HO b32S.R2 1916^^ Mrnutes ot nieeliriqs held h«»twron tht* N.it .^ lO^M Ol\' -liv, ',;\i ^ilil CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS THE GIFT OF THE UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION RETURN T HIS PROMPTLY TO FILES of' W. S. CARTER. PEORIA. ILL. ^"^ Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002405524 MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ^ of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING, NEW YORK JUNE 1 to 15. 1916 The Master Repobting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York INDEX Pages Meeting of June 1, 1916 1-47 Meeting of June 2, 1916 49-104 Meeting of June 3, 1916 105-145 Meeting of June 5, 1916 147-215 Meeting of June 6, 1916 217-270 Meeting of June 7, 1916 271-319 Meeting of June 8, 1916 321-336 Meeting of June 12, 1916 337-413 Meeting of June 13, 1916 415-477 Meeting of June 14, 1916 479-538 Meeting of June 15, 1916 539-551 MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING, NEW YORK JUNE 1. 1916 No. 1 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. L. W. Baldwin, C. W. Kouns, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. C. L Babdo, jj_ ^ McMaster, Gen'lManager,N.Y.,N.H.&H.R.R. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. E. H. COAPMAN, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. N. D. Maher, S.E.C0TrEB, Vice-Pres., N.&W.Ry. Gen'l Manager, Wabash R. R. James Russell, P. E. Crowlet, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. , ,, „ A. M. SCHOTBR, p. R Amright, ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ResidentVice-Pres.,Pemia. Lines West Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. G. H. Emerson, W. L. Seddon, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. C. H. EwiNG, A. J. Stone, Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. E.W.Gbicb, J.W.Higgins. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. A. S. Gbeig, C. P. Neill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J. G. Walbee. Representing the Organizations A. B. Garretson, Pres., 0. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of R. T.) L. E. Sheppahd, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. L. G. Gripfing, Asst. Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. New York, N, Y., June 1, 1916. Meeting called to order at 10 :20 by Mr. Elisha Lee. Mr. Elisha Lee : I would request all those who are not di- rectly connected Avith the conference to leave the auditorium. In starting these conferences, I might say that we are here to discuss what might be termed a business proposition. The men are requesting certain things and the managers are here to discuss those things with them. It is advisable, we think, that the discussion should be free and frank and full, as it is a busi- ness proposition. The managers are here dealing with the rep- resentatives of their own men and we must have a full discussion as far as is consistent with the size of the territory and the number of men represented and the generalities of the questions. Now, that is about all that I have to say about it. Mr. Garretson : I guess you have said it for us. The thing to determine first is naturally methods of pro- cedure, hours of gathering and questions of representation. Until we have decided on those, naturally we are at sea and can't touch on the merits of the case, until we know who we are touching it for. Mr. Elisha Lee: That is right. What is your idea about the hours. Mr. Garretson : We want to give as many hours as possible to the work, as we can consistently hold up to with yourselves. You will bear in mind that the strain is somewhat heavier upon us than upon you. Mr. Elisha Lee : It is heavy enough, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : I was speaking for us. We are carrying what you are dividing. You have your office arranged in a way that we haven't, and we haven't full facilities for the force that you have, so it might be possible that we would not want to go so long a limit as you might want to do. Mr. Elisha Lee : We were very much in accord with that idea, Mr. Garretson. We don't want to make the limit too long. We are of course carrying more or less of a load. We want to discuss things as we go along among ourselves and we thought perhaps, as has been done in the past, one session a day. Mr. Garretson : I am satisfied on that and we will be very glad to meet your desii'cs. Mr. Elisha Lee : As to just Avhat those hours are, we hadn't figured on them at all. Some one suggested from 9 :00 to 1 :00, others from 10 :00 to 1 :00 and 9 :30 to 12 :30, or something Of that sort. Mr. Garretson : How does the hour strike you, Stone? Mr. Stone : All right. Mr. Garretson: Any one of those, three or three hours and a half, because on the matter of outside sessions, we are just where you arcj we have got to hold them. Mr. Elisha Lee : How would 10 :00 to 1 :00 strike you? Mr. Garretson : 10 :00 to 1 :00 or 1 :30. Mr. Elisha Lee : We can try it 1 :30 and if we find we are getting pretty empty, we can change it to 1 :00 o'clock. Mr. Garretson : I suppose on the eating proposition that even if we don't get on the wire edge, there are people here who will. Mr. Elisha Lee : I guess so. We will say 10 :00 to 1 :30 as a starter. Mr. Garretson : Good. I would like to ask before you start in on this, in view of the fact that we are renting this hall by the day, if it would be possible for us to occupy the hall with our men after you have adjourned your daily hearing if we want to hold a meeting of our men. Mr. Elisha Lee : I think that it could be easily arranged. How about that, Mr. Walber? Mr. Walber : The understanding was that we were to have the hall at the rate stipulated for a day. We learned yesterday that if we were only going to have the session from 10 :00 to 1 :00 that they would make a rate of |65 a day instead of the $100. Mr. Garretson : Could we not arrange this, then? If we want to hold a session, presumably a half hour, or an hour, we could still let that |65 rate stand and we will pay for the hour. Mr. Walber : Why, certainly. Mr. Elisha Lee : I do not think there would be any question about that. Mr. Garretson : As you deal with the management of the hall, I would be very glad to have you take it up, because it would be more satisfactory for us than to scatter the men and then get them together again. Mr. Walber : Might I suggest that after we adjourn today I will take you down to see the superintendent and we will fix it up jointly. Mr. Garretson : We will be very glad to do so, the four of us. By the way, can you furnish us with a list of your representatives? You will bear in mind, Mr. Walber, you were going to send us that. Mr. Walber : I overlooked it and I owe you an apology. Mr. Garretson : I was too busy to find that out until a day or two ago. Bear in mind you can furnish that to us at your early convenience. Mr. Elisha Lee : As a starter we can just cut off one of our letterheads. Have you got one of those here? Mr. Walber : I will give you that this afternoon. Mr. Garretson : That is all right. Mr. Elisha Lee : We have some extra copies of this here [Statement of Authorizations] this morning, or would you want to check it against yours? Mr. Garretson : I expect first we had better check it against ours, and then if you have the copies we will be glad to have them. Mr. Elisha Lee : I have them sectionally. Mr. Garretson : According to territory? Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes, that is the way they were fixed up and they were fixed up in a little bit different form. [Addressing Mr. Walber.] Have you the West yet? We found there was some difficulty about some of the Western ones and we are trying to get them straightened out. That list has not come up yet. Mr. Elisha Lee : [Beading.] B. & O. Railroad Co. includ- ing the B. & O. Southwestern and excluding the Staten Island Eailway Company, Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Com- pany, Baltimore & New York Railway Company, Little Kanawha Railroad Company, Sharpsville R. R. Co., Sandy Valley & Elkhom Railway Company. Mr. Garretson: Now, as a matter of information. Nee, are all of those lines excepted under the B. & O. schedule? Mr. Nee : Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson: You represent them? Mr. Nee : No, sir. Mr. Garretson : How about your men? Mr. Stone : I don't think so. Is the B. & O. chairman here? I am sure the Staten Island was in our last — ' Mr. Elisha Lee : In the East? Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : I don't think so, Mr. Stone ; as I remember it, there was a settlement made on the Staten Island after the arbitration. Mr. Garretson : Are you sure that wasn't ours? Mr. Elisha Lee : No, that was an engineer's. Mr. Griffing : A settlement was made on the Staten Island afterwards. Mr. Stone : By applying the award, was that it? Mr. Griffing : Yes, by the award. Mr. Walber : Might I remind you, Mr. Stone, that after the award was handed down you took the matter up personally? Mr. Stone : Well, what came of all that, Mr. Chairman? Why should the Staten Island Eailroad, which is the B. & O. New York terminal, be excepted from any application of any agreement reached here any more than any other road? It is B. & O. prop- erty pure and simple. Mr. Elisha Lee: That I can't answer, Mr. Stone. We are dealing for those portions of the railroads and classes of em- ployees that the roads give us the authority to deal for. Now, if there is any question about these, we will be very glad to get whatever information we can for you on it. Mr. Garretson : Take it on that basis, Mr. Lee. Now, bear in mind I want to make this clear. Mr. Elisha Lee: Absolutely. Mr. Garretson: As to this as a type, if you were author- ized by that company to deal for them in so far as your authority goes, you are prepared to go back to them with any information or statement as to our attitude on the question and ask for the authorization if they desire to give it. Mr. Elisha Lee : xibsolutely so. Mr. Garretson : Here is what will necessarily arise. There are properties — now, let us follow it to its logical sequence for a minute. If the necessity would arise to go back to the men first for authorization to retire from the service, and second, retire the men from the service, bear in mind, we will deal for the allied properties as a whole in that instance, whether or not you are representing them. That is a foregone conclusion. Mr. Elisha Lee : I would imagine so. Mr. Garretson : Whereas if you were playing the game your- self you would play it that way. Mr. Elisha Lee : Very likely, sir, but I want to make plain our position in the matter ; we are authorized to represent, as we are advising you here, certain properties, certain portions of properties have been reserved. Sometimes they haven't been in the schedule before. Now, we couldn't attempt on our part to represent those portions of the properties or certain classes of employees that the road does not give us the authority to rep- resent, but as I said before, if there is objection on a certain point and you want to know particular reasons, I would be very glad to ask the road. Then we will have to be bound, of course, by what the road says. Mr. Garretson: And in dealing with a road represented here, you are our only medium of communication as to what our attitude might be. Mr. Elisha Lee: Exactly so, except back the other way through the men to the road. Mr. Garretson : When we are dealing with you we are not using the other. That channel is closed to us for the time being, because we recognize you now as the mouthpiece of the property instead of its independent manager. Mr. Elisha Lee: Very good. Mr. Garretson : Therefore it is right and proper that we make perfectly clear to you what our attitude might be in case of last resort, because we are not boys. Mr. Elisha Lee: Exactly so. Mr. Garretson: We are men, and we are facing the thing that we may have to lead up to. Mr. Elisha Lee : Exactly. We are all facing that situation, Mr. Garretson. Will you give us a memorandum of what you would like to say to the roads or shall we get it out of the minutes? Mr. Garretson : We had better check these and find out Avhat the exceptions are, and then from the record we will take what the exceptions are and what we have to give to you and probably it would be better read right into the record at one place. Mr. Elisha Lee: I thought after we had checked your list against ours, then we would turn over to you a copy of this list that we have here. [Reading.] B. & L. E. R. R. including the Pitts- burg, Bessemer & Lake Erie R. R. Meadville, Conneaut Lake & Linesville R. E. ; excluding conductors and trainmen until 30 days from Nov. 1, 1916— Rule No. 60 of C. & T. Schedule. Yardmen Conneaut Harbor Yards. Mr. Garretson: Let me ask about — Dodge is here — Have you got a complete list of those yards? Mr. Dodge : No, sir. I have a complete list of the roads that have given the committee the power to act, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : The thing I wanted to make clear was this ; there have in the past been some exceptions where the contract was held, at certain yards on certain property, and where that claim is put forward now, you bear in mind we will have to make that subject of verification. Mr. Dodge : I am a substitute for Mr. Lee. He will be here in a few days. Mr. Garretson: I know that, but this question will be dis- posed of possibly before his arrival. Mr. Elisha Lee : It may or may not. So far as we are con- cerned, if there are any things in here that you want to leave open until Mr. Lee gets here, that is perfectly agreeable to us. There may be one or two things in here that we will want to leave open for a day or so, because in a movement of this size there are some roads that we can't get exact and specific information from in the time that you want it. [Reading.] Boston & Albany R. R., no exceptions. Boston & Maine R. R. including Sullivan County Railroad, Vermont Valley Railroad, York Harbor & Beach R. R. Co., excluding St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain R. R. Co., Mont- pelier & Wells River Railroad, Barre & Chelsea Railroad Co., Mount Washington Railway Co., Conway Electric Street Railway Co., or on electric branches running from Portsmouth, N. H., and Concord, N. H. It might be well, Mr. Garretson, as I read the name of the road, if the Chairman on that road would pay particular attention in order to help you out when you come to check up. That is just a suggestion. Mr. Garretson : Does the Boston & Maine agreement apply to any of those lines? Mr. Hammond : Never has. Mr. Garretson : It is a joint agreement? Mr. Hammond: It is joint between the conductors and trainmen. Mr. Garretson : That is what I mean — that covers your ex- ceptions then, also. Mr. Hammond : Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : Buffalo & Susquehanna E. R., including Wellsville & Buffalo E. E. Corporation separately. They have made a difference, as I understand there. I am explaining off- hand, because I don't know the exact facts. There are two cor- porations there, but they include both, but they made a point, for some reason or other, of putting in the Wellsville & Buffalo Eailroad Corporation separate. Mr. Garretson: Stambaugh, your contract covers that line? Mr. Stambaugh : Both proper. Mr. Elisha Lee : They are not excluded? Mr. Garretson : No, they are included. Mr. Walber: The only point that was made in that, that is, comparatively recent, the corporation had been divided up and we are authorized to deal for each of those companies, but this later offshoot is perhaps to be covered by the separate contract. That is the only distinction. Mr. Elisha Lee: Those two corporations, as I understand, are separated and he wants to deal with them separately. Mr. Garretson : But he applies to both, Mr. Elisha Lee : Now, there is an exception on the Buffalo and Susquehanna of hostlers. Mr. Stone: Not in the notices sent out there isn't. Mr. Elisha Lee : That is all they have told us about it. Mr. Stone : That is probably an afterthought. Mr. Elisha Lee : I don't now whether that was it or not, but after we get through these things and get them in the record I have no doubt that you will want them to check them up with your own men. Mr. Shea: Mr. Lee, was this road in the eastern Firemen's Arbitration in 1913? Mr. Elisha Lee : I am inclined to believe it was. Mr. Shea: On what grounds do they exclude hostlers? Mr. Elisha Lee: They