Official Publication Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America Affiliated with AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR and TRADES AND LABOR CONGRESS OF CANADA Officers and members are invited to contribute articles on all subjects relating to organization problems and signal work. All articles sent for publication must be in our hands The Signalman's Journal, published monthly at 404 N. Wesley Ave., Mount Morris, Ill., by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America. Entered as second class matter Oct. 13, 1939, at the post office at Mount Morris, Ill., under the act of Aug. 24, 1912. Subscrip- tion, $2.00 per year. Single copy, 25 cents. POSTMASTERS - NOTICE. Change of ad- dress forms should be sent to the editorial office, 503 Wellington Ave., Chicago 14, Ill. CONTRIBUTIONS should be received by the Send communications, both changes of addresses and articles to The Signalman's Journal, 503 Wellington Ave., Chicago 14, Ill. Change of Address-All magazine publishers are required by the Federal Government to pay a two-cent tax on all notices on change of address received from the post office, mak- ing quite an expense to the publisher. If The Signalman's Journal is coming to you incor- rectly addressed in any way whatever, or if you are changing your address, please notify 67 Emergency Board Okays Union Shop ing victory last month when an Emergency Board recommended. that nearly 400 railroads should make a national agreement with 17 non-operating unions, granting the union shop with dues check-off. In its report, made public on February 14, the Board said: 66 we find no sound or substantial basis for withholding the union shop and check-off from these 17 organizations any longer; we believe that in the framework of the dispute before us the arguments in favor far outweigh those in opposition. We recommend that the parties enter into a joint national. agreement, through their duly designated representatives, in accordance with their usual custom, providing for a union shop agreement . . . and for the deduction of dues, initiation fees and assessments." The Board recommended certain clauses be incorporated in the union shop agreement to protect the individual employes, the carriers and the unions, and suggested that installation of the check-off be held off until certain practical problems can be met. In making its findings and recommendations the Board emphasized that its report was not final or binding upon the parties-"it merely recommends what it believes to be a fair basis for agreement between the parties." Chief of the 17 non-operating unions have requested carrier managements to select a conference committee to meet with them to negotiate an agreement along lines recommended by the Board. As this is written the carriers have made no reply to the request. B. R. S. of A. President Jesse Clark reported that the Employe's Conference Committee would attempt to negotiate a uniform agreement applicable to all carriers which are party to the dispute. President Truman appointed the Emergency Board on November 15, following the National Mediation Board's failure to effect a settlement. Hearings on the union shop dispute before the Emergency Board lasted 21 days during which time both parties presented extensive testimony and many printed exhibits. Carrier representatives, who were, for the most part highly paid lawyers, attempted to sway the Historic report upholds rail labor; says there is no reason to Board with legal arguments. They On virtually all points, the Board The Emergency Board was composed of three members: David L. Cole, of Paterson, N.J., as chairman; Aaron Horvitz, of New York City, and George E. Osborne, of Stanford University, Calif. Their exhaustive, point-by-point study and disposal of every question and argument raised by the carrier is contained in their 70-page report to the President. To help all our members understand the truth about the union shop, and to disprove the propaganda being circulated by some carriers who have not signed union shop agreements with our Brotherhood, we are reprinting below facts developed by the Emergency Board, and made public in their report. The following quotations do not constitute the entire report but are among the most important and clarifying: From The Board's Report "The major part of the Carriers' case against the union-shop proposal has been designed to show that the union shop is so fundamentally contrary to accepted ideals of free individual choice that even if legal it ought not to be recommended as a proper proposal for these railroads to accept. The proposal, it is said, is 'repugnant to basic concepts of individual freedom,' would result in unjust 'sacrifice of human rights and liberties,' and would subject unwilling employes to the 'monopolistic and autocratic power' of union officials. "Our careful consideration of the union-shop amendment, the circumstances surrounding its enactment and the arguments made in this case persuade us that Congress has foreclosed any inquiry into the broad issues of principle tendered. by the Carriers. By declaring that union-shop agreements may be entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, Congress has removed from our consideration all the fundamental objections to the principle of the union shop. "The Carriers deny that this is so. The view which they urge is that Congress has only declared that the union shop is legal, no: that it is consistent with public policy. Although Congress has passed on the legal question, they say this Board can and should hold that the union shop is contrary to public policy. "To us the notion that the agreement may be legal and at the same time contrary to public policy is very strange. Legislators ordinarily do not pass laws telling people they may make agreements which are contrary to public policy. Congress Decided Policy "Moreover, the evidence shows that Congress decided the issue of policy knowingly and deliberately. All the arguments against the principle of compulsory unionism which have been placed before us were placed before Congress. "Indeed, Congress gave very concrete evidence that it carefully considered the claims of the individual to be free of arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions resulting from compulsory unionism. It did not give a blanket approval to unionshop agreements. Instead it enacted a precise and carefully drawn limitation on the kind of union-shop agreement which might be made. By providing that a worker should not be discharged if he was denied or if he lost his union membership for any reason other than non-payment of dues, initiation fees or assessments, Congress definitely