision No. and Page.
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1301, 853
923, 287; 928, 289
785, 182; 792, 186; 834, 227; 1371, 970
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Overtime.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
1431, 1011
1413, 986; 1431, 1011
1093, 579; 1431, 1011
1454, 1043
1093, 579
Rates of pay.. 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1093, 579; 1431, 1011; 1454, 1043
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay
Supporting opinion.
Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Co.:
Rules and working conditions.
Meridian Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
721, 121
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
788, 183
Supporting opinion.
Michigan Central Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates..
Contract work.
Demotions.
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1238, 712; 1255, 745
594, 8; 804, 197
658, 71
583, 1; 812, 205; 829, 219; 990, 347; 1255, 745
1028, 883; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
National agreement rules, application of..
Promotions..
1255, 745
788, 183;
812, 205; 829, 219; 1228, 697; 1255, 745
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
Representation rights.
764, 165; 804, 197
594, 8; 804, 197
788, 183
764, 165; 788, 183; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1228, 697
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights...
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
583, 1; 829, 219
583, 1;
707, 100; 812, 205; 1255, 745; 1409, 982; 1450, 1029
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions…….
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion……….
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates..
Dissenting opinion.
Hostling service.
Rules and working conditions.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
594, 8; 657, 71; 804, 197
764, 165; 1228, 697
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1255, 745
.657, 71; 1228, 697; 1409, 982
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
891, 263
1036, 423; 1450, 1029
891, 263
891, 263; 1036, 423
721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1204
DÉCISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Mineral Range Railroad:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.:
Discipline.
Dissenting opinion...
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
597, 11
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
618, 24
1280, 82.4
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Yard service.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1280, 824; 1285, 832
618, 24;
630, 34; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion....
1280, 82-4
810, 205
Labor Board decisions, applications of.
Rates of pay.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
810, 205
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 810, 205; 1071, 485; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1071, 485
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
·
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Minnesota & International Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway:
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion....
Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway:
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad:
Disputes, method of handling:
Rates of pay;
Seniority rights.
Strikes.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines:
Classification of positions and rates..
Contract work.
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling
Dissenting opinion…….
1074. 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
721, 121; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1443, 1016
1443, 1016
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074,486
630.34
1074, 486
1410, 982
1410,982
1410, 982
1410, 982
724, 134
724, 134
724, 134
724, 134
741, 152;
772, 172; 837, 229; 1095, 581; 1201, 659
1080, 548
675, 80; 766, 167; 1068, 483
837, 229; 1080, 548
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Eating and sleeping accommodations.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence..
National agreement rules, application of.
1067, 482
1080, 548
847, 233; 1080, 548; 1201, 659
634, 57: 674, 80; 852, 235
1201, 659
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1205
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines-Continued.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay....
Decision No. and Page.
1303, 854; 1307, 859
719, 119;
741, 152; 742, 152; 772, 172; 774, 174; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486; 1095, 581; 1201, 659; 1267, 767; 1303, 854; 1306, 858
Reduction in forces...
Rules and working conditions.
Runarounds..
836, 229
630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757,
156; 1067, 482; 1080, 548; 1303, 854; 1307, 859; 1450, 1029
774, 174
Seniority rights...
Supporting opinion.
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
772, 172
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
719, 119
Terminals, changes of..
Time lost...
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
1094, 581
634, 57; 674, 80; 852, 235
1080, 548
Vacancies, filling of
.773, 173; 836, 229
Withdrawal of application for decision..
674, 80;
675, 80; 741, 152; 742, 152; 766, 167; 847, 233; 1068, 483
Yard service..
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas:
1303, 854
Contract work..
Disputes, method of handling.
1080, 548
1080, 548
Dissenting opinion…….
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rules and working conditions.
630, 34
1080, 548
1080.548
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1080, 548
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
1080, 548
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Discipline...
1352, 909
919,285
Dissenting opinion
.630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.... 840, 231; 841, 232; 1165, 630; 1352, 909
Leaves of absence..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion
Time lost...
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Discipline:....
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
•
Labor Board decisions, application of..
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
776, 176
840, 231; 841, 232; 1028, 383; 1036,
423; 1074, 486; 1165, 630; 1352, 909
630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 1450, 1029
.1074, 486; 1450, 1029
776, 176
840, 231; 841, 232
1099, 584
1132, 609
1132, 609
1036. 423; 1074, 486
1099. 584; 1133, 610
·
1474.1078
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1133, 610; 1474, 1078
1099,584
Seniority districts..
Seniority rights..
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Monongahela Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
Montpelier & Wells River Railroad:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay...
Supporting opinion.
721.121
1039, 458
1484, 1087
1074.486
1039.458
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1206
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions...
Supporting opinion.
Mount Washington Railway:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay...
Supporting opinion.
Muncie Belt Railway:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay...
Supporting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway:
Dissenting opinion..
Leaves of absence.
Rates of pay... -
Reduction in forces.
Rules and working conditions..
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost...
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Nashville Terminals Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Natchez & Louisiana Railway Transfer Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Natchez & Southern Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Nevada Northern Railway:
Labor Board decisions, application of...
Rates of pay..
New Iberia & Northern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay…….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
New Jersey & New York Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co.:
:
Discipline....
603, 16
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
603, 16
707, 100; 757, 156; 938, 295; 1450, 1029
603, 16
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
603, 16
938, 295
630, 34; 1074, 486
1074, 486
630, 34
1074, 486
1028, 383
1028, 383
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1302, 854
1302, 854
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1020, 374; 1021, 375; 1062, 478
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rehearing on decisions..
1124, 603;
1125, 603; 1126, 604; 1127, 604; 1128, 605
1124, 603; 1125, 603; 1126, 604; 1127, 604; 1128, 605 ·
757, 156
1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1020, 374; 1021, 375; 1022, 376
1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1021, 375; 1022, 376
1250, 734
1062, 478
Rules and working conditions..
Seniority rights..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Time lost..
Vacancies, filling of.
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1207
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
New Orleans Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay……
Supporting opinion.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions
Supporting opinion.
New York Central Railroad Co.:
Assignment of work….
Classifications of positions and rates..
768, 168; 952, 310; 953, 311;
Contract work.…………. 1209, 665; 1216, 679; 1217, 682;
Demotions..
Discipline...
Decision No. and Page.
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121
1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156
1074, 486
1091,562
1091, 562;
601, 15; 632, 54; 633, 56;
1354, 741; 1414, 986; 1472, 1076
1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1238, 712
619, 24
1007, 358; 1037, 456;
1069, 484
Disputes, method of handling.
958, 315;
1209, 665; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1220, 687; 1232, 705;
1360, 921
Dissenting opinion……..
630, 34;
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1091, 562; 1360, 921; 1450, 1029
Hours of service.
731, 147
1069, 484
Housing conditions.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.. 1209, 665; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1220,687; 1232, 705
Labor Board decisions, application of.
731, 147;
952, 310; 953, 311; 1105, 588; 1142, 616; 1176, 635; 1209, 665; 1216, 679;
1217, 682; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1354, 910; 1414, 986; 1472, 1076.
632, 54;
633, 56; 731, 147; 958, 315; 1037, 456; 1091, 562; 1169, 633; 1472, 1076
National agreement rules, application of.
Piecework.
Promotions.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay..
601, 15; 632, 54; 633, 56;
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1105, 588; 1142, 616; 1176, 635;
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions
1360, 921
619, 24
601, 15; 953, 311
952, 310; 1028, 383;
1354, 910; 1360, 921
1176, 635
1091, 562; 1360, 921
630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 830, 220; 1069, 484;
1209, 665; 1216, 679; 1217, 682; 1220, 687; 1232, 705; 1236, 710; 1450, 1029
619, 24; 768, 168; 981, 330; 1037, 456
Seniority rights.
Strikes...
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost..
-
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1360, 921
731, 147; 1105, 588;
1074, 486; 1091, 562;
1142, 616
1450, 1029
768, 168; 981, 330;
1037, 456
1209, 665;
1216; 679; 1217, 682; 1220, 687; 1232, 705
1169, 633; 1236, 710
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.:
Discipline...
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.:
Classification of positions and rates...
Dissenting opinion..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence..
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay..
1353, 910
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
800, 193; 1436, 1014
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1120, 597
= 1190, 652
800, 193; 1479, 1084
800, 193; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1479, 1084
1208
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.-Continued.
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion.
Time lost..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 707, 100; 757, 156; 1120, 597
1074, 486
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
1190, 652; 1479, 1084
1436, 1014
1181, 640
1036, 428; 1074, 486
1181, 640; 1311, 865
1181, 640
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1181, 640
1311, 865
1074, 486
1028, 383;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
New York & Long Branch Railroad:
Rules and working conditions.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad:
Rates of pay.
Yard service.
Norfolk & Western Railway Co.:
Discipline..
Dissenting opinion.
883, 260
883, 260
1468, 1072
1468, 1072
586,3; 1070, 485
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence.
585, 2; 645, 63; 1061, 478
586,3; 786, 183; 1070,485
585, 2
585, 2; 645, 63; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay..
Reduction in forces
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Supporting opinion .
Time lost.
759, 163
1061, 478
630,34; 725, 137; 1061, 478; 1450, 1029
586,3; 759, 163; 889,263
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
786, 183
Withdrawal of application for decisions.. 889, 263; 1047, 465; 1061,478; 1070, 485
Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Northeast Pennsylvania Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion...
Northern Alabama Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay -
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.:
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates…….
Disputes, method of handling..
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1322,878
1325, 881
887, 262
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
721, 121; 757, 156; 887, 262; 1450, 1029
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1209
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.--Continued.
Seniority rights....
Supporting opinion..
Vacancies, filling of
Work-train service.
Yard service.
Northern Pacific Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Demotions...
Decision No. and Page.
1317,874; 1325, 881
1074, 486: 1450, 1029
1317, 874; 1322, 878
1326, 881
1325, 881
946, 299; 986, 343; 988, 344
985, 343
1248, 732
Disputes, method of handling
1147, 617;
1208, 662
946, 299;
947, 304; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1316, 872; 1450, 1029
1147, 617; 1208, 662
1270, 803; 1271, 805
Discipline.
Dissenting opinion.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
National agreement rules, application of..
Railroad Administration orders, application of .
Rates of pay..
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
1270, 803; 1271, 805
1028, 383;
946, 299; 947, 304
707, 100;
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1270, 803; 1271, 805; 1305, 857; 1316, 872
721, 121; 947, 304; 986, 343; 988, 344; 1147, 617;
1204, 661;
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion.
946, 299; 947, 304;
1208, 662; 1450, 1029
1247, 731; 1248, 732
1270, 803; 1271, 805
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1248, 732
Vacancies, filling of .
Seniority rights
Time lost.
-
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Yard service...
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
986, 343; 1247,731
1131, 609; 1204, 661
1305, 857; 1316, 872
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Orange & Northwestern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay……..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Oregon Electric Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Oregon Trunk Railway:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486.
1028, 383; 1036. 423; 1074, 486
725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156
1074,486
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121
1074, 486
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074,486
1028, 383; 1036. 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121
1074, 486
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.:
Dissenting opinion....
630.34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074. 486; 1450, 1029
1292, 839
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Yard service.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074. 486; 1292, 839
630.34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1292,839
1210
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
Pennsylvania System:
Discipline...
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34;
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267,767; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267,767
630, 84; 707, 100; 721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Disputes, method of handling..
Hours of service.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay..
1063, 478
803, 197; 1063, 478
1154, 628
1154, 623
1227,697
Rules and working conditions.... 707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 916, 282; 1233, 707
Seniority rights....
1063, 478; 1440, 1015
Sunday and holiday service.
1227,697
Time lost..
1063, 478;
1154, 623
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
1063, 478
Withdrawal of application for decisions.. 803, 197; 916, 282; 1227,697;
1440, 1015
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Discipline...
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Peoria Railway Terminal Co.:
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Time lost..
-
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Pere Marquette Railway Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work...
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1106, 529
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1106, 589
1288, 837
721, 121
1288, 837
1288, 837
730, 146; 1253, 739;
1358, 915
1253, 739; 1260, 754
1253, 739; 1260, 754
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1260, 754; 1358, 915
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
1260, 754; 1358, 915
730, 146; 944, 298
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
1253, 739
Rates of pay.... 640, 61; 730, 146; 945, 299; 973, 326; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Representation rights.......
Rules and working conditions.
Sunday and holiday work...
1358, 915
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 730, 146; 1260, 754; 1358, 915; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Time lost..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Perkiomen Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Supporting opinion.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
Labor Board decisions, application of……
Rates of pay...
730, 146
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
640, 61
1260, 754
944, 298; 945, 299; 973, 326
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
832, 223; 1001, 356; 1082, 553
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
832, 223; 1148, 618; 1482, 1086
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1211
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.-Continued.
Reduction in forces.
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions
Supporting opinion.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Supporting opinion.
Pickering Valley Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Railway:
Rules and working conditions.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.:
Contract work...
Discipline...
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.....
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence...
Rates of pay..
Decision No. and Page.
1001, 356
1482, 1086
832, 223; 1082, 553
832, 223; 1082, 553
1074, 486
1148, 618
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
757, 156
1096, 582
998, 353
596, 11; 1238, 712
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1229, 698
998, 353
1229, 698
1281, 826;
1282, 827; 1283, 828; 1284, 830; 1313, 867
1028, 383;
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1281, 826; 1282, 827; 1283, 828; 1284, 830; 1313, 867
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
998, 353
1229, 698
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486; 1229, 698
Turnaround service.
1281, 826; 1283, 828
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
596, 11
Rates of pay.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
Yard service..
Pittsburgh & Shawmut Railroad:
Dissenting opinion...
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern Railroad Co.:
Rules and working conditions.
Portland Terminal Co.:
Classification of positions and rates.
Dissenting opinion.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
National agreement rules, application of..
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay.
--
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
1282, 827; 1284, 830
1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
721, 121
838, 230
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1431, 1011
1431, 1011
838, 230; 1093, 579; 1431, 1011
1093, 579
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1093, 579;
1431, 1011
630, 34; 757, 156; 838, 230;
1450, 1029
1074, 486;
1450, 1029
Port Arthur Canal & Dock Co.:
Dissenting opinion....
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
20936°-23-77
1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1212
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Port Reading Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion…….
Decision No. and Page,
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 333; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1450, 1029
Rates of pay ..
Supporting opinion..
Poteau Valley Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
Railway Transfer Co. of the City of Minneapolis:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Reading & Columbia Railroad Co.:
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1074, 423; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1074, 423
1450, 1029
1074, 423; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
707, 100; 725, 137; 757, 156
1074, 486
1074, 486
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Dissenting opinion.