haven't given us any, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : My records show that we have a standard reply from this road which would include all classes of employees that are covered by their present agreement. Mr. Stone : There is no exception in the letter that I have from that road. 8 Mr. Shea : So far as excepting or including hostlers, I pre- sume we will get into that more in detail later on. Mr. Elisha Lee : It seems to me, Mr. Shea, after you check these things up with the men, then you can suggest to us what you would like to say and what your real position is. Mr. Shea : Yes, I think that would be the best way. Mr. Walber : By the way, you say, Mr. Shea, that there is no reservation. Mr. Shea : That is, so far as my papers are concerned. Mr. Walber: The copy that Mr. Darlow gave us is dated April 24, and at the top of the second page says, "Hostler service has not heretofore been covered by the schedule of Engineers and Firemen on this railroad and are excepted in this proceeding." Mr. Shea : Then according to that, this road was not in the eastern firemen's movement in 1913, because the arbitration pro- vides for the rate of pay and rules of employment for hostlers on all roads that participated in the eastern movement. Mr. Walber : That is true, but we don't know Avhat the Com- mittee and the Management did subsequently decide. Mr. Shea : Well, I think we had better check so that we will know whether it was or not. Mr. Walber : It was not. I have it here. Mr. Elisha Lee: Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Company, no exceptions. Mr. Shea : You refer now to the Central 'New England Ry. Company? Mr. Elisha Lee : No, Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Rail- way Company, no exceptions. The Central New England Ry. Company will apply only to such employees and to such portions of the line as are now embraced within the existing schedules. Mr. Garretson: Central New England, Quinlan? Ans. : I do not think he is here. Mr. Shea : I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the Central New England is included in the list of roads that participated in the eastern Firemen's Arbitration. Mr. Elisha Lee : It will apply only to such employees and to such portions of the lines now embraced Avithin the existing schedule. Mr. Garretson : That is what I wanted to develop, but they are not here and Ave will find out on the outside. 9 Mr. Dodge : Mr. Garretson, I will have a list of our chair- men on these various roads. Mr. Garretson : We have not made it up yet. Mr. Elisha Lee : We will pass over the Central Railway of New Jersey at present. We are in conference with them, but they will be here tomorrow. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway. Line South Hammond, Ind., to Massachusetts Ave., Indianapolis, Ind. Line Michigan City, Ind., to Vincennes St., New Albany, Ind. Line Wallace Jet., Ind., to New Victoria, Ind. ; Bedford, Ind., to Switz City, Ind., and from Orleans, Ind., to French Lick, Ind., excludes the C. & W. V. Railway. Mr. Garretson : Was the C. & W. V. Railway under your agreement? Delegate : No, sir, not under our agreement. Mr. Elisha Lee: Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Ry. Co. No exception. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway excludes the Cincin- nati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co. Mr. Garretson : Well, the C, I. & W. is now an independent corporation. Mr. Elisha Lee : I only know they excluded it. Mr. Garretson : Worthington possesses the C. I. & W. now. Mr. Elisha Lee : I do not think they are represented. Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co. No exception. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. No exception. Delaware & Hudson Co. includes D. & H. only, excludes Greenwich & Johnsonville Railway Co. Schoharie Valley Rail- way, Quebec, Montreal & Southern Ry. Napierville Junction Rail- way. Mr. Garretson : Paine, are those lines covered by the D. & H. agreement? Mr. Paine : No. Mr. Garretson : Not now. Mr. Paine: No. Mr. Elisha Lee : Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railway Co. includes Sussex Railroad Co. Lackawanna & Montrose Rail- 10 road Co. Applies only to Hoboken, Secaucus, Newark Switching District and to Paterson. Excludes S. U. Yards (Yards west of and including Port Morris) . Mr. Dodge: I do not think we have had any contract on any of those. Mr. Elisha Lee: Erie Eailroad Company excludes N. Y., Susquehanna & Western, New Jersey & New York Railroad. Bath & Hammondsport Railroad. Mr. Garretson: What were those three exceptions? (Reads them again.) Mr. Garretson: Zimmerman, The New Jersey and New York is covered by a special agreement applying thereto. That applies to conductors and trainmen? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : The Susquehanna is under a separate agree- ment. Have you a representation for the New York, Susquehanna & Western? Mr. Elisha Lee: No. Mr. Garretson : The other lines named are covered by your agreement? Mr. Zimmerman : No, outside, they are separate. Mr. Stone: How about the engineers? Mr. Kelly: The engineers have an agreement of their own and the New York and New Jersey is covered by an Erie agree- ment now. Mr. Stone : And the New York and Susquehanna was in the Eastern arbitration in 1912 was it not? Mr. Kelly : Yes. Mr. Shea : Does that apply to the firemen? Mr. Hanvey : Yes, it does. Mr. Shea : The New Jersey and New York is included in the Erie schedule proper? Mr. Hanvey : It is covered by a special letter, the same agreement under the same conditions. Mr. Elisha Lee : Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Company, no exception. Hocking Valley Railway Company includes the Wellston & Jackson Belt Railway, no other exceptions. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, no exception. Indianapolis Union Railway Company, no exception. Mr. Stone: Just a minute before you get away from the 11 Indiana Harbor Belt Railway Company. Isn't that covered, Mr. Crowley, by the New York Central lines with Illinois division? Mr. Crowley : No, it is a separate line. Mr. Stone : Well, it is really a part of the C. I. & S., is it not? Mr. Crowley : No, not now ; it is a consolidation of the Lake Shore and New York Central and C. I. & S. It is operated en- tirely separate. Mr. Stone : I know our men hold seniority over both prop- erties. Mr. Crowley : Yes, they are negotiating now with the men, I believe, to separate the men, certain men on the Indiana Har- bor Belt Eailroad Company and certain men on the old railway. Mr. Stone : Well, that has been an open question for the last ten years. Mr. Crowley: I understand now, the men want it? Mr. Stone : Well, a certain part of the men always wanted it, but the majority didn't. Mr. Garretson : The same agreement with us, I think, origin- ally applied before the separation and has been continued since that time on two of those properties. Mr. Stone : Does the same agreement apply on two of those properties now. Mr. Howard : There is a different agreement with the loco- motive men. Mr. Stone : I mean oiTrs, the old agreement for the C. I. & S., including the three I's, doesn't it apply to both these territories? Mr. Howard : It doesn't now, it is separate, I believe with the locomotive^ men, though the agreement is the same. Mr. Elisha Lee : Indianapolis Unioi Railway Company. Mr. Garretson : You gave us that. Mr. Elisha Lee: Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company. No exceptions. Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company includes Northern Ohio Railway Company, no other exceptions. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, excludes conductors and yard forces at Buffalo except engineers and firemen; that is, the engineers and firemen in the Buffalo yard are represented by us, but conductors and switchmen and brakemen are not represented by us. Mr. Garretson : The conductors and brakemen in the Buffalo 12 yards and the conductors on the Lehigh Valley are excepted in the exception. Mr. Elisha Lee : Let ns get that straightened out. The only exception we have is this: Conductors and yard forces at Bufealo— Mr. Garretson: That means the conductors on the road. I am giving you the explanation, it means this, conductors on the road and the yard forces at Buffalo. Mr. Elisha Lee : That is right. Mr. Garretson : Because my men \vent in there and settled here three or four months ago. Mr. Elisha Lee: All the conductors are cut out of this. Mr. Garretson: That is correct. Mr. Elisha Lee: Lehigh and New England Eailroad Com- pany, no exception. Long Island Railroad Company including New York and Eockaway Beach Railway Company, New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan Railroad Company; excluding Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company; Northport Trac- tion Company; employees operating storage batteries and elec- tric trolley cars and hostlers. Mr. Stone: Might I ask for information? Just what does he mean by trolley cars? The single unit car that is doing the switching within his yard, and all that? Mr. Elisha Lee : I don't know. If you want to raise that question, we will be glad to raise it. Mr. Stone : Well we will surely raise it because we won that before in the last arbitration, and we certainly are not going to let him except it this time. Mr. Elisha Lee: Maine Central Railroad Company, includ- ing Portland Terminal Company, excluding Sandy River & Range- ley Lake Railroad Company, and Bridgeton & Saco River Railroad Company. Mr. Garretson : Mr. Hopkins, are those two lines under your agreement? Mr. Hopkins : The other two are not under our agreement. Mr. Elisha Lee: Michigan Central Railroad Company; ex- cluding Detroit & Charlevoix, Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railroads ; Switchmen in the employ of Company west of Detroit River. 13 Mr. Garretson: Mr. Campbell, are those lines under the Michigan Central agreement now? Mr. Campbell: The Detroit and Charlevoix while they haven't gotten a written agreement, it was by special agreement that they were given the percentage increase, that was in the last award, however, they are not getting the standard pay yet. Mr. Garretson : Did they deal with the committee for that line? Mr. Campbell: Yes. Mr. Garretson : How about the other line, the Chicago, Kal- amazoo and Saginaw? Mr. Campbell : I don't know that we have anything on that. Mr. Elisha Lee: Monongahela R. R. Co., no exceptions. New York Central R. R. Co. except Little Falls & Dolgeville R. R., Ottawa & New York R. R., S. U. Yards operated under schedule with Switchmen's Union of N. A. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co. except Buffalo & Cleveland Yards for Conductors and Brakemen. Mr. Dodge : We represent^ Mr. Elisha Lee: The only exceptions that we have are the Buffalo and Cleveland Yards. We represent them for the other Yards. Mr. Dodge : I was confident we had the Cleveland Yards. Mr. Walber : There may be a question about Chicago. Mr. Dodge: I think the General Managers' Association of Chicago represented the Nickel Plate — the yardmen of the Nickel Plate, of course. I didn't make that contract, but we can find that out. Mr. Elisha Lee : New York, New Haven &. Hartford Railway Company will apply only to such employees and to such portions of the line as are now embraced within the existing schedule, except the New York, Westchester and Boston. Mr. Garretson : That is the same as the Central New Eng- land, exactly. Loring, is the Westchester under your agreement now? Mr. Loring : No, it is in the mill at the present time. Mr. Garretson: You are trying to decide? Mr. Loring: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Well, we will try to give the crank a turn. (Laughter.) 14 Mr. Elisha Lee : New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co., no exceptions. New York, Phila. & Norfolk R. R. Co., including the Cape Charles R. R. Pa. R. R. Co. lines including Phila., Balti- more & Washington Co., Northern Cent. Ry. Co (prior to July 1, 1914), West Jersey & Seashore Railroad Co., Rosslyn Connecting Railroad Co. Pennsylvania Lines West of Pittsburgh, including Pennsylvania Co., Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., excluding Waynesburg & Washington R. R. Co., Wheeling Terminal Railway, Ohio River & Western Railway Co., Cincinnati, Lebanon & Northern Ry. Co. Mr. Garretson : Irwin, are any of those lines under agree- ment now? Mr. Irwin : Not now. Mr. Stone : Mr. Cams, are any of those lines carrying your ■ schedule now? The C. L. & N. is covered by your contract? Mr. Cams : Not by our contract ; it is the same line — they apply the same rate but not through us. Mr. Stone : Mr. Schoyer, isn't that Wheeling Terminal a part of your system? Mr. Schoyer : No, it is entirely a separate organization. Mr. Stone : I understand it is a separate organization, but doesn't it carry standard rates? Mr. Schoyer : No, it is an entirely separate matter in every way. Our General Manager has not had anything to do with it at all. Mr. Stone : But it is Pennsylvania property pure atid simple. Mr. Schoyer : I think the Pennsylvania owns largely but not entirely. It is not like the Panhandle or those roads, it is just like the C. L. & N. or the O. R. & W. Mr. Elisha Lee : Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., including Atlantic City Railroad Co., Catasauqua & Foglesville R. R. Co., The Chester & Delaware River R. R. Co., The Gettysburg & Harris- burg Ry. Co., Middletown & Hummelstown R. R. Co., The North- east Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Perkiomen Railroad Company, The Phila. & Chester Valley R. R. Co., the Phila., Newton & New York R. R. Co., Pickering Valley Railroad Company, The Port Reading Railroad Co., Reading & Columbia Railroad Company, the Rupert & Bloomsburg R. R. Co., Stony Creek Railroad Company, The Tamaqua, Hazelton & Northern R. R. Co., The Williams Valley Railroad Co., no exclusions. 15 Mr. Garretson : Some of those could have been kept out on account of their names. Mr. Elisha Lee: Pittsburj,', Chartiers & Youghiogheny Ry. Co. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co., including Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Company, excluding Pittsburg, Chai-tiers & Youghiogteny Ry. Co., for which we have a separate authoriza- tion. Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern R. R., including Pittsburgh & Shawmut R. R., no exceptions. Rutland R. R. Co. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., including The Zanesville & Western Ry. Co. Vandalia R. R. Co., including Terre Haute & Peoria R. R. Co., no exceptions. Wabash Pittsburgh Terminal Ry. Co., West Side Belt R. R. Co., no exceptions. Mr. Stone : You have that separate from the Lake Erie. Mr. Garretson : Bodle, we have got Wabash Pittsburgh Terminal and Lake Erie & Wheeling under the same agreement, haven't we? Mr. Bodle : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Trainmen, also? Mr. Bodle : Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee: Wellsville & Buffalo R. R. Co. You will find that under the Buffalo & Susquehanna R. R. Co., that is, that separate proposition. We had separate authorization there. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : Western Maryland Ry. Co., no exceptions. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., including Lorain & West Vir- ginia Ry., excluding Zanesville Belt and Terminal R. R. Southern lines — Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic R. R. Wait a minute. I will read this statement, which is a part of this large statement and it covers all these roads. This is a statement show- ing southeastern roads represented by the National Conference of the; Railways and also giving for each road the classes of em- ployees that are to be covered in its negotiations. In each case the line represented is that covered by the present respective schedules with the classes of employees below indicated. Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic R. R. We are authorized to represent the engineers in road service, conductors and white train- men in road service, engineers in yard service, white conductors and white switchmen in yard service. Mr. Shea: Acording to that, Mr. Chairman, you are not authorized to represent the firemen. 