indicated that it had weighed carefully and given effect to the policy of the arguments against the union shop. "There is still another consideration which seems important to us. The Carriers do not deny that it is proper for them to enter into union-shop agreements voluntarily. "Indeed, some of the same Carriers which have argued before us the unfairness of compelling employes to join a union have already entered into union-shop agreements with other unions than those involved in this case. Such action is hard to reconcile with the position that union-shop agreements are bad in principle and contrary to public policy. "When Congress passed the union-shop amendment to the Railway Labor Act (Jan. 1951), it was really acting to bring the railroads into line-to let them catch up, so to speak-with the important developments concerning union security which had been taking place over the 17-year period since the prohibition against the union shop had been adopted in the 1934 Railway Labor Act. The Committee reports and the debates on the unionshop amendment strongly reflect this purpose to accord the railroad industry parity of treatment with the rest of industry. The large margin by which the legislation was approved also suggests that Congress had ceased to regard the problem as a highly controversial one and was in a sense merely following an established policy. "It would seem naïve to suppose that Congress enacted the amendment without reference to the specific conditions then prevailing (and substantially unchanged at this time) in the railroad industry. We cannot disregard this when we consider what circumstances may make it appropriate to enter into a unionshop agreement. Surely it must have been the judgment of Congress that such circumstances were present at least somewhere in the railroad industry. Yet the position of the Carriers in this case seems to be that there are no circumstances presently in view which would make a union shop appropriate in the railroad industry. We are forced to conclude that their position is at odds not only with the deeds (if not the words) of members of their own industry, but also with what Congress manifestly contemplated when it passed the union-shop amendment. "Carrier representatives advanced the position that a Government body should not under any circumstances order or recommend any form of compulsory union membership, and particularly not the union shop or the closed shop. "Considering the functions of this Emergency Board and the circumstances and purposes for its creation, we are of the opinion that such a view is most untenable. "The emergency-board technique was devised to lead collective-bargaining disputes on the railroads to reasonable conclusions without impairment of commerce, in the public good. It represents outstandingly a recognition of the rights of the Unions Are Honorable "The Carriers urge that these nonoperating employes' organizations do not need the union shop since they are old, well organized, and entirely secure unions, with representation rights on almost all the railroads of the country. These unions have conducted themselves properly, and have not engaged in undemocratic or dishonorable activities. "There has not been a strike conducted by any of them on the railroads for more than 25 years; and yet there was no question but that they have effectively and conscientiously protected and advanced the interests of the employes for whom they speak. "It would seem that their stability and effectiveness and their sense of responsibility would be reasons for rather than against their right to have union-shop provisions in their agreements. "Great emphasis was placed by Carriers on the desirability of preserving the right of employes to refrain from joining unions or to withdraw if they dislike the activities or policies of the union. To require them to join, the Carriers say, might impair the loyalty of some of the employes to their employer. "It must be remembered that these seventeen nonoperating employe organizations now hold representation rights on the railroads before us pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, by virtue of which they have both the right and the duty to represent all employes within their respective classes and crafts. They are prohibited by law from shirking their obligation to all employes, including nonmembers. "When such authority is reposed in an organization by law it would seem that the affected persons would want to exercise all the rights which membership would give them in formulating the union's aims and policies and in directing the strategies and courses to be followed. "It would also seem that if an employe's wages and hours and other working conditions are to be bargained about by a union, the employer would want the employe to have something to say about the matter as a voting and participating member of the union. "It may be observed that most employes are now union members. One would think that their loyalty to a more restricted, fraternal type of union which they voluntarily joined would be stronger than the loyalty resulting from enforced membership in a union which has practically all the employes in it. Yet our investigation has revealed no specific evidence whatever of any impairment of the loyalty of employes who are now union members. "There is the likelihood that with general membership will come a broader representation, the expression of more varied views, and a better rather than lesser control over the activities of the leadership. Reasonable Dues "It is estimated that the charges (dues) of none of these unions have exceeded the equivalent of 3 cents per hour. Measured against benefits attained of various kinds through concerted and organized efforts, such charges certainly are not extreme or unreasonable. "These unions in recent years have made public their statements of income and expenditures, and they assured this Board on the record that their charges to members will merely be such as will be necessary from time to time to continue their normal operations. "Individuals who do not share with their fellow employes the cost of the unions' activities, the benefits of which they are perfectly willing to accept, present a problem in equities which is very real. They incur the displeasure and resentment of those who are members, and this may cause frictions and feuds which will lead to disunity in the normal causes of the employes, a result definitely not in keeping with the purposes of the Railway Labor Act. "It was urged by the Carriers that the opposition to compulsory union membership on the part of railroad employes is so strong that many will forfeit their jobs rather than to join. "A number of