Richmond Terminal Co.:
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.. 630, 34; 1028, 383;
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Rio Grande Southern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Express employees.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
Withdrawal of application for decision.
Rupert & Bloomsburg Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Rutland Railroad:
Dissenting opinion....
Pates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
St. Johns River Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767
630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1206, 662
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1206, 662
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1206, 662
1028, 383; 1036,, 423;. 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 428; 1074, 486
1074, 486
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain Railroad:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
1036, 423
1036, 423
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1213
St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
St. Joseph Belt Railway:
Disputes, method of handling
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
St. Joseph Union Depot Co.:
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay..
St. Joseph Terminal Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rules and working conditions.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.:
Contract work.
922, 286
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1028, 383;
1036, 423
922, 286
663, 74
929,289
929, 289
929, 289
630, 34
630, 34
1078, 544
Disputes, method of handling
1078, 544
Dissenting opinion...
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
1078,544
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay.
1078, 544
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.
725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156;
1078,544
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Transportation act, 1920 violation of.
1078, 544
St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Rates of pay….
Supporting opinion...
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.:
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1074, 486
Classification of positions and rates.
783, 181
Contract work..
1230, 700; 1231, 702
Discipline..
957, 315
Disputes, method of handling
874, 250;
875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256;
1230, 700;
1231, 702
Dissenting opinion.
630, 34;
1028, 383;
1036, 423;
1074, 486
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1230, 700;
1231, 702
Labor Board decisions, application of.
783, 181;
875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256;
1230, 700;
1231, 702
Leaves of absence...
National agreement rules, application of..
Rates of pay..
874, 250; 875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255;
879, 256
1252, 737
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
610, 32; 783, 181; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
630, 34; 721, 121; 1230, 700;
1074, 486
1231, 702
1074, 486
Time lost.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Vacancies, filling of…………
St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rules and working conditions.
St. Louis Southwestern Lines:
Discipline..
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights...
630, 34; 721, 121; 726, 141; 757, 156
967, 323; 1083, 554
874, 250; 875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255;
879, 256
1230, 700; 1231, 702
1252, 737
630, 34
630, 34
967, 323; 1278, 813
630, 34
1245, 730
1425, 1005
1214
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
St. Louis Southwestern Lines-Continued.
Time lost...
St. Louis Transfer Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
St. Louis, Troy & Eastern Railroad Co.:
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
St. Paul Bridge & Terminal Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay….
St. Paul Union Depot Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
National agreement rules, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
967, 323
1083, 486;
1245, 730; 1278, 813; 1425, 1005
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
1074, 486
1444, 1016
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1028, 383; 1036, 423
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1074, 486
824, 214
824, 214
824, 214; 1028, 383; 1074, 486
630, 34
1074, 486
San Antonio v. Aransas Pass Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Rates of pay..
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad:
Contract work..
1212, 670
Discipline.
831, 223
Disputes, method of handling.
1212, 670
Dissenting opinion...
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Jurisdiction of Labor Board...
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay..
Rehearing on decisions.
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion...
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
San Diego & Arizona Railway:
Rules and working conditions.
Savannah Union Station Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Labor Board decisions, applications of.
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.....
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Sioux City Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay...
Southeastern Express Co.:
Discipline....
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
1036, 383; 1074, 486; 1268, 791
1268, 791
1036, 383; 1074, 486; 1268, 791
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1086, 557
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1086, 557
721, 121; 757, 156
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1028, 383; 1036, 423
1048, 466
822,213
821, 208
1212, 670
1212, 670
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
831, 223
1212, 670;
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1212, 670
721, 121
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1215
Southeastern Express Co.-Continued.
Express employees.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay..
Rehearing on decisions.
Rules and working conditions..
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Decision No. and Page.
821, 208
822, 213; 949, 310
822,213
949, 310
723, 132; 821, 208
822, 213
1048, 466
Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System):
Classification of positions and rates.
798, 191; 903, 274; 935, 293; 997, 352;
Discipline.. 739, 151; 756, 156; 942, 298; 954, 312; 1118, 593;
Disputes, method of handling.
887,262; 903, 274; 924, 287; 969, 324; 997, 352;
Dissenting opinion..
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of..
Labor Board decisions, application of..
622, 26;
1155, 472;
1477, 1081
1170, 633;
1200, 659
815, 206; 866, 246;
1378, 975; 1379,975
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
798, 191;
815, 206; 866, 246; 935, 293; 940, 296; 976, 328; 997, 352; 1207, 662;
1293, 842; 1294, 844; 1457, 1045; 1477, 1081.
Leaves of absence..
National agreement rules, application of..
Notices, posting of………….
Overtime...
737, 150; 738, 151; 941, 297; 1207, 662
960, 316;
964, 319; 1134, 610; 1155, 624; 1183, 642; 1239, 724
1138,612
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
1155, 624; 1293, 842; 1294, 844; 1457, 1045;
Rates of pay.
622, 26; 903, 274;
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
622, 26;
903, 274; 935, 293; 940, 296; 960, 316; 969, 324; 1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486; 1134, 610; 1155, 624; 1183, 642; 1293, 842; 1294, 844; 1374,
974; 1375, 974; 1376, 974; 1377, 974; 1378, 975; 1379, 975; 1380, 975;
1381, 975; 1382, 976; 1390, 977; 1391, 978; 1457, 1045; 1458, 1047; 1459,
1049; 1460, 1052; 1461, 1056; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061; 1464, 1063; 1465,
1065; 1466, 1068; 1467, 1070; 1477, 1081.
Reduction in forces..
Rules and working conditions.
976, 328
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 726, 141; 757, 156; 815, 206; 827, 218; 828,
218; 887, 262; 1103, 587; 1341, 898; 1450, 1029.
1460, 1052; 1464, 1063; 1465, 1065; 1466, 1068; 1467, 1070
866, 246; 964, 319; 976, 328; 1239, 724; 1272, 807
Runarounds..
Seniority rights..
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinion...
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
Time lost....
Transportation act, 1920, violation of...
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
960, 316; 1134, 610
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1457, 1045
622, 26; 737, 150; 738, 151; 941, 297; 964, 319
798, 191
737, 150;
738, 151; 739, 151; 756, 156; 820, 208; 827, 218; 828, 218; 924, 287; 1138,
612; 1272, 807; 1374, 974; 1375, 974; 1376, 974; 1377, 974; 1380, 975;
1381, 975; 1382, 976; 1390, 977; 1391, 978.
Yard service..
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana:
Assignment of work.
Classification of positions and rates.
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
1364, 953
794, 187; 983, 340; 1178, 636
1152, 620
Dissenting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of....
Hours of service....
1453, 1042
1364, 953
Labor Board decisions, application of..
693, 91;
Discipline..... 695, 92; 943, 298; 1152, 620; 1186, 647; 1195, 654; 1399, 980; 1417, 993
Disputes, method of handling.
Leaves of absence..
950, 310; 1152, 620; 1178, 636; 1211, 668; 1364, 953
692, 91; 694, 91
794, 187; 1152, 620; 1178, 636
National agreement rules, application of..
Railroad Administration orders, application of…………. 1297,850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851
of....
Rates of pay.
693, 91;
794, 187; 1016, 372; 1017, 372; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1178,
636; 1297, 850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851; 1364, 953; 1400, 980; 1453, 1042.
1216
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana-Continued.
Rehearing on decisions...
Rules and working conditions..
Seniority rights..
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Decision No. and Page.
950, 310; 1211, 668
707, 100;
721, 121; 757, 156; 1103, 587; 1297, 850; 1364, 953; 1450, 1029
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
1152, 620; 1186, 647; 1441, 1015
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
692, 91; 1152, 620; 1186, 647
692, 91; 693, 91; 694, 91
695, 92; 1016, 372; 1017, 372; 1261, 756; 1399, 980; 1400, 980; 1441, 1015
Southern Pacific Terminal Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion.....
Southern Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Labor Board decisions, application of...
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1086, 557; 1365, 959; 1388, 977
1365, 959
721, 121; 1388, 977; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1086, 557; 1365, 959
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.:
Discipline.....
Dissenting opinion..
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay
Reduction in forces.
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights..
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Stony Creek Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Sullivan County Railroad:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Sunset Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
1388, 977
1189, 651
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1189, 651
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
989, 346; 1189, 651
630, 34; 721, 121
989, 346; 1189, 651
1074, 486
989, 346; 1189, 651
1028, 383; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
707, 100; 725, 137; 757, 156
1074, 486 ·
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1074, 486; 1267, 767
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Tamaqua, Hazleton & Northern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
Tennessee Central Railroad:
Dissenting opinion...
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1450, 1029
1393, 978
1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1393, 978
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1217
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis:
Classification of positions and rates.
Dissenting opinion.
Decision No. and Page.
621, 26; 711, 112
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
621, 26; 711, 112
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co.:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
611, 22; 621, 26; 1027, 382; 1036, 428; 1074, 486
630, 34; 707, 100; 725, 137; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay.
1081, 551
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1081, 551
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.... 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1081, 551; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad:
1081, 551
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion..
Texas & Pacific Railway Co.:
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates...
Discipline..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 486
1398, 979
894, 266
715, 116; 1406, 981
Dissenting opinion.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
894, 266
Labor Board decisions, application of.
593, 6
National agreement rules, application of.
593, 6
Notices, posting of..
1405, 981
Rates of pay... 593, 6; 894, 266; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1392, 978;
Rules and working conditions.
1404, 981
721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1397, 979;
Sunday and holiday service..
630, 34;
1450, 1029
593, 6
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Time lost.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1397, 979; 1398, 979; 1403, 981; 1404, 981; 1405, 981; 1406, 981; 1407, 982
Texas Midland Railroad:
706, 100; 1403, 981; 1407, 982
706, 100; 715, 116; 1392, 978;
Dissenting opinion.
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Rates of pay….
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.:
1238, 712
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Contract work....
Dissenting opinion.
Labor Board decisions, application of …
Rates of pay...
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.......
816, 206; 892, 264
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 757, 156; 892, 264; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383;
1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad:
Assignment of work..
1116, 592
Disputes, method of handling.
National agreement rules, application of.
978, 329; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
Labor Board decisions, application of.. 978, 329; 1367, 961 ; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
1110, 590;
1111, 591; 1113, 591; 1114, 592; 1115, 592; 1116, 592
1218
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad-Continued.
Rates of pay.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions...
Time lost....
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Transportation privileges..
Withdrawal of application for decisions
Toledo Terminal Railroad Co.:
Decision No. and Page.
1367, 961
978, 329; 1446, 1017
1112, 591; 1367, 961; 1446, 1017
1367,961
1367, 961
1483, 1086
1110, 590;
1111, 591; 1112, 591; 1113, 591; 1114, 592; 1115, 592; 1116, 592
630, 34
630, 34
630, 34; 1074, 486
1074, 486
630, 34
1074, 486
Dissenting opinion....
Rules and working conditions..
Trans-Mississippi Terminal Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Union Depot Co. (Columbus, Ohio):
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.:
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 910, 281; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Abolishment of positions.
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay-
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
910, 281
1024, 978
1024, 378
992, 349
1450, 1029
1363, 949
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1363, 949;
1028, 383; 1036, 423;
630, 34; 721, 121;
1205, 662; 1363, 949
757, 156; 1450, 1029
1363, 949; 1450, 1029
992, 349
1205, 662
992, 349
712, 113
Time lost..
Union Pacific System:
Abolishment of positions.
Classification of positions and rates.
Dissenting opinion.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
National agreement rules, application of...
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.):
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Union Terminal Co. of Dallas, Tex.:
Classification of positions and rates...
Discipline.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay...
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
712, 113
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
980, 330; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
992, 349
980, 330
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1471, 1075
791, 186
1471, 1075
1471, 1075
791, 186
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1219
Vermont Valley Railroad:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion..
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Virginian Railway Co.:
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Hostling service.
:
:
Decision No. and Page.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of.
-
National agreement rules, application of.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1267, 767
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Time lost.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Yard service..
Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad:
Disputes, method of handling..
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
Wabash Railway Co.:
Demotions....
-
721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1267, 767; 1450, 1029
1319, 876
1161, 628
1036, 423; 1450, 1029
1318, 875
1104, 588; 1161, 628; 1162, 629
1162, 629
1315, 871
1036, 423; 1162, 629
1104, 588; 1161, 628
757, 156; 1318, 875; 1450, 1029
1450, 1029
1161, 628
1162, 629
1315, 871
1357, 914
1357,914
1357, 914
620, 25
1234, 708
Promotions.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence..
•
Rates of pay.
-
1234, 708
1172, 634
620, 25
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.
707, 100;
721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1136, 612; 1234, 708; 1450, 1029
Seniority rights..
Supporting opinion.
620, 25
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1136, 612; 1172, 634
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion....
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Washington Terminal Co.:
Classification of positions and rates..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay...
Western Maryland Railway Co.:
Assignment of work..
Contract work....
Demotions...
Disputes, method of handling.
996, 352
1097,583
1097, 583
1032, 420
1361, 934
1032, 420
Dissenting opinion..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay….
811, 205; 1344, 902; 1361, 934
1074, 486; 1361, 934
1361, 934
811, 205; 1344, 902; 1361, 934
920, 285
920, 285; 1074, 486
Rules and working conditions.
707, 100;
721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 811, 205; 1344, 902; 1361, 934
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
1361, 934
1220
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.:
Discipline.....
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion..
Hours of service..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Decision No. and Page.
797, 191
887, 262; 987, 344; 1295, 845
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
987, 344
1304, 855
Labor Board decisions, application of.
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay.
987, 344
1199, 658
Rules and working conditions.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1295, 845
630, 34;
707, 100, 721, 121; 757, 156; 887, 262; 1295, 845; 1296, 848; 1450, 1029
Sunday and holiday service..
Supporting opinion..
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
Western Railway of Alabama:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay.
West Side Belt Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion....
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Leaves of absence.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway:
Dissenting opinion....
Rules and working conditions...
1199, 658
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1295, 845; 1304, 855
1036, 423
1036, 423
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
630, 34; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
893, 265
966, 322
1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 757, 156; 893, 265; 962, 317
1074, 486
962, 317; 966, 322
630, 34
630, 34; 707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156
Wichita Falls, Ranger & Ft. Worth Railroad Co.:
Demotions...
Discipline..
Rules and working conditions.
Seniority rights.
Withdrawal of application for decisions
Wichita Valley Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion....
Wiggins Ferry Co.:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
1387, 977
1383, 976; 1384, 976; 1455, 1044
721, 121; 1385, 976
1386, 977
1383, 976;
1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977; 1387, 977; 1455, 1044
630, 34, 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34; 721, 121; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 423; 1450, 1029
Wilkes-Barre & Eastern Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion.....