16 Mr. Elisha Lee : We are not authorized to represent any road firemen, or any yard firemen. Mr. Stone : Iluddleston, have you any white firemen on that A. B. &A.? Mr. Huddleston : A few. Mr. Stone: Have they a contract? Mr. Huddleston : They have not ; they tried to get a contract at one time and the management before the present management gave them a letter which would apply to present conditions that ex- isted in the engineers' contract. While they haven't any contract covering them, the engineers haven't any contract covering that class of service. Mr. Shea: I want to make a statement that I negotiated a schedule for the firemen with the officers of that road in the fall of 1905, 1 believe, signed by the representatives of the firemen and the officers. It was a joint schedule between the engineers, fire- men and the officers of the company. Mr. Elisha Lee: They have excepted them, Mr. Shea. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind, I have knowledge of the mak- ing of that agreement, because I signed it the next morning. Mr. Shea: That is right. Mr. Elisha Lee: Atlantic Coast Lines — we represent this road for the engineers, conductors and white trainmen in road service, the engineers in yard service and white conductors and white switchmen in yard service. Mr. Shea: According to that, Mr. Chairman, you are not authorized to represent that road so far as the firemen are con- cerned? Mr. Elisha Lee : We are not. Those that I read, Mr. Shea, were just the ones that we are authorized to represent. Mr. Shea : Have you a representative here from the Atlantic Coast Line? Mr. Elisha Lee : Mr. Albright. Mr. Shea : I think the firemen or a committee representing the firemen, reached an understanding and I believe it is in writ- ing, sometime in January, 1912, fixing the rates of pay for firemen on the Atlantic Coast Line and certain rules governing their em- ployment, particularly their seniority rights. Have you any recol- lection of that? Mr. Albright : I have no recollection of any such agreement. Mr. Shea : Well, I have the record myself. I haven't a copy 17 of it with me. I have it at the hotel and I will introduce that later on, showing that there is an agreement between the officers of the Atlantic Coast Line and the representatives of the firemen, fixing their rates of pay and I believe it also applies to hostlers. Mr. Albright: You mean rates of pay and wage conditions? Mr. Shea : Yes, it is in the form of a letter. If my memory serves me right, it is in the form of a letter. The rates that are paid are stipulated in the letter. I think that the rates that are paid is based on the percentage of the en- gineers' wages — I believe 53%. Mr. Elisha Lee : Atlanta and West Point Eailway, En- gineers in road service, conductors in road service, engineers in yard service. Mr. Garretson : Spratling, are there any white brakemen on the line? Mr. Spratling : No, sir. Mr. Garretson: You have white fiagmen? Mr. Spratling : We have white flagmen, but they have no committee. Mr. Elisha Lee : Western Eailway Of Alabama. Mr. Garretson : Have you got separate authorizations? They are both under the same management and operated to- gether. Mr. Neill : There is one single authorization. Mr. Garretson : That is all we have ever done. Mr. Neill : A single schedule covers them all. Mr. Elisha Lee : In other words, the Atlanta and West Point Eailway includes the Western Eailway of Alabama, and we have the same authorization, that is engineers in road service, con- ductors in road service, engineers in yard service. Atlanta Joint Terminals, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen in road service, white hostlers, and, in yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Eailway — in road service, engi- neers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen ; in yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Central of Georgia Eailway, road service engineers, conduc- tors, white trainmen, white hostle'rs, yard service engineers, white conductors, white switchmen. Mr. Stone: Mr. Emerson, B. of L. E. 18 Mr. Emerson : We haven't got any firemen's contract. In the Chicago agreement, the engineers represented the firemen and we have done that. We haven't made any scale of pay if or them, but their percentage is understood, it goes along with the en- gineers' agreement. Mr. Stone: That can be taken up later. Mr. Emerson : We will have to represent them if they have any trouble. Mr. Elisha Lee: Chesapeake & Ohio Eailway. Eoad serv- ice, engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen ; hostlers ; yard serv- ice, engineers, firemen, conductors, switchmen. Mr. Dodge : How about the Chesapeake & Ohio of Indiana? Mr. Elisha Lee : That comes in under the general authoriza- tion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Ey. Mr. Garretson: We check both, because the trainmen with us have separate agreements. Mr. Shea: Do they exclude the hostlers? Mr. Elisha Lee: They include, I guess, everything. Cin- cinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ey. Eoad service en- gineers, white firemen. Mr. Garretson: Th3.t is the Queen & Crescent l!^orth, you are figuring it by the corporation lines. Queen & Crescent North is C. N. O. & T. P. & A. G. S. Our agreements, the trainmen and us, cover the two lines together. Mr. Elisha Lee: You mean C. N. O. & T. P. & A. G. S.? Mr. Garretson : We take those under the name of Q. & C. North. Mr. Elisha Lee : There is a slight exception here and I think I had better read the two lines. C. N. & O. and T. P., road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen; white hostlers; yard service, engi- neers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen, except that the yardmen in the Cincinnati and Ludlow yards of the C. N. O. & T. P. are not included in these negotiations. Alabama Great Southern Eailroad, road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen; white hostlers; yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switch- men. Mr. Garretson : The whole line is covered by the one agree- ment still? 19 Mr. Stout : Yes. Mr. Shea : The whole line is covered by the one agreement still? Mr. Stout : Yes. Mr. Shea : I think the firemen and engineers have a separate schedule, one schedule for the line between Cincinnati and Chatta- nooga, which includes the Chattanooga Belt. Then another sched- ule i-epresented the engineers and firemen on the A. G. S. between Chattanooga and Meridian. Have you the Chattanooga Belt listed? Mr. Blisha Lee : You say you have a separate schedule for the Chattanooga Belt? Mr. Shea : I think the Chattanooga Belt is included in either one or the other, the A. G. S., or the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific. I think it is included in the A. G. S. Mr. Neill: The present schedule covers the Chattanooga Belt. Mr. Elisha Lee : Florida East Coast Railway, road service, engineers, conductors, white trainmen; yard service, engineers, white conductors, white switchmen. Mr. Butler, of Florida East Coast : Our schedule covers all trainmen, we have not any colored trainmen. Mr. Garretson : If they are all white this covers all of them. If you have some black ones they are left out. Mr. Elisha Lee : Georgia Southern & Florida Railway, road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen; white hostlers ; yard service, engineers, white firemen, white con- ductors, white switchmen. Georgia Railroad, road service, engineers, white firemen, con- ductors, white trainmen; white hostlers; yard service, engineers, white conductors, white firemen, white switchmen. Mr. Stone : With the Georgia Railroad, Mr. Chairman, the schedule for the engineers on. the Georgia Railroad also covers the Atlanta Belt, or Atlanta Terminal. Mr. Elisha Lee : Atlanta Joint Terminal. We have got that up above here, we represent both of them. Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Co. includes white hostlers; yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. It apparently also does not include any road service men ; perhaps they have not got any. 20 JUouisville & Nashville Railroad, road service, engineers, con- ductors, yard service, engineers. Mr. Stone : We represent the firemen on that road and made the schedule for them. Mr. Elisha Lee: We haven't any authorization for them. Mr. Stone : Is it not a fact that you make the rate for the firemen on the L. & N.? Mr. Bissett : No, we don't negotiate the rate. The company has always voluntarily included it in the schedule. Mr. Stone : It is put in the schedule at a certain percentage of the engineers' wage, is it not? Mr. Bissett : Yes, sir. They have the same working rules. Mr. Stone : In our printed schedule with the L. & N., the fire- men are covered by our schedule, are they not? Mr. Bisset : In the printed schedule, yes, sir. In the schedule that is issued by the company in print. In the schedule that we have drawn up to sign in writing, it is not included. Mr. Stone : All their working conditions and rates and everything are printed right in the Engineers' schedule. Mr. Garretson : Are there any conditions or rates in our schedule, for brakemen? Mr. Dye : Yes, sir, there are. In our printed schedule just the same as with the engineers. Whenever the conductors have received any per cent, of increase, a like per cent, has always gone to the trainmen and baggagemen. We have signed only as conductors. Mr. Garretson : Do you negotiate with the company on any of those rates or do they voluntarily insert? Mr. Dye : They voluntarily insert. Mr. Elisha Lee : Mobile and Ohio Railroad, road service, en- gineers, white firemen, conductors, white . trainmen ; yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, and white switchmen. Included in that is the Southern Railway Company in Mississippi, with a separate schedule, road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen; white hostlers; yard service, engi- neers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Mr. Garretson: Mr. Bettis, does our agreement cover the Southern in Mississippi or a separate book? Mr. Bettis : They have a separate book. 21 Mr. Garretson: Negotiated by your committee or by their own? Mr. Bettis : By my committee. Mr. Garretson: But it is issued separately? Mr. Bettis: Yes. Mr. Garretson : They have representation on yonr com- mittee? Mr. Bettis : Yes, sir. Mr. Elisha Lee: Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ey. Road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white train- men, white hostlers, yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors and white switchmen. New Orleans & Northeastern R. R. Co. road service. Mr. Garretson : Now, one minute, there. Have you got the three lines together, Evans — the V. S. & P., New Orleans, North- eastern and the A. & V. all in your agreement? Mr. Evans: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Trainmen the same? Mr. Evans : Joint agreement — yes. Mr. Elisha Lee: We represent them all the same. I Avill read the three together. Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes, because the other agreements are different. Mr. Elisha Lee: The Y. S. & P., New Orleans, Northeastern and the A. & Y., road service, engineers, conductors and white trainmen ; yard service, engineers, white conductors, white switch- men. Mr. Shea : That includes the V. S. & P.? Mr. Elisha Lee : V. S. & P. ? Mr. Shea : I understand you made a distinction there — that you represent the firemen. Mr. Elisha Lee : Made no distinction on those three. New Orleans Terminal Co., yard service, engineers, white fire- men, white conductors and white switchmen. Norfolk & Western Ry., road service, engineers, firemen, con- ductors, trainmen, hostlers — yard service, engineers, firemen, con- ductors, switchmen. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. and Washington Southern ( I will read those two together because they are the same — they have the same authorization). Are they separate schedules? 22 Mr. Coapman : One schedule. Mr. Garretson : We have one schedule. Mr. Elisha Lee : White firemen, conductors, white trainmen in road service. Yard service, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Seaboard Air Line Ry., road service, engineers, conductors, white trainmen; yard service, engineers, white con- ductors, white switchmen. Mr. Shea: You have no authority to represent the firemen on the Seaboard? Mr. Elisha Lee : On the Seaboard, no firemen, or no hostlers. Mr. Elisha Lee : Southern Railway Company, road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen, white hos- tlers, yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Virginia & Southwestern Railway, a part of the Southern Railway, road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen, white hostlers, yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Tennessee Central Railroad, road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen ; white hostlers ; yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Virginian Railway, road service, engineers, white firemen, con- ductors, white trainmen; white hostlers; yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors, white switchmen. Western Territory : Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, eastern lines, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, western lines, Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe Railroad, do you want these separate? Mr. Garretson : Go ahead with your list of Santa Fe prop- erties there. Mr. Elisha Lee : Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway — coast lines. Sunset Railway, Grand Canyon Railway. Mr. Garretson : All those lines, Mr. Kouns, are included under your Santa Fe proper railway. Is the Pan Handle & Santa Fe Railway in a separate contract or under the general? Mr. Elisha Lee : Under the general. Mr. Garretson : All of the Santa Fe proper is covered by the one book, including the Pecos Valley. Mr. Elisha Lee : The authority of the National Committee is as follows : To deal with the employees for the Order of Rail- 23 way Conductors and Brotherhood of Eailwaj Trainmen, covered by the schedule dated December 29, 1910, Brotherhood of Loco- motive Engineers, covered by the schedule dated December 1, 1912, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, schedule dated July 15, 1911. I am talking now of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, eastern lines. Mr. Stone : I would like to ask a question. There is a new book printed, is there not? Mr. Kouns : No, it hasn't been printed. Mr. Garretson : The agreement of 1910 is the one in date. Mr. Kouns : Yes, sir. Mr. Elisha Lee : Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, sched- ule for yardmen, dated July 1, 1915. Except Hostlers. Mr. Shea : I understand, Mr. Lee, that the Coast line does not exclude the hostlers. Mr. Elisha Lee : They have not specifically authorized hos- tlers nor have they excluded them. It might be well to raise that technical point, whether they do or' not, so that it will be perfectly clear. You understand this is a copy of the authorization as it came to us, and we have put it down here exactly. Mr. Shea : Who is Chairman of the Coast line, Walton? Does your schedule include hostlers? Mr. K. B. Walton : It does. Mr. Garretson : McNeil, do you have anything to do with the San Saba Line? Mr. McNeil : Not on the Coast line. Mr. Garretson : I do not know whether it was connected with you or not, for operation. Mr. Shea : Let me get a little information from Mr. Walton. Mr. Walton, did your schedule cover the rates of pay and rules of employment for hostlers prior to our Western arbitration? Mr. Walton : Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. ; Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix lines ; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and employees in train and yard service. Mr. Garretson : We have a separate agreement for the line made by our own committee on that line, haven't we, Mr. Paul? Mr. Paul : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Made by a committee for that line? Mr. Paul : Yes. 24 Mr. Garretson: Trainmen also? Mr. Paul : Yes. Mr. Shea : You understand the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe participated iu our Western Arbitration and that covered the rates and rules governing hostlers on all roads that participated therein. Mr. Elisha Lee : I am not altogether familiar but I think your statement is correct, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : And of course, I may as well say now that we shall take the position that the hostlers will be included on all roads in the Western territory that participated in the Western arbitration. Mr. Elisha Lee : We will have to take the