governmental control of the railroads. The President on February 13, thereupon agreed to use his influence to bring about establishment of suitable machinery for the adjustment of controversies between the carriers and their employees, and such machinery was provided for in the Transportation Act, as already described. In accordance with the provisions of this law the requests for higher wages of the railroad and express employees which had been submitted to the Director General and the President were laid before joint conferences of representatives of the interested parties. These conferences continued from March 10 to April 1, 1920, but no agreement was reached.

66

Immediately after the Senate confirmed the appointment of the Railroad Labor Board, hearings were held on these wage demands. The colossal task before this board was that of adjusting, justly and reasonably, within a limited time and to the satisfaction of the carriers, the men, and the public, the wages of approximately 2,075,000 men employed in many thousands of positions. Each job was a problem in itself.” 101 Such an undertaking could not

be carried out in a few weeks and the new delay thus involved combined with the repeated previous disappointments, and the constantly mounting living costs resulted in a deep dissatisfaction on the part of the employees. To allay this unrest, the board announced on June 12 that its decision, when made, would be retroactive to May 1. Although the President addressed a message to the board on June 23, asking for a speedy decision, the award was not announced until July 20.

The board found that the scale of wages of railroad employees was substantially below those paid for similar work in outside industry and that justice as well as maintenance of an essential industry in an efficient condition required a substantial increase to practically all classes. It was estimated by the board that the increase of wages would aggregate approximately $600,000,000 per year for the railroad employees and $30,000,000 for the express companies.

Shortly after this award was handed down the entire economic position of the country was suddenly shifted from a condition of unprecedented inflation of finance, industry, and trade to a period of drastic deflation. The resulting falling prices, agricultural and

industrial depression, and unemployment of this period need only be mentioned here. In consequence of this change in the situation the board was called upon to cope with the acute state of affairs produced by the unwillingness of railroad labor to accept the reduced wages and working conditions which it appeared necessary to establish to meet the falling income of the carriers consequent upon the decline in volume of traffic.

102

The first step in this process of what may be termed "railroad labor cost deflation" was the abrogation by order of April 14, 1921, (effective July 1, 1921) of all agreements defining working conditions for employees on the railroads of the country. The officers of the carriers and the representatives of the employees were directed to confer and to decide as to new conditions to prevail on their respective roads after July 1. All disputes in process of settlement were automatically referred to the individual lines to be adjusted with their employees. The board laid down sixteen fundamental principles to be observed by the bi-partisan conferences which were to be held to formulate new working rules.100

The second step was Decision No. 147, of June 1, 1921, authorizing wage reductions estimated at approximately 12 per cent of the then existing rates. The aggregate saving to the carriers by the decision was estimated by the board at $400,000,000.

It was subsequently charged by the employees that the railroads were not carrying out the decisions of the board, that they were unwilling to make agreements on rules and working conditions, and that they were antagonistic to union organization, although the fourth of the sixteen principles prescribed by the board for bi-partisan conferences on rules and working conditions stated that "the right of railway employees to organize for lawful objects shall not be denied, interfered with or obstructed."

There was dissatisfaction also with some of the decisions of the board itself, particularly those dealing with rules and working conditions on the railroads.10 The climax was reached when the

102 Monthly Labor Review, XII, p. 1076.

66

103 This decision was in accord with the position taken by the railroad companies, namely, that all questions arising between each company and its employees should be settled without reference to conditions on other lines. The workers had contended for a national joint conference between representatives of all roads and all labor unions affected, by which means all questions in dispute could be settled."-Ibid., pp. 1076-1077.