Williams Valley Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Supporting opinion.
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1074, 486
707, 100
1074, 487
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1221
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion...
York Harbor & Beach Railroad:
Dissenting opinion...
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion
Zanesville & Western Railway Co.:
Dissenting opinion..
Decision No. and Page.
630, 34; 1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 34;
707, 100; 721, 121; 725, 137; 757, 156; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rates of pay….
Rules and working conditions..
Supporting opinion..
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1028, 388; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
1074, 486
630, 34;
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486; 1450, 1029
892, 264
1028, 383; 1036, 423; 1074, 486
630, 84; 757, 156; 892, 264; 1450, 1029
1074, 486; 1450, 1029
C. DECISIONS INDEXED BY ORGANIZATIONS.
[NOTE.-Figures printed in regular type at end of detail line refer to decision numbers, while the italicized
figures indicate the page upon which the decision may be found; e. g., "1358, 915" following the index
reference to "Classification of positions and rates" refers to Decision No. 1358 appearing on page 915 of this
volume.]
Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, International Brotherhood of:
(See Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, and Helpers of America, International Brother-
hood of:
(See Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
Carmen of America, Brotherhood of Railway:
(See Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
Carpenters and Joiners of America, United Brotherhood of:
Classification of positions and rates. .
Jurisdiction of Labor Board……….
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Representation rights."
Rules and working conditions.
Clerical and Station Employees, Certain:
Classification of positions and rates.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rules and working conditions..
Clerks' Association, Michigan Central Railroad:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion..
Decision No.
and page.
1358, 915
1358, 915
1358, 915
1358, 915
1358, 915
1424, 1002
1424, 1002
1424, 1002
1074, 486
1074, 486
1074, 486
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship:
Abolishment of positions.
Assignment of work..
855, 238; 934, 292; 1237, 711; 1368, 963
909, 279; 1032, 420; 1038, 457; 1337, 894; 1338, 895; 1368, 963.
Classification of positions and rates.
740, 151
621, 26;
622, 26; 626, 29; 632, 54; 652, 68; 665, 74; 666, 75; 688, 88; 696, 92; 697,
93; 698, 94; 701, 96; 703, 98; 704, 98; 728, 145; 730, 146; 741, 152; 761,
164; 762, 165; 782, 181; 783, 181; 788, 183; 835, 227; 839, 230; 846, 233;
853, 236; 854, 237; 856, 239; 863, 244; 882, 258; 904, 276; 905, 277; 912,
281; 932, 291; 935, 293; 952, 310; 953, 311; 956, 314; 984, 341; 986, 343;
988, 344; 1033, 421; 1042, 461; 1089, 560; 1151, 619; 1155, 624; 1196, 655;
1197, 656; 1201, 659; 1202, 660; 1249, 733; 1275, 810; 1371, 970; 1373, 973;
1412, 985; 1414, 986; 1471, 1075; 1477, 1081; 1478, 1082.
Contract work.
Demotions..
Discipline.
·
701, 96;
1077, 542; 1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279, 813
727, 144; 785, 182; 1032, 420
608, 21;
612, 22; 628, 30; 636, 59; 637, 59; 641, 61; 658, 71; 663, 74; 667, 76; 668,
76; 672, 79; 675, 80; 678, 82; 680, 83; 684, 85; 695, 92; 729, 145; 736, 150,
739, 151; 756, 156; 758, 163; 763, 165; 766, 167; 767, 167; 784, 182; 791,
186; 817, 206; 818, 207; 858, 241; 865, 246; 880, 257; 888, 263; 906, 278;
931, 291; 942, 298; 943, 298; 954, 312; 957, 315; 959, 315; 965, 321; 968,
324; 1031, 419; 1035, 423; 1037, 456; 1041, 461; 1048, 466; 1088, 559;
1090, 562; 1132, 609; 1152, 620; 1157, 626; 1159, 627; 1170, 633; 1186,
647; 1189, 651; 1194, 654; 1198, 658, 1200, 659; 1203, 661; 1248, 732;
1278, 813; 1420, 997; 1473,1077, 1480, 1085.
Displacements.
1191, 653
1222
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1223
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship-Continued.
Disputes, method of handling..
Decision No. and Page.
582, 1;
583, 1; 607, 19; 643, 62; 664, 74; 669, 77; 729, 145; 782, 181; 822, 213; 829,
219; 854, 237; 874, 250; 875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256;
904, 276; 913, 281; 929, 289; 933, 292; 958, 315; 959, 315; 963, 317; 998,
353; 1031, 419; 1041, 461; 1043, 463; 1077, 542; 1081, 551; 1087, 558;
1090, 562; 1119, 594; 1132, 609; 1152, 620; 1168, 633; 1199, 658; 1208,
662; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1232, 705; 1237, 711; 1262, 757; 1331, 885
1416, 991.
Dissenting opinion.
630, 34;
821, 208; 1074, 486; 1196, 655; 1197, 656; 1229, 698; 1279, 813; 1366, 959
Express employees..
614, 23;
616, 23; 617, 24; 624, 28; 627, 30; 638, 59; 652, 68; 653, 69; 654, 69; 655, 70;
656, 70; 659, 71; 661, 72; 662, 73; 664, 74; 665, 74; 666, 75; 668, 76; 669, 77;
670, 77; 671, 78; 672, 79; 677, 81; 678, 82; 680, 83; 683, 84; 685, 86; 686, 87;
687, 87; 689, 89; 690, 89; 691, 90; 697, 93; 698, 94; 699, 94; 700, 95; 701, 96;
702, 97; 703, 98; 704, 98; 727, 144; 728, 145; 821, 208; 881, 257; 904, 276;
905, 277; 906, 278; 932, 291; 933, 292; 940, 296; 1368, 963; 1470, 1074; 1473,
1077.
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of..
Hours of service.
1276, 811
700, 95; 731, 147;
732, 148; 734, 149; 881, 257; 1038, 457; 1158, 627; 1245, 730; 1331, 885
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
607, 19;761, 164; 1077, 542;
1119, 594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279, 813; 1331, 885
Labor Board decisions, application of.
607, 19;
614, 23; 621, 26; 670, 77; 731, 147; 783, 181; 788, 183; 822, 213; 829, 219;
8:0, 231; 841, 232; 847, 233; 854, 237; 857, 240; 863, 244; 875, 251; 876, 252;
877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256; 882, 258; 904, 276; 905, 277; 913, 281; 935,293;
948, 309; 952, 310; 953, 311; 956, 314; 984, 341; 998, 353; 1033, 421; 1034,
422; 1077, 542; 1081, 551; 1087, 558; 1119, 594; 1123, 601; 1133, 610; 1135,
612; 1152, 620; 1156, 626; 1175, 635; 1197, 656; 1201, 659; 1207, 662; 1208,
662; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1232, 705; 1249, 733; 1262, 757; 1279, 813; 1330,
885; 1412, 985; 1413, 986; 1414, 986; 1416, 991; 1426, 1006; 1427, 1007;
1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010; 1471, 1075; 1473, 1077; 1477, 1081;
1478, 1082.
Leaves of absence.
605, 17;
606, 18; 634, 57; 674, 80; 682, 84; 685, 86; 686, 87; 689, 89; 691, 90; 692, 91;
693, 91; 694, 91; 701, 96; 737, 150; 738, 151; 743, 153; 744, 153; 745, 153;
746, 153;747, 154;748, 154;749, 154; 750, 154; 751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155;
754, 155; 755, 156; 760, 164;776, 176; 786, 183; 859, 241; 860, 242; 868, 247;
869, 247; 870, 248; 874, 250; 875, 251; 876, 252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256;
911, 281; 937, 294; 941, 297; 955, 313; 965, 321; 1172, 634; 1190, 652; 1207,
662; 1229, 698.
National agreement rules, application of.
606, 18;
626, 29; 632, 54; 677, 81; 683, 84; 685, 86; 687, 87; 696, 92; 705, 99; 730, 146;
731, 147; 733, 148; 734, 149; 764, 155; 824, 214; 835, 227; 839, 230; 855, 238;
872, 248; 908, 279; 917, 282; 929, 289; 936, 294; 944, 298; 956, 314; 958, 315;
960, 316; 964, 319; 984, 341; 1009, 364; 1010, 366; 1011, 368; 1024, 378;
1026, 380; 1030, 418; 1031, 419; 1033, 421; 1037, 456; 1038, 457; 1040, 459;
1041, 461; 1042, 461; 1046, 464; 1087, 558; 1134, 610; 1151, 619; 1152, 620;
1155, 624; 1168, 627; 1189, 651; 1196, 655; 1199, 658; 1201, 659; 1202, 660;
1237, 711; 1239, 724; 1240, 726; 1246, 730; 1251, 735; 1252, 737; 1270, 803;
1271, 805; 1275, 810; 1331, 885; 1337, 894; 1338, 895; 1370, 967; 1425, 1005;
1426, 1006; 1427, 1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010; 1470, 1074;
1474, 1078; 1476, 1080; 1478, 1082; 1479, 1084.
Notices, posting of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
819, 207; 1138, 612
622, 26;
666, 75; 671, 78; 679, 82; 685, 86; 686, 87; 697, 93; 698, 94; 703, 98; 704, 98;
788, 183; 824, 214; 863, 244; 953, 311; 955, 313; 1155, 624; 1251, 735; 1270,
803; 1271, 805; 1276, 811; 1371, 970.
1224
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Brotherhood
of Railway and Steamship-Continued.
Decision No. and Page.
Rates of pay.
607, 19;
610, 22; 613, 23; 616, 23; 621, 26; 622, 26; 624, 28; 632, 54; 638, 59; 640, 61;
652, 68; 653, 69: 654, 69; 655, 70; 656, 70; 659, 71; 662, 73; 665, 74; 666, 75;
670, 77; 671, 78; 679, 82; 688, 88; 693, 91; 698, 94; 700, 95; 703, 98; 704, 98;
728, 145; 730, 146; 741, 152; 742, 152; 764, 165; 783, 181; 787, 183; 788, 183;
822, 213; 824, 214; 835, 227; 839, 230; 840, 231; 841, 232; 843, 232; 845, 233;
856, 239; 857, 240; 863, 244; 872, 248; 882, 258; 904, 276; 905, 277; 929, 289;
932, 291; 935, 293; 940, 296; 945, 299; 952, 310; 956, 314; 960, 316; 984, 341:
1010, 366; 1024, 378; 1034, 422; 1074, 486; 1087, 558; 1123, 601; 1133, 610;
1134, 610; 1139, 613; 1155, 624; 1168, 633; 1175, 635; 1196, 655; 1197, 656;
1201, 659; 1205, 662; 1249, 733; 1270, 803; 1271, 805; 1276, 811; 1330, 885;
1331, 885; 1426, 1006; 1427, 1007; 1428, 1008; 1429, 1009; 1430, 1010;
1471, 1075; 1474, 1078; 1477, 1081; 1479, 1084.
Reduction in forces.
732, 148; 759, 163; 817, 206; 836, 229; 1189, 651
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights.... 583, 1; 829, 219; 998, 353; 1366, 959; 1416, 991; 1475, 1079
Rules and working conditions.
·
948, 309
582, 1;
583, 1; 630, 34; 696, 92; 700, 95; 722, 126; 723, 132; 730, 146; 821, 208;
963, 317; 965, 321; 986, 343; 988, 344; 998, 353; 1077, 542; 1081, 551;
1089, 560; 1119, 594; 1136, 612; 1156, 626; 1192, 654; 1208, 662; 1209, 665;
1210, 667; 1229, 698; 1232, 705; 1236, 710; 1262, 757; 1275, 810; 1279,
813; 1416, 991; 1470, 1074; 1475, 1079.
Seniority districts.
Seniority rights.
1039, 458
627, 30;
642, 62; 643, 62; 657, 71; 660, 72; 661, 72; 687, 87; 690, 89; 699, 94;
727, 144; 735, 149; 759, 163; 767, 167; 790, 185; 817, 206; 842, 232; 844, 232;
871, 248; 901, 273; 918, 284; 934, 292; 964, 319; 1009, 364; 1011, 368;
1015, 371; 1026, 380; 1030, 418; 1031, 419; 1035, 423; 1037, 456; 1041, 461;
1044, 463; 1083, 554; 1088, 559; 1152, 620; 1186, 647; 1189, 651; 1191, 653;
1204, 661; 1239, 724; 1247, 731; 1248, 732; 1251, 735; 1277, 813; 1370, 967;
1371, 970.
Short-line railroad.
Sunday and holiday service.
•
1123, 601
652, 68; 730, 146; 731, 147;
764, 165; 960, 316; 1087, 558; 1134, 610; 1199, 658; 1270, 803; 1271, 805
Supporting opinion..
1074, 486; 1229, 698
Time lost..
605, 17;
622, 26; 634, 57; 640, 61; 668, 76; 674, 80; 682, 84; 685, 86; 686, 87; 692,
91; 732, 148; 735, 149; 737, 150; 738, 151; 743, 153; 745, 153; 746, 153;
747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154; 751, 155; 752, 155; 753, 155; 754,
155; 755, 156; 760, 164; 764, 165; 767, 167; 786, 168; 853, 236; 854, 237;
859, 241; 860, 242; 868, 247; 869, 247; 870, 248; 874, 250; 875, 251; 876,
252; 877, 253; 878, 255; 879, 256; 911, 281; 934, 292; 937, 294; 941, 297;
955, 313; 964, 319; 1009, 364; 1010, 366; 1026, 380; 1031, 419; 1035, 423;
1037, 456; 1039, 458; 1041, 461; 1088, 559; 1152, 620; 1186, 647; 1189,
651; 1190, 652; 1248, 732; 1331, 885; 1370, 967; 1371, 970; 1479, 1084.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
822, 213; 963, 317; 1077, 542; 1119,
594; 1209, 665; 1210, 667; 1232, 705; 1262, 757; 1279, 813; 1331, 885
Transportation privileges.
617, 24; 909, 279
Vacancies, filling of.
626, 29;
651, 72; 677, 81; 699, 94; 702, 97; 705, 99; 733, 148; 735, 149; 836, 229;
855, 238; 917, 282; 986, 343; 1011, 368; 1038, 457; 1046, 464; 1089, 560;
1151, 619; 1246, 730; 1247, 731; 1250, 734; 1252, 737; 1476, 1080.
Withdrawal of application for decision..
