been completed when complaints will sometimes be made that the carrier is not observing the "status quo" provisions of section 6 when it institutes an action which would be contrary to the agreement if the proposed section 6 notice had at that time been accepted by both parties.1

Section 6 states that where notice of intended change in an agreement has been given, rates of pay, rules, and working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon in accordance with specified procedures. Positively stated, section 6 is intended to maintain the contract as it existed between the parties until the provisions of the act have been complied with. When the procedures of the act have been exhausted without an agreement between the parties on the 30-day notice of intended change, the carrier may alter the contract to the extent indicated in the 30-day notice, and the organization is free to take such action as it deems advisable under the circumstances. The other provisions of the contract are not affected and remain unchanged. In brief, the rights of the parties which they had prior to serving the notice of intention to change remain the same during the period the proposal is under consideration, and remain so until the proposal is finally acted upon.

In the handling of mediation cases the following situations constantly recur: One is the lack of sufficient and proper direct negotiations between the parties prior to invoking mediation. Failure to do this makes it necessary after a brief mediation session to recess mediation in order that further direct conferences may be held between the parties to cover preliminary data which should have been explored prior to invoking the services of the Board. In other instances prior to invoking the services of the Board, the parties have only met in brief session without a real effort to resolve the dispute or consideration of alternative approaches to the issues in dispute. Under such circumstances the parties do not have a thorough knowledge of the issues in controversy or the views of the other party. Here again the mediation handling of the case must be postponed while the parties spend time preparing basic data which should have been explored prior to invoking the services of the Board. Frequent recesses of this nature do not permit a prompt disposition of the dispute as anticipated by the act.

* See The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transportation Union No. 29. October Term 1969 U.S. Supreme Court, Decided December 9, 1969.

E section 6 when it

e agreement if the ed by both parties ge in an agreement ditions shall not be finally acted upon stated, section 6 is en the parties until en the procedures petween the parties may alter the con d the organization the circumstances.

I and remain unhad prior to ser during the period ntil the proposal

uations constantly negotiations be to do this makes ediation in order - parties to cover ior to invoking nvoking the ser ession without a alternative apnces the parties troversy or the ling of the case ring basic data services of the prompt disposi

sportation Union
9, 1969.

through mediatory efforts.

Another facet of this problem is the requirement that an agr which has been negotiated by the designated representatives m ratified by the membership of the organization. Failure of the emp in some instances, to ratify the action of their designated represen casts a doubt on the authority of these leaders and a question as extent to which they can negotiate settlement of disputes. In tir situation may have far reaching effects unless corrected for it i that negotiators must speak with authority which can be respe agreements are to be concluded.

The Board deplores the failure of the parties to cloak their re tatives with sufficient authority to conduct negotiations to a conc The general duties of the act stipulate that all disputes between a or carriers and its or their employees shall be considered and, if p decided with expedition, in conference between representatives nated and authorized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or and by the employees thereof interested in the dispute.

The following is a brief resumé of several disputes that were pr under the Railway Labor Act and are of interest either because issues involved or the method of finally resolving the dispute.

(a) During the latter part of fiscal year 1956 and the early part o year 1957, agreements extending for a 3-year term, or until Octol 1959, were entered into between all of the Standard Railway Organizations, representing practically all of the operating and operating employees of the major railroads of the country ar Eastern, Western and Southeastern Carriers' Conference Comm representing the carriers.

All of these agreements provided for an initial wage increase in rates of pay, effective November 1, 1956, and additional specified wage increases on November 1, 1957, and November 1, 1958. In ad all agreements contained a so-called escalator or cost of living claus viding for 1 cent per hour pay adjustments for each half point in the Consumers' Price Index, compiled by the Bureau of Lab tistics of the Department of Labor. Pay adjustments, if any, were made semi-annually on July 1 and November 1 of each succeedin following the effective dates of the agreements based on the Cons Price Index figure published for the months of March and Septe

(b) Under article IV of the National Agreement of November 20, 1956, as amended, between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and Eastern, Western and Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committees, the organization was given the option of accepting an increase in basic wage rates of 7 cents per hour effective November 1, 1958, or, in lieu thereof, have that amount paid by the carriers to a Health Security Fund to be established by agreement between the parties. Application of this provision was the subject of negotiations between the parties and failing agreement, mediation was conducted under auspices of the Board (Case A-5679), resulting in an understanding being reached between the parties based on exchanges of Mediator's Memorandum of May 15, 1958, and Carriers' Conference Committees' letters of June 10, 1958, and July 24, 1958, to apply the 7 cents per hour increase to the basic rates of pay of employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen rather than establishing a Health Security Plan.