104

Ibid., XIII, p. 166.

railroad executives announced their intention to ask the board for further wage reductions. Thereupon a strike ballot was authorized by the engineers, conductors, firemen, trainmen, and switchmen at a conference of the general chairman of the brotherhoods held in Chicago in July, 1921, when a resolution was passed providing for a meeting with representatives of the carriers in an attempt to adjust "all matters in controversy " and directing union representatives to place the railroad executives on record as to whether they should request further wage decreases. A strike ballot was also authorized on the 12 per cent cut in wages authorized by the board by decision No. 147. Negotiations in the regional conferences were unsuccessful, and a strike was called for October 30. Through what amounted essentially to a compulsory investigation of the dispute and the resultant publicity as to the issues involved, together with an informal mediatory service by one of the members of the public group, a nationwide cessation of railroad transportation was averted.106

This signal achievement of the board increased its prestige not only with the parties to the dispute but with the public generally. A most important by-product from the episode, promising valuable results for the future, was the announcement by both representatives of the carriers and the employees of "their intention and purpose to conform to the law and abide by the orders of the Board.' Such an announcement is significant in view of the fact that there is doubt as to the power of the Board to enforce its decisions.10

99 108

105 See Monthly Labor Review, XIII, pp. 1328-1314 for full account of the threatened strike and the work of the board in averting it. 106 Decision No. 299, Ibid., p. 179.

107 Since the above chapter was written, a publication has been issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bulletin 302, March, 1922), Use of Federal power in settlement of railway disputes, by Clyde O. Fisher, which consists of an examination of the general methods that have been adopted by the national government for the settlement of railway labor disputes. This study is written from a somewhat different point of view, and gives in greater detail than the above the attitude of labor, the railway interests, Congress, and the public toward each of the acts; the legislative history of the bills; and the attitude of the courts.

CHAPTER II

ACTIVITIES

The principal function of the United States Railroad Labor Board, as of the Board of Mediation and Conciliation which preceded it, is the amicable adjustment of disputes between carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act and their employees and subordinate officers. The activities of the board in attempted attainment of this objective are intended by the law to be of much wider scope than those of its predecessor and to deal with the more fundamental problems underlying the maintenance of industrial peace. As already noted in the preceding chapter, under the mediating provisions of the Erdman and Newlands acts, the aim of the mediators was to determine primarily what adjustment could be made as a practical matter in any given situation in which interruption of traffic was threatened. Little consideration was given to what equity, economic necessity of the carriers, or sound social policy required. Under the arbitration features of the above laws, arbitral awards usually amounted to a compromise by the umpire or umpires of the differences involved in the dispute. The umpire, who was generally an outsider, unacquainted with the details of railroad management or operation, was unable either to give due regard to the intricacies of the problem or to discriminate between the mass of conflicting technical evidence submitted by the parties to the controversy.

Under the Transportation Act of 1920 Congress went beyond the mere provision of machinery for amicable settlement of disputes and definitely declared its intent with respect to the character of such settlements. The board is directed' by its decisions to establish just and reasonable rates of wages and salaries and standards of working conditions. In order to determine what is just and reasonable, the board is requested to take into consideration among other relevant circumstances:

1 1 Sec. 307, paragraph (d), Act of Feb. 28, 1920; 41 Stat. L., 470.

The scales of wages paid for similar kinds of work in other industries;

The relation between wages and the cost of living;

The hazards of the employment;

The training and skill required;

The degree of responsibility;

The character and regularity of the employment; and Inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the results of previous wage orders or adjustments."

In order to obtain the requisite information on these criteria, the board is directed" to "investigate and study the relations between carriers and their employees, particularly questions relating to wages, hours of labor, and other conditions of employment and the respective privileges, rights, and duties of carriers and employees, and to gather, compile, classify, digest, and publish, from time to time, data and information relating to such questions." Authority has been granted by the law for employment of the necessary officers and employees.3

It is assumed in the law, that the board, after having obtained the above information as to just and reasonable wages and working conditions, will be enabled to determine when excessive demands have been made upon the carriers by employees and it is, therefore, provided that within ten days after a decision has been made in conferences of representatives of carriers and employees involved in a wage dispute the board may suspend the operation of such a decision upon its own motion, if it believes that the decision will be likely to necessitate a substantial readjustment of the rates of any carrier, and it is directed, after hearing, to affirm or modify such suspended decision.

In brief, the powers of the board with respect to wages and working conditions are similar to those of the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to rates, and like the latter agency it has quasi-judicial as well as administrative activities.

Quasi-judicial Activities. The board is primarily a final court of appeals for labor disputes originating on the carriers which are subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, the term carriers" in

2 Sec. 308, paragraph (3).

8 Sec. 314.