608, 21;
613, 23; 614, 23; 616, 23; 617, 24; 624, 28; 627, 30; 628, 30; 643, 62; 657,
71; 658, 71; 660, 72; 674, 80; 675, 80; 692, 91; 693, 91; 694, 91; 695, 92;
737, 150; 738, 151; 739, 151; 741, 152; 742, 152; 743, 153; 744, 153; 745,
153; 746, 153; 747, 154; 748, 154; 749, 154; 750, 154; 751, 155; 752, 155;
753, 155; 754, 155; 755, 156; 756, 156; 766, 167; 787, 183; 791, 186; 818,
207; 819, 207; 820, 208; 823, 214; 840, 231; 841, 232; 842, 232; 843, 232;
844, 232; 845, 233; 846, 233; 847, 233; 865, 246; 870, 248; 871, 248; 872,
248; 901, 273; 908, 279; 911, 281; 912, 281; 914, 282; 915, 282; 931, 291;
936, 294; 944, 298; 945, 299; 1044, 463; 1047, 465; 1048; 466; 1049, 466;
1081, 551; 1083, 554; 1131, 609; 1135, 612; 1136, 612; 1138, 612; 1139,
613; 1156, 626; 1157, 626; 1158, 627; 1159, 627; 1172, 634; 1191, 653;
1192, 654; 1194, 654; 1198, 658; 1203, 661; 1204, 661; 1205, 662; 1236,
710; 1240, 726; 1245, 730; 1277, 813; 1278, 813; 1373, 973; 1425, 1005.
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1225
Conductors, Brotherhood of Dining Car:
Decision No. and Page.
Classification of positions and rates.
1141, 614
Disputes, method of handling..
1122, 599
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1122, 599
Railroad Administration orders, application of…….. 1122, 599;
1140, 613;
1141, 614
Rates of pay..
1140, 613
Rules and working conditions.
827, 218; 828, 218;
1122, 599;
1140, 613
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
1140, 613
Withdrawal of application for decision.
827, 218; 828, 218
Conductors, Order of Railway:
1312, 866; 1322, 878
Classification of positions and rates
-
772, 172; 1095, 581; 1301, 853; 1325, 881
Notices, posting of.
Assignment of work
Combination service.
Demotions.
Discipline...
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of.
Hours of service...
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
•
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
1300, 852
1387, 977
1383, 976; 1384, 976;
1455, 1044
724, 134;
1295, 845
1363, 949
1301, 853
718, 118
1304, 855
1117, 593;
1123, 601; 1293, 842; 1302, 854; 1365, 959
1405, 981
1293, 842;
1297, 850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851; 1303, 854; 1307, 859; 1363, 949;
1365, 959
Rates of pay.
718, 118;
719, 119; 724, 134; 772, 172; 774, 174; 1095, 581; 1123, 601;
1295, 845; 1297, 850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851; 1300, 852; 1301, 853;
1303, 854; 1306, 858; 1308, 860; 1314, 869; 1363, 949;
1404, 981; 1451, 1041; 1452, 1042.
1293, 842;
1302, 854;
1365, 959;
1390, 977;
Rebearing on decisions.
1117, 593
Rules and working conditions.
1295, 845;
1296, 848;
1297,850; 1303, 854; 1307, 859; 1312, 866; 1385, 976; 1395, 979;
1396, 979
Runarounds..
774, 174
Seniority rights.
724, 184; 772, 172; 1317, 874; 1325, 881; 1386, 977
Short-line railroads.
1123, 601
Strikes..
724, 134
Supporting opinion.
1363, 949
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
719, 119; 1295, 845; 1304, 855
Terminals, changes of.
1094, 581;
1312, 866
Time lost..
1403, 981;
1407, 982
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
1396, 979
Turnaround service..
1301, 853
Vacancies, filling of…….
773, 173; 1317, 874; 1322, 878
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1383, 976;
1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977; 1387, 977; 1390, 977; 1395, 979; 1396, 979;
1403, 981; 1404, 981; 1405, 981; 1407, 982; 1455, 1044.
Work-train service.
1326, 881
Yard service..
1303, 854; 1325, 881; 1452, 1040
Culinary Workers' Association of California, Marine:
Dissenting opinion..
Rates of pay….
1074, 486
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Dining Car Employees, Local 328:
Dissenting opinion...
1074, 486
Rates of pay.
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
Dining Car Employees, National Brotherhood:
Dissenting opinion.
1074, 486
Rates of pay..
1074, 486
Supporting opinion.
1074, 486
1226
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Dining and Sleeping Car Employees Union, Brotherhood of:
Decision No. and Page.
Dissenting opinion..
1074, 486
Rates of pay….
1074, 486
Supporting opinien.
1074, 486
Dispatchers' Association, American Train:
Assignment of work..
623, 28
Classification of positions and rates.
1029, 417
Demotions..
781, 180
Discipline..
625, 29; 919, 285; 967, 323; 1171, 634; 1372, 973;
1417, 993
Disputes, method of handling.
724, 134;
775, 175; 810, 205; 811, 205; 812, 205; 813, 205; 814, 205; 815, 206; 848, 233;
849, 234; 850, 234; 866, 246; 969, 324; 987, 344; 1244, 730; 1332, 888.
Dissenting opinion.
Hours of service..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1188, 648
987, 344
1332, 888
720, 120;
810, 205; 811, 205; 812, 205; 813, 205; 814, 205; 815, 206; 848, 233; 849, 234;
850, 234; 866, 246; 987, 344; 1188, 648; 1369, 964.
Leaves of absence.
676, 80; 785, 182;
834, 227;
-
851, 234; 852, 235; 966, 322; 1013, 369;
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
1014, 370; 1153, 622;
1188, 648
1029, 417
676, 80;
720; 120; 724, 134; 785, 182; 969, 324; 1153, 622; 1332, 888
989, 346
775, 175
721, 121;
Reduction in forces.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions..
Seniority rights.
775, 175; 810, 205; 811, 205; 812, 205; 813, 205; 814, 205; 815, 206;
883, 260; 884, 260; 938, 295; 951, 310; 961, 316; 962, 317; 1173, 634;
1369, 964.
623, 28; 635, 58; 639, 60; 724, 134;
781, 180; 866, 246; 967, 323; 981, 330; 989, 346; 1025, 379; 1272, 807
724, 134
676,80; 785, 182; 834, 227; 851, 234; 852, 235;
967, 323; 981, 330; 989, 346; 1013, 369; 1014, 370; 1023, 376; 1332, 888
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
1332, 888; 1369, 964
Vacancies, filling of..
623, 28; 635, 58; 639, 60; 1023, 376
Strikes..
Time lost..
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
883, 260; 884, 260; 938, 295; 951,310;
961, 316; 962, 317; 966, 322; 1171, 634; 1173, 634; 1244, 730; 1272, 807
Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of:
(See Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
Engineers, American Association of:
Dissenting opinion..
1074, 486
Rates of pay..
Supporting opinion.
Engineers, Beneficial Association, Marine:
Disputes, method of handling...
Rules and working conditions.
Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive:
Assignment of work..
1074, 486
1074, 486
887,262
887,262
1312, 866; 1322, 878; 1398, 979
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work....
772, 172;
1095, 581
1224, 690
Disputes, method of handling.
Demotions...
Discipline.
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of..... 1453, 1042; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
Hostling service..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Overtime....
1318, 875; 1327, 882
1224, 690; 1289, 838; 1290, 838; 1291, 838
1117, 593; 1123, 601;
1124, 603; 1302, 854; 1311, 865; 1328, 882; 1393, 978; 1457, 1045
1454, 1043; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
1387, 977
663, 74; 1319, 876; 1383, 976; 1384, 976; 1455, 1044
724, 134; 1224, 690; 1327,882; 1328, 882
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1227
Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive-Continued.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Decision No. and Page
1280, 824;
1281, 826; 1282, 827; 1283, 828; 1284, 830; 1289, 838; 1291, 838; 1292,
839; 1307, 859; 1313, 867; 1315, 871; 1327, 882; 1328, 882; 1457, 1045;
1462, 1058; 1463, 1061.
Rates of pay..
719, 119;
724, 134; 772, 172; 774, 174; 1095, 581; 1123, 601; 1280, 824; 1281, 826;
1282, 827; 1283, 828; 1284, 830; 1285, 832; 1289, 838; 1290, 838; 1291,
838; 1292, 839; 1302, 854; 1306, 858; 1313, 867; 1320, 876; 1323, 878;
1328, 882; 1389, 977; 1391, 978; 1453, 1042; 1454, 1043; 1457, 1045;
1458, 1047; 1459, 1049; 1460, 1052; 1461, 1056; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061;
1464, 1063; 1465, 1065; 1466, 1068; 1467, 1070; 1468, 1072; 1469, 1072.
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights…….
1117, 593
1327, 882
Rules and working conditions. 1224, 690; 1307, 859; 1310, 862; 1311, 865;
1318, 875; 1327, 882; 1385, 976; 1395, 979; 1396, 979;
1312, 866;
1397, 979
Runarounds.
774, 174;
1324, 879; 1460, 1052; 1464, 1063; 1465, 1065; 1466, 1068;
1467, 1070
Seniority rights.
724, 134; 772, 172;
1386, 977
Short-line railroads.
1123, 601
Strikes...
724, 134
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
719, 119; 1457, 1045
Terminals, changes of..
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Turnaround service.
1094, 581; 1312, 866
1224, 690; 1396, 979
1281, 826; 1283, 828
773, 178; 1322, 878
1383, 976;
;
Vacancies, filling of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977; 1387, 977; 1389, 977; 1391, 978; 1393, 978;
1394, 978; 1395, 979; 1396, 979; 1397, 979; 1398, 979; 1455, 1044.
1280, 824; 1282, 827; 1284, 830;
1285, 832; 1292, 839; 1315, 871; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061; 1468, 1072
Yard service...
Engineers, International Union of Steam and Operating:
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay.
Rules and working conditions.
Sunday and holiday service.
716, 117; 1073, 486; 1142, 616
716, 117; 1073, 486; 1142, 616
830, 220
1142, 616
939, 295
}
864, 245; 939, 295
Express Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Conductors, Railway:
Assignment of work.
Rules and working conditions..
864, 245
722, 126
939,295
Express employees..
Pay-day regulations.
Vacancies, filling of..
Expressmen, Order of Railway:
Express employees....
673, 79; 681, 83;
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay....
.673,79; 681,83;
900, 272; 907, 278
673, 79; 681, 83
900, 272; 907, 278
Rules and working conditions.
722, 126
Disputes, method of handling.
Ferry Boatmen's Union of California:
Rules and working conditions..
Firemen and Enginmen, Brotherhood of Locomotive:
887,262
887,262
Assignment of work...
1054, 471; 1312, 866; 1322, 878; 1398, 979
Classification of positions and rates.
772, 172; 1095, 581
Contract work…….
1224, 690
Demotions..
1387, 977
Discipline
880, 257; 1050, 466;
1051, 467;
1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1319, 876; 1383, 976; 1384, 976;
1455, 1044
Disputes, method of handling.
724, 134;
1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1224, 690; 1327, 882;
1328, 882
Dissenting opinion...
1316, 872
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of.... 1453, 1042; 1462, 1058;
Hostling service....
1463, 1061
1318, 875; 1327, 882
20936°-23-78
1228
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
1224, 690; 1289, 838;
Firemen and Enginemen, Brotherhood of Locomotive-Contd. Decision No. and Page.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board..
1290, 838; 1291, 838
Labor Board decisions, application of..
1117, 593; 1123, 601;
1224, 690; 1302, 854; 1311, 865; 1328,882; 1393, 978; 1457, 1045
Overtime...
1454, 1043; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
1280, 824; 1281, 826;
1282, 827; 1283, 828; 1284, 830; 1289, 838; 1291, 838; 1292, 839; 1307, 859;
1313, 867; 1327, 882; 1328, 882; 1457, 1045; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061.
Rates of pay…….
719, 119;
724, 134; 772, 172; 774, 174; 1095, 581; 1123, 601; 1280, 824; 1281, 826;
1282, 827; 1283, 828; 1284, 830; 1285, 832; 1289, 838; 1290, 838; 1291, 838;
1292, 839; 1302, 854; 1306, 858; 1313, 867; 1316, 872; 1320, 876; 1323, 878;
1328, 882; 1389, 977; 1391, 978; 1453, 1042; 1454, 1043; 1457, 1045;
1458, 1047; 1459, 1049; 1460, 1052; 1461, 1056; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061;
1464, 1063; 1465, 1065; 1466, 1068; 1467, 1070; 1468, 1072; 1469, 1072.
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights.
Rules and working conditions.
1117,593
1327, 882
1054, 471;
1224, 690; 1307, 859; 1310, 862; 1311, 865; 1312, 866; 1318, 875; 1327, 882;
1385, 976; 1395, 979; 1396, 979; 1397, 979.
Runarounds..
774, 174;
1324, 879; 1460, 1052; 1464, 1063; 1465, 1065; 1466, 1068; 1467, 1070.
Seniority rights..
724, 134; 772, 172; 1054, 471; 1386,977
Short-line railroads.
Strikes..
1123, 601
724, 134
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
Terminals, changes of.
Time lost..
1051, 467; 1052, 469;
719, 119; 1457, 1045
1094, 581; 1312, 866
1053, 470; 1054, 471
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
Turnaround service.
886, 260; 1054, 471;
1224, 690; 1396, 979
Vacancies, filling of..
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1281, 826; 1283, 828
773, 173; 1322, 878
1383, 976;
1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977; 1387, 977; 1389, 977; 1391, 978; 1393, 978;
1394, 978; 1395, 979; 1396, 979; 1397, 979; 1398, 979; 1455, 1044.
1280, 824; 1282, 827; 1284, 830;
1285, 832; 1292, 839; 1316, 872; 1462, 1058; 1463, 1061; 1468, 1072
Yard service..
Firemen and Oilers, International Brotherhood of Stationary:
Classification of positions and rates…….
Contract work……..
Disputes, method of handling.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
·
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Sunday and holiday service.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
Foremen's Association, Maintenance of Way:
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay………
999, 356; 1347, 905
1213, 673
1213, 673; 1347, 905
1213, 673
999, 356; 1166, 631; 1213, 673
National agreement rules, application of.
1166, 631
999, 356
725, 137; 1213, 673
1166, 631
1213, 673
1028, 383
1028, 383
770, 170
651, 68; 1121, 598
651, 68
1121, 598
1121, 598
770, 170
816, 206; 1086, 557
1086, 557
Knights of Labor:
Classification of positions and rates..
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay..
Representation rights...
Rules and working conditions.
Vacancies, filling of..
Longshoremen's Association, International:
Labor Board decisions, application of....
Rates of pay..
Machinists, International Association of:
(See Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1229
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, United
Brotherhood of:
Abolishment of positions..
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates.
Decision No. and Page.