railroads have made union-shop agreements with operating unions, including several of the railroads involved in the dispute before us. Other railroads have made such agreements with the very unions in our case. Information was given to us by the labor representatives as to the number of employes who declined to join the nonoperating unions, and we were furnished similar information by the employers as to what happened in this regard on several Carriers which have made union-shop agreements with other unions. "The experience of the Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen was that only 3 men resigned, 3 were denied membership, and none were discharged, out of a total of about 3,000 employes on the railroads with whom it has made union-shop agreements. "Based on the most complete and competent figures which show the experience on representative carriers with broad and varied classes of employes, it appears that the compulsion to join a union has presented difficulties leading typically to the termination of employment by about one-tenth of 1 percent of the employes. This is far less than the fears expressed by the Carriers. would lead one to expect. It is true, of course, that it is exceedingly un fortunate if even a single person loses his job because of the union shop. On the other hand, the percentage of losses due to the change generally has been relatively insignificant and the impact on the work force as a whole has been negligible. Discrimination Wiped Out "The subject of discrimination in membership and membership privileges was raised by the Carriers. Congress resolved the problem by protecting the jobs of employes who are denied membership for any reason other than the nonpayment of dues, initiation fees and assessments and declined to deny the right to the union shop to unions which may practice some form of discrimination. "It happens that these 17 unions are now apparently quite well behaved with respect to discriminatory practices. In general, representations were made to the Board under oath that discriminatory practices have been substantially eliminated by all the unions before us and that they intend to eradicate at their next conventions whatever traces still remain. "Some of the employes may have conscientious or religious scruples against joining a labor organization. This problem was discussed at the hearings. The labor spokesmen called attention to the position of the National Labor Relations Board, the substance of which is that such an employe is deemed to have met the condition of continued employment if he tenders the amount of the periodic dues, assessments, and initiation fees even though he remains out of the union. Union Shop Not Uncommon "A fact that carries great weight with us is that union-shop agreements are no longer uncommon even on the railroads, including a number of the Carriers who are contesting the right of these 17 labor organizations in this proceeding. Some 40 Carriers employing over one-third of all the railroad employes of the country now have union-shop agreements with at least one of the unions on their properties. Most significant is the fact that railroads employing over 215,000 people have now made unionshop agreements with some or all of the very 17 labor organizations which in this proceeding are urging the acceptance of a similar proposal by the other Carriers. Included in this last group of railroads are the Great Northern, the New York Central, the Baltimore & Ohio, and the Lehigh Valley. "We thus find that, despite the strong protests made before us, a most representative segment of the railroad industry itself voluntarily has adopted the union-shop principle in the year since it was made legal to do so. The Carriers which have done so include not only the four important railroads named immediately above, but also other major carriers like the Burlington, the Denver and Rio Grande, the Northern Pacific, the Colorado & Southern, the Illinois Central, the Southern, the New Haven, the Lackawanna, and the Pullman Co. "We are both puzzled and struck by the fact that Carriers appear before us bitterly opposing the union shop on basic principle and yet have themselves recently entered into such agreements with other unions on their properties. "We might also point out the numerous examples of union shops on wholly or partly owned subsidiaries of the railroads, including bus and trucking operations, but this hardly seems necessary, except to the extent of observing that the acceptance of the principle of the union shop by managers of the railroad industry started some time before the 1951 union-shop amendment. "In summary, therefore, we find that the union-shop principle is well established in American industry as a whole; that Congress by amending the Railway Labor Act in January, 1951, relieved the employes of the railroad industry from the denial of the right to have the benefit of this well-established technique of or aid to collective bargaining and thereby eliminated from our consideration all the basic questions of principle or policy commonly raised in opposition to the union shop; that Congress recognized the needlessness of special elections as a condition for making union-shop agreements by eliminating this requirement from the Taft-Hartley Act; that many airlines and railroads have since the 1951 amendment clearly evidence their acceptance of the union-shop principle by entering into a substantial number of such agreements; on the railroads in particular some 40 Carriers employing over one-third of all railroad employes have made one or more union-shop agreements. We also fail to find substance in the special reasons argued before us for denying the union shop to these non-operating employe labor organizations in particular. We find also that the 17 labor organizations before us have advanced sound and persuasive reasons in support of their request for union-shop agreements. Check-Off "The Organizations' request for a check-off is phrased substantially in the language of the amendment to the Railway Labor Act, section 2, eleventh (b), which authorizes such agreements. The deviations from the words of the amendment are in respect to details not supplied in the law, and specify: That the deductions should be at such times and intervals as the Organization should designate (2) that the employes subject to the check-off should be those employed in any work covered by the rules and working conditions agreement; (3) that the deductions should be paid over within 10 days to the Organization to an officer to be designated by it. "In resisting this demand, the Carriers made no objections based either upon legality or principle. In this connection, it should be |