In the National Agreements entered into separately between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and Switchmen's Union of North America, and the Eastern, Western and Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committees, covering the 1956-57 "pattern settlements" in the railroad industry, provision was made in the event differences arose between representatives of the employees on individual carriers, as to the interpretation or application of any terms of these National Agreements, such controversies could be referred to a "Disputes Committee" for final determination. Each of the agreements above referred to contains a provision for the formation of the "Disputes Committee" and procedures for final disposition of controversies submitted to them.

I of November 20, ocomotive Firemen tern Carriers' Conoption of accepting ective November 1, - the carriers to a etween the parties. gotiations between ducted under aus derstanding being diator's Memoranmittees' letters of hour increase per the Brotherhood blishing a Health

ely between the Locomotive Fireand Brakemen, Union of North Carriers' Confer ents” in the railes arose between s to the interpre greements, such ee" for final de contains a proprocedures for

if possible, in mediation conferences the differences between th vidual carriers and representatives of the employees as to the appli or nonapplicability of the moratorium provisions of the particul gaining proposals under consideration. Issues submitted by either parties to the "Disputes Committee" for adjudication were abeyance and not processed through mediation to a conclusio such time as a decision had been handed down by the Committe The following matter relating to one of the National Agreeme the subject of Board consideration. Under date of October 11, joint request was made on behalf of the Eastern, Western and eastern Carriers' Conference Committees and the Order of Conductors and Brakemen, pursuant to section 5 (b) Second act, for an interpretation by the Board of a Memorandum Agr of June 12, 1957, entered into contemporaneously with the N settlement agreement between the parties.

Following hearings conducted by the Board May 20, 21, 22, 1958, Interpretation (No. 65) was issued, in which the Board con that the conductors represented by the Order of Railway Con and Brakemen were entitled under the Memorandum of Agr above mentioned to the following percentage increases to be ad the basic rates agreed to in the National settlement between the on June 12, 1957.

(c) The Board's jurisdiction over foreign air carriers operating United States was at issue in the following cases originating un tion 2, Ninth of the act, as well as an issue relating to the con the election.

ང-,

Labor Act was inapplicable to LAV. The complainants sought further to enjoin LAV and the IAM from bargaining on behalf of them or others similarly situated. However, the District Court on November 6, 1957, dismissed the complaint.

Appeal was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia where on June 26, 1958, the Court held under the decision in Rutas Aereas Nationales v. Edwards, 100 U. S. App. DC 336 (244 F. 2d 784), dismissal by the district court of the question of the Board's jurisdiction over foreign air carriers was proper.

As to the question of judicial review of the Board's certification, it was held that the prohibition contained in Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation Board 320 vs. 297 applied in this case.

The decision of the district court, therefore, was affirmed.

(d) As fiscal year 1960 began, a series of proposals and counterproposals were exchanged between various labor organizations and carriers for revision of national railroad agreements. These proposals affected all of the major trunk line railroads in the country and most of the switching and terminal carriers. Failure to achieve settlement of any of these disputes could have resulted in a transportation crisis which would have had a far reaching impact on the entire economy of the country. It is to the credit of the industry and the negotiators involved that after long and arduous bargaining, making full use of the various techniques of mediation, arbitration and emergency board investigation provided by the Railway Labor Act, that settlements were achieved. In brief, these settlements were as follows:

On March 2, 1959, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers had served notices requesting that existing cost of living allowances be made a part of basic rates of pay, cost of living allowances be continued with a new base, a wage increase of 12 percent and a similar increase for all arbitrary and special allowances. Counter proposals served by the carriers called for a decrease of all rates of pay and allowances by 15 cents per hour and cancellation of the cost of living provisions contained in the various agreements between the parties. Mediation in this dispute began in October 1959, and continued intermittently until March 1960, at which time the parties entered into an agreement to submit their differences to voluntary arbitration for settlement. The arbitration board met in due course and on June 3, 1960, made an award which incor