991, 348
646, 63; 780, 179; 1364, 953
589, 5;
601, 15; 710, 112; 711, 112; 714, 115; 717, 117; 769, 169; 777, 177;
778, 177; 779, 178; 794, 187; 798, 191; 806, 200; 808, 202; 891, 263;
894, 266; 896, 268; 897, 269; 898, 270; 899, 271; 991, 348; 995, 351;
1006, 358; 1066, 482; 1100, 585; 1129, 605; 1149, 618; 1150, 618; 1167, 632;
1354, 910; 1434, 1012; 1436, 1014; 1439, 1014; 1481, 1085.
Combination service.
Contract work..
995, 351
1075, 539;
1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1221, 689; 1222, 689;
1223, 690; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1254, 741; 1256, 747.
Deadhead service.
Demotions..
Discipline.
650, 67
592, 6; 594, 8; 804, 197
588, 4;
715, 116; 831, 223; 1007, 358; 1056, 473; 1059, 475; 1069, 484; 1102, 586;
1118, 593; 1163, 629; 1340, 897; 1355, 911; 1356, 913; 1438, 1014; 1447, 1018
Disputes, method of handling.
604, 17;
650, 67; 724, 134; 778, 177; 780, 179; 990, 347; 998, 353; 1002, 357;
1056, 473; 1075, 539; 1079, 545; 1082, 553; 1149, 618; 1212, 670; 1215, 678;
1218, 683; 1222, 689; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1254, 741; 1256, 747;
1269, 793; 1344, 902; 1357, 914; 1439, 1014; 1446, 1017; 1483, 1086
Dissenting opinion..
1028, 383; 1267,767; 1269,793; 1450, 1029
Hostling service.
891, 263
Hours of service……….
Housing conditions.
602, 16; 713, 114; 771, 171; 805, 200; 1345, 903; 1364, 953
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1069, 484
894, 266;
977, 329; 1075, 539; 1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683;
1222, 689; 1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1254, 741; 1256, 747.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
593, 6;
595, 9; 600, 13; 602, 16; 644, 63; 645, 63; 649, 66; 711, 112; 798, 191;
805, 200; 806, 200; 897, 269; 898, 270; 899, 271; 902, 273; 975, 328;
977, 329; 998, 353; 1002, 357; 1027, 382; 1066, 482; 1075, 539; 1079, 545;
1098, 583; 1100, 585; 1117, 593; 1123, 601; 1129, 605; 1165, 630; 1167, 635;
1182, 642; 1185, 646; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1226, 696;
1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1254, 741; 1256, 747; 1329, 883; 1344, 902; 1345, 903;
1350, 907; 1354, 910; 1364, 953; 1446, 1017; 1481, 1085; 1483, 1086
Leaves of absence..
603, 16; 1342, 899; 1351, 907
National agreement rules, application of.
589, 5;
593, 6; 595, 9; 600, 13; 647, 64; 650, 67; 714, 115; 769, 169; 771, 171;
779, 178; 794, 187; 804, 197; 806, 200; 808, 202; 809, 203; 896, 268;
897, 269; 898, 270; 899, 271; 979, 330; 991, 348; 993, 350;
594, 8; 804, 197; 809, 203;
Overtime.
Promotions.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
•
1129, 605
808, 202
1346, 905
601, 15;
710, 112; 713, 114; 778, 177; 1066, 482; 1434, 1012
Rates of pay.
589,5;
593, 6; 595, 9; 601, 15; 602, 16; 644, 63; 645, 63; 647, 64; 649, 66; 650, 67;
714, 115; 717, 117; 724, 134; 769, 169; 771, 171; 794, 187; 805, 200;
808, 202; 891, 263; 894, 266; 896, 268; 897, 269; 898, 270; 899, 271
902, 273; 973, 326; 975, 328; 979, 330; 991, 348; 993, 350; 995, 351;
1003, 357; 1027, 382; 1028, 383; 1066, 482; 1100, 585; 1123, 601;
1129, 605; 1143, 616; 1165, 630; 1176, 635; 1182, 642; 1185, 646; 1267, 767;
1329, 883; 1354, 910; 1364, 953; 1434, 1012; 1481, 1085; 1485, 1089
Reduction in forces.
603, 16; 771, 171; 807, 201; 1164, 629
831, 223; 1117, 593; 1176, 635
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights.. 998, 353; 1082, 552; 1269, 793; 1357, 914; 1446, 1017
Rules and working conditions.
777, 177;
980, 330; 998, 353; 1002, 357; 1069, 484; 1075, 539; 1079, 545; 1082, 553;
1098, 583; 1103, 587; 1187, 647; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1222, 689;
1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1254, 741; 1256, 747; 1339, 896; 1344, 902;
1345, 903; 1350, 907; 1357, 914; 1364, 953; 1446, 1017; 1450, 1029.
Seniority districts.
1164, 629
:
1230
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers, United
Brotherhood of-Continued.
Decision No. and Page.
Seniority rights..
592, 6;
594, 8; 603, 16; 724, 184; 780, 179; 804, 197; 807, 201; 809, 203; 1056, 473;
1102, 586; 1164, 629; 1342, 899; 1343, 901; 1355, 911; 1356, 913; 1440, 1015;
1447, 1018; 1484, 1087.
Short-line railroads.
Strikes...
Sunday and holiday service.
1123, 601
724, 134
593, 6;
Supporting opinion..
595, 9; 600, 13; 717, 117; 979, 330; 993, 350; 1182, 642
1267, 767; 1269, 793; 1450, 1029
Time clocks and checking in
Time lost.
1339, 896; 1437, 1014
603, 16; 706, 100; 780, 179;
807, 201; 898, 270; 899, 271; 1056, 473; 1102, 586; 1356, 913; 1447, 1018
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
798, 191;
1003, 357; 1075, 539; 1079, 545; 1212, 670; 1215, 678; 1218, 683; 1222, 689;
1226, 696; 1230, 700; 1231, 702; 1254, 741; 1256, 747; 1329, 883.
1342, 899; 1351, 907; 1442, 1016; 1483, 1086
Transportation privileges.
Union labor membership.
Vacancies, filling of.
ན
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1056, 473
809, 203
604, 17;
706, 100; 710, 112; 715, 116; 973, 326; 975, 328; 980, 330; 1006, 358; 1143,
616; 1149, 618; 1150, 618; 1221, 689; 1223, 690; 1435, 1013; 1436, 1014;
1440, 1015; 1442, 1016.
Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America, National Organization:
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion.
Rates of pay..
Rules and working conditions.
Supporting opinion..
887, 262
1074, 486
1074, 486
887, 262
1074, 486
Metal Workers, International Alliance of Amalgamated Sheet:
(See Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.)
Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, Brotherhood of:
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1064, 629
Representation rights.
1064, 629
Rules and working conditions.
1064, 629
Police, Brotherhood Railway:
Discipline...
1419, 995
Railroad Workers, American Federation of:
Classification of positions and rates.
Contract work.
Demotions..
Disputes, method of handling.
Discipline.
998, 353; 1001, 356; 1063, 478; 1217, 682; 1219, 686; 1220, 687
597, 11; 1063, 478; 1096, 582; 1348, 906; 1353, 910
1217, 682; 1219, 686; 1220, 687
618, 24; 892, 264; 893, 265; 998, 270;
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1148, 618; 1217, 682; 1219, 686; 1220, 687; 1228, 697; 1472, 1076
1472, 1076
596, 11; 1217, 682; 1219, 686; 1220, 687
587, 3; 1148, 618
803, 197;
Jurisdiction of Labor Board
National agreement rules, application of.
Rates of pay….
1472, 1076
1228, 697
Reduction in forces.
587, 3; 1001, 356
Representation rights.
998, 353
Rules and working conditions..
618, 24;
892, 264; 893, 265; 998, 270; 1217, 682; 1219, 686; 1220, 687
Seniority rights.
Sunday and holiday service.
Time lost.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Vacancies, filling of.
587, 3; 802, 196; 1063, 478
1228, 697
587, 3; 802, 196; 1063, 478
1063, 478
1217, 682; 1219, 686; 1220, 687
802, 196
Withdrawal of application for decisions.. 596, 11; 803, 197; 1148, 618; 1228, 697
:
INDEX TO DECISIONS,
1231
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.:
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates.
Decision No. and Page.
1091, 562; 1116, 592
712, 113;
768, 168; 946, 299; 972, 325; 974, 327; 994, 350; 996, 352; 997, 352; 1072,
485; 1091, 562; 1092, 572; 1099, 584; 1130, 607; 1177, 635; 1178, 636; 1179,
639; 1180, 640.
Contract work.
Discipline.
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1225, 692; 1235, 709
1241, 727; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1258, 752; 1259, 752; 1260, 754; 1261, 756;
1263, 758; 1264, 762; 1361, 934.
584, 2;
586, 3; 590, 5; 598, 12; 599, 13; 708, 111; 792, 186; 797, 191; 926, 287; 927,
288; 928, 289; 1005, 358; 1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1020, 374; 1021, 375; 1055,
472; 1062, 478; 1070, 485; 1106, 589; 1359, 917; 1362, 942.
Disputes, method of handling.
724, 134;
895, 267; 922, 286; 978, 329; 994, 350; 997, 352; 998, 353; 1060, 476;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1161, 628; 1177, 635; 1179, 639; 1180, 640;
1181, 640; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1255, 745;
1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260.754; 1261, 756; 1263, 758; 1359, 917; 1360, 921.
Dissenting opinion..
598, 12; 833, 224; 946, 299; 947, 304; 1008, 359;
1036, 423; 1091, 562; 1092, 572; 1130, 607; 1360, 921; 1361, 934; 1362, 942
Hours of service...
890, 262; 1108, 589
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1076, 540;
1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727
1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
585, 2;
591, 6; 796, 190; 890, 263; 928, 289; 971, 325; 974, 327; 976, 328; 978, 329;
994, 350; 997, 352; 998, 353; 1060, 476; 1061, 478; 1072, 485; 1076, 540;
1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1099, 584; 1104, 588; 1107, 589; 1109, 590; 1117, 593;
1123, 601; 1124, 603; 1125, 603; 1126, 604; 1127, 604; 1128, 605; 1161, 628;
1162, 629; 1177, 635; 1178, 636; 1179, 639; 1180, 640; 1181, 640; 1214, 675;
1216, 679; 1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241, 727; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754;
1261, 756; 1263, 758; 1359, 917; 1361, 934; 1362, 942; 1443, 1016.
Leaves of absence.
National agreement rules, application of.
586, 3; 1070, 485
585, 2;
712, 113; 793, 187; 895, 267; 920, 285; 921, 286; 923, 287; 971, 325;
972, 325; 974, 327; 1004, 357; 1091, 562; 1092, 572; 1108, 589; 1110, 590;
1111, 591; 1113, 591; 1114, 592; 1115, 592; 1116, 592; 1162, 629; 1178, 636;
1181,640; 1183, 642; 1362, 942.
1107,
589
994, 350
585, 2;
Notices, posting of...
Piecework.
1076, 540; 1144, 616; 1257, 750; 1360, 921
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay.
724, 134; 890, 263; 920, 285; 971, 325; 994, 350; 1004, 357; 1036, 423;
1107, 589; 1109, 590; 1123, 601; 1162, 629; 1178, 636; 1181, 640; 1183, 642;
1359, 917; 1360, 921.
Reduction in forces.
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights.
972, 325; 976, 328
1117, 593;
1124, 603; 1125, 603; 1126, 604; 1127, 604; 1128, 605
946, 299; 947, 304; 978, 329; 998, 353; 1061, 478;
1091, 562; 1099, 584; 1104, 588; 1161, 628; 1179, 639; 1180, 640; 1360, 921
Rules and working conditions.
833,224;
982, 332; 998, 353; 1008, 359; 1057, 474; 1060, 476; 1061, 478; 1071, 485;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1030, 548; 1112, 591; 1214, 675; 1216, 679;
1225, 692; 1235, 709; 1241. 727; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754;
1263, 758; 1361, 934; 1362, 942.
Seniority districts.
Seniority rights..
1065, 480
586, 3;
590, 5; 598, 12; 599, 13; 724, 134; 768, 168; 792, 186; 889, 263; 895, 267;
927, 288; 976, 328; 1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1020, 374; 1021, 375; 1022, 376;
1055, 472; 1065, 480; 1359, 917.
Short-line railroads..
Strikes...
Sunday and holiday service.
Supporting opinions.
1123, 601
724, 134; 1360, 921
1107, 589; 1109, 590; 1359, 917
946, 299; 947, 304; 1008, 359; 1091, 562; 1362, 942
1232
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD,
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.-Continued.
Time lost.
Decision No. and Page.
590, 5;
598, 12; 599, 13; 768, 168; 792, 186; 793, 187; 926, 287; 927, 288;
972, 325; 1018, 373; 1019, 373; 1021, 375; 1022, 376; 1055, 472;
1130, 607; 1161, 628; 1362, 942.
Transportation act, 1920, violation of..
982, 332;
1076, 540; 1078, 544; 1080, 548; 1214, 675; 1216, 679; 1225, 692; 1235, 709;
1241, 727; 1255, 745; 1257, 750; 1259, 752; 1260, 754; 1263, 758; 1361, 934.
Vacancies, filling of.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1130, 607
591, 6;
708, 111; 793, 187; 796, 190; 889, 263; 921, 286; 922, 286; 923, 287;
928, 289; 1004, 357; 1005, 358; 1057, 474; 1061, 478; 1062, 478; 1070, 485;
1071, 485; 1072, 485; 1106, 589; 1108, 589; 1110, 590; 1111, 591; 1112, 591;
1113, 591; 1114, 592; 1115, 592; 1116, 592; 1144, 616; 1162, 629;
1258, 752; 1261, 756; 1264, 762; 1443, 1016; 1444, 1016.
Signalmen of America, Brotherhood Railroad:
Abolishment of positions.
Assignment of work……..
Classification of positions and rates..
Demotions.
Discipline..
Disputes, method of handling.
Eating and sleeping accommodations..
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
992, 849
1184, 643
709, 111;
795, 189; 800, 193; 903, 274; 1184, 643
709, 111; 801, 194
1068, 483
709, 111; 903, 274; 924, 287; 1067, 482
1067, 482
1067, 482; 1184, 643
648, 65;
1097, 583; 1101, 586; 1105, 588; 1120, 597; 1123, 601; 1184, 643
National agreement rules, application of.
Promotions.
800, 193; 801, 194; 1184, 643
801, 194
795, 189; 903, 273; 1184, 643
648, 65; 795, 189; 800, 193; 903, 273; 1097, 583;
1101, 586; 1105, 588; 1123, 601; 1184, 643; 1227, 697; 1445, 1016.
Rules and working conditions.
707, 100; 1067, 482; 1120, 597; 1341, 898
Seniority rights..
801, 194; 1441, 1015
1123, 601
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
Rates of pay. . .
Short-line railroads.
Sunday and holiday service.. 648, 65; 1101, 586; 1105, 588; 1227, 697; 1445, 1016
Time lost.
992, 349
Withdrawal of application for decisions.. 924, 287; 1068, 483; 1227, 697; 1441, 1015
Station Agents, Order of Raiload:
Disputes, method of handling.
1145, 617; 1146, 617; 1147, 617; 1160, 627
Labor Board decisions, application of.... 1145, 617; 1146, 617; 1147, 617; 1160, 627
Representation rights.
1160, 627
1145, 617; 1146, 617; 1147, 617; 1160, 627
Rules and working conditions.
Station Employees, Brotherhood of Railroad:
Classification of positions and rates..
633, 56; 765, 166; 838, 230
765, 166
Combination service.
Dissenting opinion..
630, 34; 1450, 1029
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
Labor Board decisions, application of..
National agreement rules, application of…
1431, 1011
1431, 1011
633, 56;
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay
838, 230; 1093, 579; 1169, 633; 1431, 1011
1093, 579
633, 56; 1093, 579; 1431, 1011
630, 34; 838, 230; 1450, 1029
Supporting opinion..
Rules and working conditions.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Supervisors of Mechanics, International Association of Railroad:
Classification of positions and rates...
Disputes, method of handling..
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rates of pay.
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights..
1450, 1029
1169, 633
970, 324; 1352, 909
629, 31; 631, 50
1117, 593; 1349, 906; 1352, 909
970, 324; 1352, 909
1117, 593
629, 31; 631, 50
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1233
Supervisors of Mechanics, International Association of Railroads Contd.
Decision No. and Page.
Rules and working conditions.
629, 31; 631, 50; 726, 141; 1349, 906
Seniority rights...
1000, 356
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1000, 356
Supervisory Foremen, International Association of Railroad:
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rehearing on decisions...
1117, 593
1117, 593
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America, International
Brotherhood of:
Rules and working conditions……….
722, 126
Telegraphers, Order of Railroad:
Abolishment of positions..
609, 21
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates.
1091, 562; 1242, 727
837, 229;
873, 249; 930, 289; 983, 340; 1091, 562; 1253, 739; 1274, 809
Contract work..
Demotions..
Discipline.
1253, 739
619, 24; 620, 25
1012, 369; 1195, 654; 1449, 1028
724, 134;
825, 215; 826, 217; 832, 223; 837, 229; 1234, 708; 1253, 739; 1274, 809;
1286, 833; 1333, 890; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893; 1378, 975; 1379, 975;
1410, 982; 1415, 986.
Disputes, method of handling.
Dissenting opinion...
Express employees.
Hours of service.
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1091, 562; 1268, 791; 1410, 982
1206, 662
789, 191; 1154, 623; 1242, 727; 1286, 833; 1423, 1000
1193, 654; 1286, 833
Labor Board decisions, application of... 832, 223; 1117, 593; 1123, 601; 1174, 634;
1234, 708; 1268, 791; 1286, 833; 1287, 836; 1367, 961; 1415, 986; 1432, 1011
National agreement rules, application of.
Promotions.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
1091, 562
619, 24; 620, 25; 1084, 555
873, 249;
1154, 622; 1253, 739; 1273, 808; 1333, 890; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893
Rates of pay.
609, 21;
611, 22; 724, 134; 861, 243; 862, 244; 873, 249; 1016, 372; 1017, 372;
1123, 601; 1206, 662; 1265, 763; 1268, 791; 1273, 808; 1274, 809; 1286, 833;
1287, 836; 1367, 961; 1374, 974; 1375, 974; 1376, 974; 1377, 974; 1378, 975
1379, 975; 1380, 975; 1381, 975; 1382, 976; 1410, 982; 1421, 997; 1422, 998;
1423, 1000.
Rehearing on decisions.
Representation rights..
Rules and working conditions.
885, 260; 1117, 593
825, 215; 826, 217; 832, 223; 1091, 562; 1415, 986
757, 156;
825, 215; 826, 217; 832, 223; 873, 249; 910, 281; 916, 282; 930, 289; 1234, 708;
1333, 890; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893; 1367, 961; 1449, 1028.
Seniority rights..
619, 24; 620, 25; 724, 134;
867, 246; 1045, 463; 1084, 555; 1243, 728; 1334, 891; 1335, 892; 1336, 893
Short-line railroads..
1123, 601
Strikes..
724, 134
Sunday and holiday service.
1273, 808
Supporting opinion.
1091, 562
Time lost.... 789, 184; 1154, 623; 1286, 833; 1287, 836; 1367, 961; 1421, 997; 1422, 998
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
1286, 833;
1287, 836; 1367, 961; 1410, 982; 1415, 986
Vacancies, filling of..
1193, 654; 1250, 734; 1333, 890
861, 243; 862, 244; 867, 246;
910, 281; 916, 282; 1016, 372; 1017, 372; 1174, 634; 1206, 662; 1374, 974;
1375, 974; 1376, 974; 1377, 974; 1380, 975; 1381, 975; 1382, 976; 1432, 1011.
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
Trainmen, Brotherhood of Railroad:
Assignment of work..
Classification of positions and rates.
Combination service.
Demotions..
-
1054, 471; 1312, 866; 1322, 878
772, 172; 1095, 581; 1301, 853; 1325, 881
1300, 852
1387,977
-
1234
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Trainmen, Brotherhood of Railroad-Continued.
Discipline.
Decision No. and Page.
886, 260; 1050, 466; 1051, 467; 1052,469; 1053, 470;
1383, 976; 1384, 976; 1399, 980; 1406, 981; 1455, 1044; 1456, 1045
Disputes, method of handling... 724, 134; 1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1295, 845
Dissenting opinion...
Federal boards of adjustment, decisions of.
Hours of service..
1316, 872; 1363, 949
1301, 853
718, 118
Jurisdiction of Labor Board.
1304, 855; 1456, 1045
886, 260;
1117, 593; 1123, 601; 1293, 842; 1294, 844; 1302, 854; 1321, 877; 1365, 959
Notices, posting of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of.
1405, 981
1280, 824;
Labor Board decisions, application of.
1293, 842; 1294, 844; 1297, 850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851; 1303, 854; 1307, 859;
1321, 877: 1363, 949; 1365, 959.
Rates of pay.
718, 118;
719, 119; 724, 134; 772, 172; 774, 174; 1095, 581; 1123, 601; 1280, 824; 1285,
832; 1293, 842; 1294, 844; 1295, 845; 1297, 850; 1298, 850; 1299, 851; 1300,
852; 1301, 853; 1302, 854; 1303, 854; 1305, 857; 1306, 858; 1308, 860; 1314,
869; 1316, 872; 1321, 877; 1363, 949; 1365, 959; 1390, 977; 1392, 978; 1400,
980; 1404, 981; 1451, 1041; 1452, 1042.
Rehearing on decisions.
Rules and working conditions.
1117, 593
1054, 471; 1295, 845; 1296, 848;
1297, 850; 1303, 854; 1307, 859; 1312, 866; 1385, 976; 1395, 979;
1396, 979
Runarounds.
774, 174
Seniority rights.
724, 134; 772, 172; 1054, 471; 1317, 874;
1325, 881;
1386, 977
Short-line railroads.
1123, 601
Strikes...
724, 134
Supporting opinion.
·
1363, 949
Terminal delay and work by road crews.
Terminals, changes of…………
Time lost..
719, 119; 1295, 845;
1051, 467; 1052, 469; 1053, 470; 1054, 471; 1403, 981; 1407, 982
Transportation act, 1920, violation of.
Turnaround service.
1304, 855
1094, 581; 1312, 866
886, 260; 1054, 471; 1396, 979
1301, 853
773, 173; 1317, 874; 1322, 878; 1401, 980; 1402, 980
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
1383, 976;
1384, 976; 1385, 976; 1386, 977; 1387, 977; 1390, 977; 1392, 978; 1395, 979
1396, 979; 1399, 980; 1400, 980; 1401, 980; 1402, 980; 1403, 981; 1404, 981;
1405, 981; 1406, 981; 1407, 982; 1455, 1044.
Vacancies, filling of………
Work-train service.
Yard service.
1326, 881
1280, 824; 1285, 832;
1303, 854; 1305, 857; 1316, 872; 1321, 877; 1325, 881; 1452, 1042; 1456, 1045
Trainmen in America, Protective Order of Railroad:
Classification of positions and rates.
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Railroad Administration orders, application of..
Rates of pay.
Train Porters' Union No. 17454:
Labor Board decisions, application of..
Rules and working conditions.
1309, 861
1309, 861
1309, 861
1309, 861
1388, 977
1388,977
1388, 977
Yardmasters of America, Railroad:
Labor Board decisions, application of.
Rates of pay.
Disputes, method of handling..
Rules and working conditions..
Withdrawal of application for decisions..
1411, 984
1411, 984
1411, 984
1408, 982;
1409, 982
1408, 982; 1409, 982
Withdrawal of application for decisions.
INDEX TO ADDENDA.
ADDENDA INDEXED BY SUBJECTS.
[NOTE.-Figures printed in regular type at end of detail line refer to addendum numbers, while the ital
icized figures indicate the page upon which the addendum may be found; e. g., “1-1074, 1112" following the
index reference to "Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co." refers to Addendum No. 1 to Decision
No. 1074 appearing on page 1112 of this volume.]
Carriers Added as Parties to Decisions:
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co....
Bangor & Aroostook Railway Co.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway.
Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
Central Vermont Railway.
Chesapeake & Ohio Lines..
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co..
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. of Indiana.
Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Chicago Junction Railway Co..
Chicago River & Indiana Railway Co..
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co.
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Co.
Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co…..
Addendum No.
and Page.
A. 1–1074, 1112
A. 4-1028, 1107
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 4-147, 1095
A. 2-757, 1102
A. 3-630, 1100
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 2-1028, 1105
A. 1-630, 1099
A. 1-630, 1099
A. 3-757, 1103
A. 1-757, 1101
A.. 2–501, 1098
A. 10-222, 1096
Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Co..
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway Co.
A. 13-222, 1097; 3–501, 1099
A. 3-757, 1103
Galveston Wharf Co..... A. 12–222, 1096; 2–1028, 1105; 2–1036, 1109; 2–1074, 1113
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co...
Grand Canyon Railway Co...
A. 3-1028, 1107
A. 1–1074, 1112
A. 3-1036, 1111
Green Bay & Western Railroad.
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co..
Hocking Valley Railway Co..
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co..
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co..
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Railroad Co.
A. 2-1036, 1109; 2–1074, 1113
A. 4-147, 1095
A. 1-1028, 1104; 1–1036, 1108
A. 2-1028, 1105
A. 2-1036, 1109
Louisiana Southern Railway Co…………….. A. 2–1028, 1105; 2–1036, 1109; 2–1074, 1113
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & Railroad Co.
Maine Central Railroad Co..
Memphis Union Station Co.
Midland Valley Railroad Co.
-
New York Central Railroad Co.
A. 3-757, 1103
A. 1-1267, 1116
A. 2-1028, 1105; 2-1036, 1109; 2-1074, 1113
New York Central Railroad Co. (Lines East & West)...
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co...
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co..
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Co..
Portland Terminal Co……..
Pullman Co.
St. Johns River Terminal Co.
St. Louis & Hannibal Railroad Co.
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co..
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co of Texas.
Southern Railway Co..
Sunset Railway Čo..
Tennessee Central Railroad Co....
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
Virginian Railway Co.
Washington Terminal Co..
Western Maryland Railway Co.
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
West Side Belt Railroad Co...
Zanesville & Western Railway Co..
A. 2-1028, 1105
.A. 1–725, 1101; 1–757, 1101
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 2-630, 1100
A. 1-757, 1101
A. 11-222, 1096
A. 1–1267, 1116
A. 2-1036, 1109
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 4-501, 1099
A. 2–1036, 1109; 2–1074, 1113
A. 2-1036, 1109; 2–1074, 1113
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 2-1036, 1109
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 14-222, 1097
A. 2-1036, 1109; 2-1074, 1113
A. 4-147, 1095
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 11-222, 1096
A. 1-721, 1101
1235
1236
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Carriers Excluded from Decisions:
Seaboard Air Line Railway.
Union Railway Co. (Memphis, Tenn.)
Employees Added to Decisions:
Clerical and station forces.
Dispatchers, train.
Flagmen, crossing watchmen.
Laborers, common.
Miscellaneous employees.
Addendum No.
and Page.
A. 1-1266, 1115
A. 2-1266, 1115
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 4-147, 1095
A. 4-1028, 1107
A. 4-1028, 1107; 1-1267, 1116
Stationary engine (steam) and boiler-room employees.
Signal department employees....
Employees Excluded from Decisions:
Drawbridge tenders and assistants..
Engineers and pumpers, pumper.
Firemen, pile-driver, ditching and hoisting.
Foremen
Assistant section, track, and maintenance.
Section track, and maintenance..
Laborers, track and maintenance of way department.
Lamplighters and tenders …
Watchmen or flagmen, crossing.
Modification of Decisions:
Decision No. 757-
Overtime rules, limited to..
Organizations Added as Parties to Decisions:
Station Employees, Brotherhood of Railroad..
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 1-1074, 1112
A. 2-1267, 1117
A. 2-1267, 1117
A. 2-1267, 1117
A. 2-1267, 1117
A. 2-1267, 1117
A. 2-1267,1117
A. 2-1267,1117
A. 2-1267, 1117
A. 1-757, 1101; 3–757, 1103
A. 1-1028, 1104
INDEX TO INTERPRETATIONS.
INTERPRETATIONS INDEXED BY SUBJECTS.
[NOTE.-Figures printed in regular type at end of detail line refer to interpretation numbers, while the
italicized figures indicate the page upon which the interpretation may be found; e. g., "2-501, 1129" foi-
lowing the index reference to "Not covered in decision of board" refers to Interpretation No. 2 to Decision
No. 501 appearing on page 1129 of this volume.]
Classification of Positions and Rates:
Not covered in decision of board
Not covering all principles in dispute.
Labor Board Decisions, Interpretation of:
Section 1.
Provisions of decision.
Decision No. 501-
Instructions-
Section 3.
Overtime.
·
Rules, application of.
Decision No. 630-
Rule 57..
Sickness, time absent account
Vacations with pay.
Decision No. 707-
Overtime.
Sunday and holiday service.
•
Interpretation No.
and page.
In. 2-501, 1129
In. 2-501, 1129
In. 23-2, 1123
In. 6-119, 1123
In. 2-501, 1129
In. 1-501, 1127
In. 2-501, 1129
In. 1-630, 1130
In. 2-630, 1130
•
In. 2-630, 1130
In. 1-707, 1130
In. 1-707, 1130
In. 1-707, 1130
In. 1-721, 1131
In. 1-721, 1181
Work called for outside regular hours.
Sickness, time absent account.
Vacations with pay.
Rates of Pay:
Application of increases to—
Engineers.
Firemen.
Maintenance of way employees.
Passenger service..
Basic schedule wages defined..
Overtime-
Clerical and station employees.
Maintenance of way employees.
Signal department employees.
-
In. 23-2, 1123
In. 23-2, 1123
In. 2 to A. 2-119, 1124
In. 23-2, 1123
In. 23-2, 1123
In. 1-630, 1130
In. 2 to A. 2-119, 1124; 1–501, 1127
Schedule rules affecting pay, application of—
Bulletins covering Sunday and holiday work..
Overtime..
Sickness, time absent account.
Sunday and holiday service.
Vacations with pay.
Rules and Working Conditions:
Overtime..
•
·
Procedure for handling disputed rules..
Rules-
Not covered in decision of board
In. 1-707, 1130
In. 1-222, 1125
In. 1-501, 1127; 1-630, 1130; 1-707, 1130
In. 2-630, 1130; 1-721, 1131
In. 1-222, 1125; 1-707, 1130
In. 2-630, 1130; 1-721, 1131
In. 1-501, 1127; 1-630, 1130; 1-707, 1130
In. 2-501, 1129
Not covering all principles in dispute.
Sickness, time lost account.
Sunday and holiday service.
Vacations with pay.
Work called for outside of regular hours.
In. 2-501, 1129
In. 2-501, 1129
In. 2-630, 1130; 1-721, 1131
In. 1–222, 1125; 1–707, 1130
In. 2-630, 1130; 1–721, 1131
In. 1-222, 1125; 1-707, 1130
1237
INDEX TO APPENDIX.
A. RESOLUTIONS.
Canceling Date of Hearings:
Engineers' and firemen's rules
Violation of Board's Decisions:
Contracting work...
Strikes:
Threatened strike of July 1, 1922……….
Rights of employees refusing to strike..
Striking employees-
Performing work of..
Reinstatement of.
Labor Unions:
Page.
1137
1137
1137, 1139
1139
1140
1141
Employees directed to form organizations………….
1139
Seniority Rights:
Reinstatement of striking employees...
1141
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Contract Work:
Shopwork on the Erie system...
1143
Hearings Set by Board:
Engineers' and firemen's rules.
1144
1239
Table 1.-CUMULATIVE TABLE SHOWING DOCKETS UPON WHICH
DECISIONS, ADDENDA, OR INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED.
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
[NOTE.-The asterisk is used to indicate dockets and decisions upon which addenda or interpretations
have been rendered.]

Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
*2
46..
38
*104.
*1.
*119
48..
со
8
105
37
*757
*50
*107
11.
17
54.
43
108..
156
*2
55..
21
109
157
*2.
*119
56.
22
110
53
*757
57.
23
111-1
47
*2
58..
52
111-2
48
*3.
*119
59
34
111-3
49
*757
60
85
112
58
4.
5
3
61..
35
113
94
3
62..
24
115
158
•
6.
3
63
25
116
159
8
916
64
26
117.
107
9..
4
65
27
118-A
59
10-
6
66
28
118-B
60
12.
18
67
29
118-C
61
13.
13
68..
30
118-D...
62
14.
109
69
93
118-G
63
15.
7
*70
118-1
64
16.
32
*71.
118-J
71
20
*72..
118-K.
65
17..
887
*73
118-L..
66
19..
54
*74..
118-N
67
20.
10
*75
118-0..
68
21.
11
*76
118-P...
72
22.
11
*77
118-Q
73
23-
11
78..
44
118-R.
74
25
427
81
150
118-S.
75
25.1.
428
83
9
118-T
69
25.2...
429
*84
118-U
76
25.3.
430 *85
118-V
77
25.4.
431 *86
118-W
78
25.5....
432 *88
118-X.
79
25.6.
433 *89
118-Y.
80
25.7.
434
*90
118-Z..
81
25.9.
435 91
31
119-1.
145
25.10...
25.11.
25.12...
436 92
36
119-2.
146
437
*93.
120.
41
438 94
39
121.
42
26..
26-A.
108
*95.
122.
300
33
96.
86
123-B..
82
27..
5
97
122
123-C...
83
30..
34..
36..
38
2242
12
98..
45
123-D...
84
19
99
46
124.
204
14
100..
87
126.
1280
70
101..
40
127
1281
*40.
102-1
56
128.
1282
43..
55
102-2.
57
129.
1283
45.
16
*103..
130..
1284
1240
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1241
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
131.
1285
201
165
277.
323
132..
51
203.
133
278.
1300
133
50 204
177
279.
481
134..
160 205.
166
280..
1301
136.
92 206..
136
281.
324
137.
260
207..
137
282.
1302
138.
307
208
178
283..
1303
140.
88 209
134 284.
1304
141.
439
210.
113
285..
496
89
211.
236
286..
497
142..
121
213.
135
287..
498
*144.
216
179
289
239
147.
123
217
267
292..
189
148.
124
218.
318
293.
170
149.
125
219.
319
294.
190
150.
95
220.
320
295..
171
151.
96
221.
321
297..
718
152.
97
222
1293
298..
117
153.
98
223.
1365
299.
144
154.
1289
224.
1294
300.
118
155.
1290
225.
167
301..
526
*156..
228
206
202..
1305
157.
104 229.
207
{0}..
1316
158.
105
*230.
305.
172
159.
308 231.
114
306..
191
160
1291
232..
180
307..
240
161.
176 233.
115
309.
192
162..
106
234.
116
310.
193
163..
151
235.
208
*312.
164.
126
236.
190
313.
1363
165.
127
237.
168
314.
223
166.
110
238..
169
315..
216
168.
129
239.
131
316..
249
169.
309
240.
181
317..
301
170.
143
*242.
318.
1094
-
171..
130
243.
480 319..
719
172.
90
244.
1295
320..
772
173.
112
245.
1296 321..
1306
175.
1292
246.
1297
322..
773
176.
99
247.
1298
323
774
177.
100
248.
1299
324..
1095
178.
101
250.
182 325..
1307
179.
102
251..
237
326..
250
180..
103
252
183
327..
499
181.
310
254.
238
328..
1308
182.
311 257.
138 329..
527
183.
312
258.
140
120
330..
184.
313 259
929
149
-
185.
314
260.
139
331
1288
186.
315 261..
141
333..
111
187.
316|| 262.
184
334
1309
188.
317 263.
185
335..
1270
189.
550
221
336..
1271
264.
190.
128
1432
337..
194
191.
91
267..
186
338..
241
192..
152 269
187
339
195
195.
235
271.
188
340.
242
196.
161
272.
209
341.
196
197..
162
273.
142
343..
197
198
132 274.
212
344.
198
199.
163
275.
322
345..
268
200.
164
276..
210
346..
199
1242
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
347.
200
408...
348.
243
{
528 473.
402
886 474.
339
251 409.
1315
*222
349..
1176
410.
1318
*501
350.
201 411
1319
*630
352.
226 412
1327
*707
*147
413
1320
*721
*353.
174
414.
485 *475....
*725
353-56-D.
720
415..
486
726
*353-96-G.
*215 416.
487
830
353-214-A.
217 418.
1328
1081
353-273-A.
1268 419
1321
1120
353-277-A.
228 420.
327
*1266
353-290-A.
290 421.
1096
475-10-11.
884
354..
213 422.
257 475-10-82.
961
355.
457
423.
258
475-10-91.
938
356.
252 424
579
475-10-144.
£62
357.
253 425
230
475-10-176.
883
·
358..
1091
426..
224
475-18-94-C..
1145
359..
202 427.
397
475-18-94-D.
1146
·
360.
148 428.
323
475-18-101.
1147
361.
269 429.
329
475-24-68.
1408
362
254
430.
330
475-24-94-L..
1409
363.
203
431.
551
476..
893
364.
302 432
331
477.
1288
365..
244 433.
398
403
478..
366..
245
434.
706
925
367.
246
435.
231
479.
1238
·
214
436.
232
480.
404
368.
1117
437
233 482
340
369.
325
332
485.
341
438.
370.
255
902
486.
1212
372..
270
440...
399
488..
342
373.
289 441.
440
490.
811
374.
1310 442
441
491.
812
·
375.
326 443
234
492..
272
376.
482 444
400 493.
247
377..
1311 445.
333
494.
248
•
379
380..
154
446.
442
496.
813
153
447.
443
497.
273
381.
155 448.
444
498..
364
382
1312 449.
259
499.
274
383.
1313 *450.
514
500.
275
•
384.
810 451.
445
501.
359
385..
554 452
446
502.
375
387..
261
453.
447
503.
276
389..
175 454.
924
504.
262
390.
256 455.
448
508.
277
391.
803
456
1208
509.
343
392.
173
457
502
511.
376
393
483
460..
334
512..
365
394.
1314 461.
335
513.
278
395.
1122 462
336
514.
279
398..
205
463..
337
515.
1237
*399..
465.
401
516.
280
400.
271
466.
338
517..
263
402.
374 467
229
520..
458
403.
219
468..
1322
523.
459
*404.
*218 469..
488
526.
306
405.
220 470.
489 528.
294
406.
484
471.
500 529.
281
407.
1140
472..
1055
530.
264
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1243
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket. No.
Decision No.
531.
265
616.
452
476
687...
532..
266
617.
453
950
534..
344 618.
454
689...
644
535.
304
619.
455
691..
564
536.
295 621.
350
692..
466
537.
360
622
351
693.
412
538.
296
625
384
694.
1456
*
539.
297
626
405
695...
1457
541.
908
627.
406
696.
1458
542..
282
628..
352
697..
1459
543.
298
629.
407
699...
1460
544
361
630
385
701..
1461
545.
362
631
606
703.
1462
546.
283
632.
408
704..
1463
547
305
583
705.
1464
-
633..
548..
363
829
706...
1465
550.
366 634.
866
707.
1466
551.
284
635.
287
708.
1467
·
552.
285
636
460
709.
815
553
377
637
386
710.
1188
·
554.
286
638.
373
711.
573
555..
378
639.
1454
713..
477
556.
345
641.
368
714.
516
560.
379 642.
225
715..
1443
563.
380
552
716.
413
643.
564..
367
831
717.
621
566..
530
644.
814
718..
930
567..
619
645.
560
719..
505
570.
381 646.
461
720..
293
571.
1141
648..
288
721...
1468
573.
1323 650.
558 722..
467
574.
1324
651.
478
723..
634
575.
490
652.
479
725...
1469
576.
1317
653.
462
727..
775
-
577..
1325
654.
409
732...
781
578.
346
655.
353
733.
622
579.
347
656.
515
734..
767
❤
580.
1326
657-
354
227
735...
581.
348 658.
620
414
583.
491 659.
867
736...
645
-
591.
1451 661..
291
739.
356
592..
449
662...
410
740..
532
593.
450
663.
411
741...
1425
594
492 664.
355
742.
1083
595.
1452
665.
1455
744.
415
596..
493
666...
1383
745...
416
597
541 667..
1384
746...
417
598.
542
668..
1385
747.
635
-
599.
543
669.
1386
749.
557
600.
544
*671..
750..
556
601..
1075 673..
1387
751.
533
602..
605 674.
369
752...
730
604.
382 675.
370
753..
468
605.
854
676.
371
754.
388
607.
889 677.
572
755...
555
608..
529 678..
463
756...
565
609..
383 679..
464
757..
574
611..
494 680..
855
758...
389
612.
1453
681..
387
759.
390
613.
349 682.
465
760.
566
614.
824 683..
531
761..
567
615..
451 685..
563
762...
372
20936°-23-79
1244
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.

Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
763.
418
865.
1272
932
546
764..
469
870.
632 933
733
770..
419 871..
1426
934
734
771
357 872..
1427
935
642
772
420
873.
782
936.
823
778
580 874.
1428 937
569
779.
358 875.
624 938.
735
780.
1444 876.
1429 939
578
781.
917 877.
1430
940.
588
782
635 878.
756 941
1230
783
731
$79.
609 942
793
784.
391
892
944.
522
880.
785.
559
425
945
523
790.
392 || 881.
395 || 946.
1433
791.
393
882..
625
947
426
800..
856
883.
470 948.
426
801.
506
884.
857
949.
426
802.
873
885.
858
950.
629
205
584
886..
783
951.
631
807
507
887
471
952
570
808.
575 888.
472
956
426
809
637
889.
536 || 957
589
819.
576 890.
640
958
524
812.
585 891.
875
959
594
813.
508
892..
876 || 969.
547
814.
534
893.
473
961
715
815.
539
894
537 963
590
816.
421
895..
877
964.
711
817.
422 896..
878 965
591
1057
898..
553 966
712
819.
292
899.
1331
967..
597
821.
423
900.
626
598
968..
822
424|| 901..
879
1418
831
607|| 902..
474 969.
525
832
540 903.
610|| 970.
599
$33.
509
904.
696 971.
946
$34.
874
633 972.
708
835.
837
838.
1388 905..
510 906...
511 908..
1169
976..
816
1329 977
676
611 979
618
839
512 909..
396981..
1359
841.
561 910..
931 || 982..
1359
842.
562 911.
475 || 983..
600
843.
535 912
538
984
646
844
513 913
612
985.
1222
845.
299 914
641986..
1223
846.
456 915
1333 || 987
601
847.
652 916
1334 989
647
848
638 917.
1335
990.
602
819
586 918
503
991.
603
850.
982 919
595
992..
548
-
851.
581 920.
517
993
777
•
852.
854.
1078 922
1079
426 994
604
923..
518|| 995
592
857
608924..
519 || 997.
792
858...
1370
925.
593
998..
947
859.
918
926.
520 999
1362
860.
568 || 927.
775
1000.
1362
861.
623
928
1286 1001.
709
862..
577
929.
58.7 1002
648
863.
394|| 930
521 1003
596
864.
639
931
1336 1004.
549
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1245
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.

Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
1005.
686
1069
860
1142.
713
1006..
932
1070
851
1143.
714
1007.
653 1074
768
1144.
794
1008
933 1075
785
710
1145..
1009
654 1076
834
1434
1010
627 1077
1371
778
1146.
1011
934 1080
759
1481
1012
727 1081
785
1147.
649
1013.
€87 1082
952 1148
650
1014
677
1083.
953 1149
779
1015
613
1084
981
1150.
651
1016.
667 1085
940
1151.
795
1017
904
1086
737
821
1152..
1018
€88
1087
738
948
1019..
905 || 1088
954
949
1153.
1020.
817 1089
941
822
1021
668 || 1090
942
1154.
970
1022
669
1091
739
1155.
1213
1023
670 1092
9351156.
796
1024
671
1093
964
1161
789
1025
656 1094.
943
1162
985
1026
614 1095
692
1163
988
1027..
697
1096..
693
1164.
-
986
1028.
1198 1097
694
1165..
1131
1029
615 1098
695
1166..
1332
1020.
909
1099
983 | 1167.
1084
1031
689
1101
740
1168..
674
1032
698
1102
937 1169.
675
1033
784 || 1103
705
1170.
741
1034..
616 || 1104
700
1171.
836
1035
699 | 1105
€82
1172.
742
1036
700
1108
955
1173.
837
1037
678 1109
984
1174.
1023
1038
906 1110
8681175.
965
1039
679 1111
956
1176.
966
1040..
680 1112
869 1178..
989
1041.
690 1113.
1029 1179.
987
1042
701 1114.
861 1180.
967
1043
702 1115.
862
1181
663
1044
880 1116.
1273
1182
901
1045
703 1117
853
1183.
957
1046
691 1118.
643 1184.
968
1047
728 1119.
787 1186..
1011
1048
659 1120.
936 1187.
1024
1049
881 1121.
1010
1188
765
1050..
1470 1122.
761 1189
1045
1052
704 1123.
·
863|| 1190..
1012
1053.
683 1124.
660 1191
1085
1054
617 1125.
762 1192
1253
1055
655 1126
835
1193
1025
1056
672 1127.
684
1194
1013
1057
939 1128..
763 || 1195
1014
1058
673
1129..
839 1196..
1132
1059.
681
1131.
661
1197
1015
1060..
907
1132.
662
1198.
1030
1061
900
1133.
736
1199
1037
1062
776
1135.
818
1200.
1046
1063..
919
1137.
788 || 1204.
1214
1064
729
1138..
657 || 1205.
1214
1065
882
1139..
6581206..
1214
1067
859 1140.
764
1208..
1031
1068
1009 1141.
768 | 1209.
628
1246
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No
1210...
723
1297
1195
1411..
744
1211
722
1298..
1417
1412.
1477
·
1212
722
*1028
1413.
1478
1213
722
*1300 ....
*1036
1414.
888
1214.
571
*1074
1415.
1471
1215
545
1448
1416
1479
My
1216
716
1300-4-A..
724
1417
1135
1217
790
1300-10-H.
828
1418
1419
-
1218
732
1300-107-A.
951
1419
1231
1219
1076
*1300-160-A...
1420
1136
1220
780 1303
1123
1453
992
1221
769 1304
1188
1454
894
1222
1032 1305
852
1455.
898
1223
958
1306
1050
1456..
806
833
1307
1051
1093
1224.
1460.
1008
1398
1052
1431
1225
1086 1309
1053
1461.
1472
1227.
743 1310
1054
1464..
1420
1228
1033
1311
893
1466.
1199
1229
1038
1313
798
1467
840
-
1230
664
1314
799
1468
960
1231
665
1315
771
1469
841
1232
1034 1316
800
1472
842
-
1233
1160 1317
801 1473
1413
1234
664 1318
1170
1475
1043
1235
1039 1319
1367
1476
1480
1236
495
1321.
802
1484
1200
1241
1087
1324
895 1485
807
1242
1088 1325
890
1487
1026
1243
1040 1326
1171
1488
871
1214
510 1328
1153
*14891
1245
1151
1329
1414
*1490
1249
1041
1330
1154
1491.
971
1250
1042
1331.
1155
1492
926
1251
1251 1332
1134 1493
972
1252
1089 1333
1196
1494
1058
1253
1152 1334
1246
1499
891
1253
1211 1335
1189 1500
973
-
1254..
797 1336
1252 1501
1027
1256
1372 1337
1197
1502.
808
1258.
504
1338..
791
1503
899
1259
1362
1339
1247
1505
1097
1260.
1077
1340
1248
1510.
843
•
❤
•
1261.
1412 1341
803
1511.
1337
1262.
1090 *1342
1512.
844
825
1343.
864
1516
845
1263..
885 1357
1390 1517
846
1264.
770 1377
1391 1519
1421
959
1384
804
1520
1422
1266.
1473
1385
991
1522.
745
1267.
685
1386
819
1523..
746
*1269
1394..
-
805 1524.
747
1270..
1121
1395..
717
1525
748
1271
1215 1396.
897
1527.
749
1272
1389
1398.
1435 1528.
750
1270.
903
1399.
920 1529.
865
1281
1410
1403.
1249
1530..
751
1288
838
1404..
1475
1531..
752
1289
582 1406.
1250 1534.
753
1294..
1133 1407
1190 1535
1423
1295
1296
1474 1408.
1186 1410.
766
1536.
754
1476
1537.
755
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1247
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
1554
921
1021
1947.
1103
1683...
1555.
993
1127
1948.
1006
1556.
994
1022 1949
1007
1684.
1558
974
1128
1950
1069
1559
896
1082
1953
1070
1687.
1560.
809
1482
1955..
1104
1562..
927
1692.
911
1957
1142
1563.
995
1695
1063
1964.
1416
1564.
1035
1696..
1225
1967
1044
1572
1392
1699.
1059
1970
1181
1582
1393 1700.
1219
1971.
1071
1593
1239
1701.
1065
1975.
1224
1594.
1201
1702
1092
1981
1373
1595.
996
1703..
1099
1982
1119
1596
922
1708
1002
1984.
1255
1597
928
1709
1066
1985..
1166
1598
975
.1710.
1254
1995..
1399
1601
847
1730
1394
1999
1400
1602.
1118
1752...
1395 2011
1232
1603.
997
1753.
1396
2012
1080
1604.
923
1758..
1397
2014
1161
1605.
1216
1773.
1398
2015
1162
*1606..
*757
1833
1202
2016.
1163
1607.
1424
1835.
1275
2017.
1164
1608
1187
1839.
1265
2019
1105
1610.
820
1840.
1016
2020..
1172
1611.
998
1841.
1017
2029
1401
1613.
963
1842
1003
2030..
1402
1620.
832
1843.
912
2041.
1072
1621.
848
1844.
913
2043.
1279
·
1622
849
1845.
914
2056.
1143
1623
850
1846
915
2057..
1165
826
1848..
944
2064
1450
1624.
1415
1850..
945
2070
1210
1627.
978 1851.
1276
2074
1138
1629..
1274 1853
1130
2080
1073
1630..
910 1854.
1177
2084
1167
1631.
1240
1874.
1004 2088
1226
1635.
872 1875.
1005
2089
1182
1637.
1209 1876..
1178
2104
1173
1640.
1137
1878..
1056
*2114
1648.
1217 1879
977
2118
1183
1649.
999 1880.
980
2119.
1106
1651
1235 1881.
1129 2141
1107
1661.
827
1883..
1354
2143
1108
1662.
1000
1885.
1064
2145
1144
1001 1889.
1330
2146
1109
1663.
1148 1891.
1242
*2157
1666.
1218
1892..
1047
2161..
1149
*1668
1893
969
2162
1150
1669.
1098
1895..
1220
2179
1339
1670.
979 1896.
1067
2186
1340
1671.
1060 1897.
1068
2189
1049
1675.
976 1914.
1243
2198
1110
1677.
1061
1916..
1179
2199..
1111
1018 1921.
1100
2200
1112
1679.
1124 1922.
1101
2201
1113
1019 1934.
1048
2202..
1144
1680...
1125 1936.
1180 2203
1115
1681.
1062 1937.
1233
2204
1116
1682...
1020 1944
1126 1945.
1355 2210
1156
-
1102
2212.
1139
1248
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
A. DOCKETS SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED-Continued.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
Docket No.
Decision No.
2219
1191
2374
1344
2510
1407
2220.
1157
2375
1241
2513.
1403
2228
1184
2376..
1436
2519..
1404
2233
1360
2377
1345
2521
1405
2234.
1256
2378
1346
2577
1206
2235
1221
2379
1347
2589
1207
2236
1256
2385.
1174
2594
1406
2237
1257
2388.
1445
2600
1269
2238
1258 *2391
1192
2601..
1364
2239
1259 2392.
1483
2607
1437
2240
1260 2393
1244
2018..
1352
2241
1261
2395
1185
2625..
1438
2242
1361
2413
1348
2656
1369
2243
1.229
2414
1484
2660
1234
2246..
1356 2418
1245
2705..
1439
2248
1357 2420.
1338
2719..
1353
2249
1341. 2425
1449
2727..
1447
2255
1342
2434
1236
2730.
1440
2263
1203
2455
1193
2776
1485
·
2264..
1204 2456
1287
2781
1374
2268..
1227 2466
1194
2783
1375
2337
1358 *2467
2784..
1376 *
2339
1256
2468..
1366
2785..
1377
2340
1256 2471
1278
2786..
1378
2346
1158 2474.
1349
2791
1379
2347
1159 2475
1228 2794
1380
2348
1368
2476
1350
2797
1381
2349
1277 2499
1446
2801
1382
2359
1262 2500.
*1267
2816..
1441
2360
1263
2500.
A. 1-1267
2834..
1442
2362
1264 *2500
1450
2869
1411
2369
1205 2502
1175
2373.
1343 2506.
1351
INDEX TO DECISIONS.
1249
B. DOCKETS SHOWING ADDENDA NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
[NOTE.-The asterisk is used to indicate addenda upon which interpretations have been rendered.]



Docket No. Addendum No.
Docket No.
Addendum No.
Docket No.
Addendum No.
*2-Dn. 119
1-Dn. 222
1-Dn. 1028
1-Dn. 757
2-Dn. 222
2-Dn. 1028
1...
2-Dn. 757
3-Dn. 222
3-Dn. 1028
3-Dn. 757
4-Dn. 222
4-Dn. 1028
1300.
1-Dn. 757
5-Dn. 222
1-Dn. 1036
2.....
2-Dn. 757
6-Dn. 222
2-Dn. 1036
3-Dn. 757.
7-Dn. 222
1-Dn. 1074
1-Dn. 757
8-Dn. 222
2-Dn. 1074
3.....
2-Dn. 757
9-Dn. 222
1300-160A
3-Dn. 1036
3-Dn. 757
10-Dn. 222
1489.
2-Dn. 501
85.
6-Dn. 2
11-Dn. 222
1490.
2-Dn. 501
475..
86.
5-Dn. 2
12-Dn. 222
1-Dn. 757
1-Dn. 147
13-Dn. 222
1606.
2-Dn. 757
2-Dn. 147
14-Dn. 222
3-Dn. 757
353...
3-Dn. 147
1-Dn. 501
2500..
1-Dn. 1267
4-Dn. 147
3-Dn. 501
2500-43A..
2-Dn. 1267
353-96G.
1-Dn. 215
1-Dn. 630
404.
1-Dn. 218
2-Dn. 630
450-
4-Dn. 501
3-Dn. 630
1-Dn. 721
1-Dn. 725
1-Dn. 1266
2-Dn. 1266
C. DOCKETS SHOWING INTERPRETATION NUMBERS ASSIGNED.

Docket No.
Interpretation
No.
Docket No.
Interpretation
No.
Docket No.
Interpretation
No.
1..
2-Dn. 119 77.
7-Dn. 2
242...
20-Dn. 2
84.
3-Dn. 2
312.
22-Dn. 2
21-Dn. 2
2.
20-Dn. 2
88
10-Dn. 2
399.
3-Dn. 119
3.
20-Dn. 2
89
11-Dn. 2
475.
1-Dn. 707
40.
1-Dn. 2
90.
12-Dn. 2
671.
23-Dn. 2
•
50.
2-Dn. 2
93.
15-Dn. 2
1269.
1-Dn. 222
70..
4-Dn. 2
95.
8-Dn. 2
1342
6-Dn. 119
71.
5-Dn. 2
103
13-Dn. 2
1668
1-Dn. 501
72
6-Dn. 2
104.
14-Dn. 2
2114.
2-Dn. 501
73
9-Dn. 2
107.
19-Dn. 2
2157..
1-Dn. 721
74
9-Dn. 2
144.
16-Dn. 2
2391.
2-Dn. 630
75.
9-Dn. 2
156..
17-Dn. 2
2467..
1-Dn. 630
76..
7-Dn. 2
230.
18-Dn. 2
1250
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
Table 2.-CUMULATIVE TABLE SHOWING CASES UPON WHICH DECI-
SIONS, ADDENDA, OR INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED.
A. CASES SHOWING DECISION NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
NOTE. The asterisk is used to indicate cases upon which addenda or interpretations have been rendered.

65. 1
*70.2
*72.2
*83.1
-
• •
-
70.2
72.2.
Miscellaneous case No.
Decision No.
Miscellaneous case No.
15
*84.1.
99.1.
*101. 1.
B. CASES SHOWING ADDENDA NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
Miscellaneous case No.
Addendum
No.
Decision No.
211

Miscellaneous case No.
Addendum
No.
4-Dn. 2
3-Dn. 2
83.1...
84. 1.
2-Dn. 2
1-Dn. 1
(C) CASES SHOWING INTERPRETATION NUMBERS ASSIGNED.
101. 1.
Miscellaneous case No.
Interpretation
No.
1-Dn. 119
4-Dn. 119
5-Dn. 119
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
1251
Table 3.-CUMULATIVE TABLE SHOWING DECISIONS UPON WHICH
ADDENDA OR INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED.
A. DECISIONS HAVING ADDENDA RENDERED THEREON.
Decision No.
Addenda No.
Decision No.
Addenda No.
1
1
2
2*
501..
3
2...
3
4
4
5
1
6
630....
2
1
3
119...
2
721..
1
1
725..
1
2
147..
1
3
757...
2
4
3
215...
1
1
212.
1
2
1028....
1
3
2
4
3
1
4
1036...
2
5
3
6
1
1074...
7
222...
2
8
1266...
1
9
2
10
1267...
1
11
2
12
13
14
1252
DECISIONS UNITED STATES LABOR BOARD.
B. DECISIONS HAVING INTERPRETATIONS RENDERED THEREON.
Decision No.
Interpretation
No.
1QBH LO CON∞ O
2
3 2...
4
5
6
7
8
Decision No.
Interpretation
No.
19
20
21
22
23
1
2
3
119...
9
4
2....
10
5
11
6
12
222.
1
13
1
501.
14
2
15
1.
630...
16
2
17 707
1
18
721..
1
Table 4.-CUMULATIVE TABLE SHOWING ADDENDA UPON WHICH
INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED.
ADDENDA HAVING INTERPRETATIONS RENDERED THEREON.
2-Dn. 119.
Addendum to decision.
о
Interpretation
No.
1
2
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02022 4310