position, Mr. Shea, that we will represent those roads and classes of employees that the railroads give us authority for. Mr. Stone : It may be necessary for you to go back and get some more authority then. ., Mr. Elisha Lee : After we receive these further communica- tions that will be checked up. Mr. Shea : I made that statement so that we would have our right to represent the different classes of employees. Mr. Elisha Lee : If the railroads see fit to give us the further authority that is perfectly agreeable to us. Mr. Stone : And if they do not see fit to give it to you? Mr. Elisha Lee : That is a matter that you will have to settle with them, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : All right. Mr. Elisha Lee : Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, Western Lines. Mr. Garretson : Have any of you different agreements for those two properties? Mr. Stone : No, but you give them in form according to man- ager's territory. Mr. Kouns : Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : That includes (reads) Order Railway Con- ductors and Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, schedule dated Dec. 29, 1910, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, schedule dated Dec. 1, 1912; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, schedule dated July 15, 1911. 25 Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, schedule for Yardmen dated July 1, 1915. Except hostlers. The authority given the committee includes the trainmen. Their schedule dated Dec. 29, 1910, and supplement of April 1, 1912. Engineers, schedule dated Dec. 1, 1912; firemen, schedule dated July 15, 1911 ; yardmen, schedule dated July 1, 1915. Except hostlers. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Pe Eailway Coast Lines including Sunset Railway and Grand Canyon Railway, covers the con- ductors, enginemen,. firemen, brakemen and yardmen. Mr. Elisha Lee: Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry., includes the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Loco- motive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Eailway Trainmen (Road), Brotherhood of Rail- way Trainmen (Yard). Mr. Elisha Lee : Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal R. R., includes engineers and firemen. Mr. Garretson : That exempts Yardmen under Chicago ter- ritory. Mr. Dodge : We haven't any yard schedule there. Mr. Elisha Lee : Chicago & Alton R. R. Employees in en- gine, train and yard service, with the exception of the employees in these classes of service on the Rutland, Toluca & Northern, and the hostlers on the Chicago & Alton system — these latter em- ployees not now being included in our present schedules. Mr. Garretson : Stacey, is the Toluca line under your agree- ment? Mr. Stacey : It is not. Mr. Garretson : Do the Alton men hold rights on it? Mr. Stacey : I believe that they do, I am not sure. Mr. Shea : We will have to take the same position with the Alton that we did in other roads, because the Alton participated in our Western arbitration and that portion of the award pertain- ing to hostlers is now incorporated in the schedule governing the rates of pay and rules of employment for firemen and hostlers on the Chicago & Alton Railroad. Mr. Elisha Lee : Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, includ- ing Pierre, Rapid City & Northwestern Eailway and Wyoming & Northwestern Railway includes: engineers under schedule dated 26 Dec. 16, 1915; firemen under schedule dated Dec. 16, 1915; con- ductors under schedule dated Aug. 1, 1914; trainmen under schedule dated Aug. 1, 1914; yardmen (Except Chicago district). May 15, 1912; yardmen (Chicago district), April 17, 1913. Mr. Garretson : Those are inclusions. Mr. Elisha Lee : All inclusions, they have, as I understand, a separate schedule for the Chicago District. Mr. Stone : When that was submitted to our committee they simply said they would exclude lines controlled, but not operated. Mr. Garretson: Those are all inclusions instead of ex- clusions. Mr. Elisha Lee: Chicago and Western Indiana Eailroad, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (Engineers), Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Firemen), except hos- tlers. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (Yardmen). Mr. Shea : Mr. Chairman, what I said regarding the Chicago & Alton will apply to the Chicago and Western Indiana. Mr. Elisha Lee : My remarks will apply the same. Belt Rail- way of Chicago, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (En- gineers), Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Firemen), Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (Yardmen), ex- cept hostlers. Mr. She'a: The same thing . applies. Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes, sir, the same thing. Mr. Stone : I notice there in the way you have the list made up, Mr. Chairman, that you specify particularly, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Engineers. Mr. Elisha Lee : I put it down just as it came to us. I don't think there is any special significance in it. I think it is just explanatory, that is all. That is here as a Brotherhood of Lo- comotive Engineers for the engineers, a Brotherhood of Loco- motive Firemen and Enginemen for the firemen. Brotherhood of Eailroad Trainmen, for the yardmen. Mr. Stone : I was wondering if you were trying to draw the distinction between those who are members of the organization and those not. If that is correct, we might just as well know that now, whether we are going to legislate for all of them or only part. Mr. Elisha Lee : That is what I am drawing it from, I take this to mean that we can talk to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for the engineers. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen 27 and Engineers for the firemen, Brotherhood of Eailroad Trainmen for the yardmen. That is my understanding of that at this time. If there is anything else, I don't know about it. Chicago, Burlington & Qnincy R. R. engineers, firemen, hos- tlers (as defined in rule 28 of Engineers & Firemen's pay sched- ules), conductors, trainmen and yardmen, C. B. & Q. proper. Mr. Garretson: Doesn't that include B. & M.? Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes. Mr. Garretson : I thought so. Wright, what is 0. B. & Q. proper? Mr. Wright : Our schedule covers lines west and east, B. & M. and the old Q. — Mr. Garretson : But they cover B. & M. under the name 0. B. & Q. now? Mr. Wright : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Then there is not any C. B. & Q. improper? Mr. Wright : Not that we know of. Mr. Stone : Leverington, what does your schedule cover, the C. B. & Q. System or the C. B. & Q. proper? Mr. Leverington : I understand it as one — C. B. & Q. — and that covers all the lines. I think where that insertion is probably on the Q. O. & K. C, for that is managed separately. Mr. Dodge: They made a sched — Mr. Elisha Lee: If it will straighten out the matter any, the General Manager of the lines East and the General Manager of the lines West have given us the information. It says : "We represent only the C. B. & Q. R. R. proper, and are not authorized to answer for any other line." Mr. Garretson : That is undoubtedly eliminating the Q. O. & K. C, and Tom, there is one or two of those little Coal roads down in the Centerville district that are operated independently. They are managed through the O. K., but I think they are in- dependent, isn't that correct, Wright? Mr. Wright : They are not covered by our schedule. Mr. Dodge: No. Mr. Stone : Before you get away from that Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City, we had a letter from Mr. Byram, who was one of our arbitrators in the last arbitration, that whatever settlement was arrived at would be applied on that road. Up to date we have not got it yet — ^it is still coming. I'S Mr. Shea : Inasmuch as that question was brought up, Mr. Chairman, I might say that I had that matter up personally with Vice-President Byram during one of our re-convened meetings of the Board of Arbitration, and he agreed to apply the award to that line and informed me to instruct our Chairman on that road to take the matter up Avith the General Superintendent. I was under the impression that the award had been applied to that property. Mr. Stone : When I left the office on Tuesday it had not been applied yet, or at least I had not been notified, and I had a note from Mr. Byram within the last two weeks that the committee should take it up. Mr. Elisha Lee : Is that a separately operated portion? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : 'Chicago, Great Western R. R. : engineers, current schedule effective July 1, 1911, amended by award of May 11, 1915; firemen, current schedule effective May 1, 1911, amend- ed by award of May 11, 1915 ; conductors, current schedule effective April 1, 1911 ; brakemen, current schedule effective April 1, 1911 ; yardmen, current schedule effective February 10, 1910. Chicago Junction Ry. : engineers, firemen, hostlers, and switchmen. Chi- cago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. : engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen and yardmen, including those employed by the Tacoma Eastern Ry., and Bellingham & Northern Ry., subsidiary lines, all of whom are governed by schedules with tiie B. of L. E., B. of L. F. & E., 0. R. C, and B. R. T. Mr. Garretson : What were the exceptions there? Mr. Elisha Lee : I didn't find any. Mr. Garretson : That is for the Milwaukee entire. We hold two agreements, the trainmen and us, as on the old Milwaukee and the Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound. They are not incorpor- ated in one agreement. And two committees represent them. Mr. Shea : I believe the Bellingham & Northern is included in the Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound schedule. Isn't that right, Mr. Arnold? Mr. Arnold : No, the Bellingham & Northern have a sched- ule of their own. Mr. Garretson : Mr. Reynolds, Bellingham is covered by ours, isn't it? Mr. Reynolds : No, it is not. ■Mr. Garretson : And all the rest named are? 29 Mr. Eeynolds : The Tacoma & Eastern is, the others not. Mr. Elisha Lee : We will pass over the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific for the present. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry : Conductors, baggagemen and brakemen, schedule in effect Dec. 29, 1910 ; engineers and firemen, schedule in effect Nov. 1, 1915; yardmen, schedule in effect May 1, 1910. Colorado & Southern Ey: Locomotive engineers, locomotive firemen, con- ductors, brakemen and switchmen. Mr. Garretson: No exceptions? Mr. Elisha Lee : No exceptions. Mr. Stone : On the Colorado & Southern, our committee makes the schedule for the Denver Interurban, which is a part of the line of the Colorado Southern and we hold general seniority over both, our men do. Mr. Dodge : The conductors and trainmen the same. Mr. Garretson : Mr. Jenks, your committee deals for the Denver Interurban, embodied in the same schedule made by the same committee and with the same men, and they hold seniority rights interchangeable on the two properties? Mr. Jenks : Yes, that is right. There are four organizations. Mr. Garretson : Now, there is a nice question there that ought to be checked up. Because you bear in mind we have had a-plenty with the Colorado & Southern over that, and it was settled in 1909, and was disposed of finally and we don't want to run that through the same grist mill again. Mr. Elisha Lee : When you get to checking it up we will just make a note of that and call it to your attention so we won't forget it. Mr. Shea: Mr. Chairman, have they excluded the hostlers? Mr. Elisha Lee : They haven't specifically said so, Mr. Shea. They have given us the specific authority for the locomotive engi- neers, firemen and switchmen. Mr. Shea : I take it from that then that they want you to represent the hostlers because they were parties to the agreement. Mr. Elisha Lee : That I can't say definitely. I might say this list here wasn't completed until sometime, 3 :00 or 4 :00 o'clock, this morning and probably the question that arises in your mind will arise in mine. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Schedule, Conductors and Trainmen. 30 Schedule, Locomotive Engineers. Schedule, Locomotive Firemen and Hostlers. Schedule, Yard Foremen and Helpers. Mr. Stone: The same question arises there. Mr. Elisha Lee: Which one? Mr. Garretson: The Rio Grande Southern is a corporation owned by The Denver & Rio Grande. I think some of the men are represented by the Denver & Rio Grande Committees, some are not. Peel, do you represent Rio Grande Southern in any capacity? . Mr. Peel : None whatever. They have their own committee with us, yes, their own agreement. Mr. Garretson: Who is it made with? Mr. Peel: It is made with their general superintendent, I believe. Mr. Garretson: Subject to appeal to the Denver & Rio Grande officers? Mr. Peel : To the President only. Mr. Shea : Wilson, do you represent the Rio Grande South- ern in negotiating a schedule now? Mr. Wilson: No, sir. They have a separate committee. Mr. Shea: Who do they negotiate with? Mr. Wilson: Dineen, Superintendent. They represent the engineers, I believe, on that system. Mr. Stone: How about it, Rentfrow, are you in the room? Do you represent the men on the Rio Grande Southern? Mr. Rentfrow : Yes. Mr. Stone: Make their schedule? Mr. Rentfrow: Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee: Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Ry. and Mineral Range R. R. : locomotive engineers, conductors, locomotive firemen, brakemen. El Paso & Southwestern System : engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen, yardmen. Mr. Garretson : Gillette, your agreement on the El Paso & Southwestern covers the Alamagorda Line? Mr. Gillette: Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson : And how about the Cloudcroft Line? Mr. Gillette : Yes, sir. Mr. Elisha Lee : As a matter of record I will say in the au- thorization, or in the reply, I guess this is, it includes [reading] : "I assume that the request for the revision of such wage schedules 31 was intended to include those of all of the lines generally known as the El Paso & Southwestern system, in which system's name such schedules were promulgated, inclusive not only of the El Paso & Southwestern E. K. Company named in your notice, but also the El Paso & Southwestern Company, The El Paso & Northeastern E. E. Company and of The El Paso & Southwestern E. E. Company of Texas, and I, therefore, reply on behalf of the entire system." Fort Worth & Denver City Ey., Wichita Valley Ey. : loco- motive engineers, locomotive firemen, conductors, brakemen and flagmen, yardmen, hostlers. Mr. Shea: We have the Wichita Valley separate. I think they have a separate schedule. Mr. Elisha Lee: They are both down here together. Wait a minute now, we will get it straight. Mr. Garretson : I think they are together. Mr. Flack, does your schedule cover the Wichita Valley? Mr. Flack : No, sir, it is a separate contract. Mr. Garretson : But the same committee? Mr. Flack : No, sir, they have their own committee. Mr. Elisha Lee: We have separate authorizations. Mr. Garretson: Good. Mr. Elisha Lee: Fort Worth Belt Ey., includes engineers and firemen. Great Northern Ey., includes Brotherhood of Loco- motive Engineers, schedule dated June 1, 1913, and Supplement dated May 11, 1915 ; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and En- ginemen, schedule dated March 1, 1913, and Supplement dated May 1, 1915; Order of Eailway Conductors, schedule dated No- vember 1, 1912; Brotherhood of Eailway Trainmen (for train- men), schedule dated November 1, 1912; Brotherhood of Eailway Trainmen (for yardmen), schedule dated August 1, 1912. Illinois Central E. E. includes Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Eailway Conductors and Brotherhood of Eailroad Train- men. The Yazoo & Mississippi Valley E. E. includes Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Order of Eailway Conductors and Brotherhood of Eailroad Trainmen. Mr. Shea : The firemen excluded. Mr. Elisha Lee : No authority for them, Mr. Shea. 32 Mr. Shea : We represented the firemen in our recent Western arbitration, and the award applied to firemen on that line. Mr. Elisha Lee : The authority does not include firemen. Mr. Stone : In this reply given they don't exclude the fire- men. Mr. Elisha Lee: International, Great Northern Eailway: Trainmen schedule effective Dec. 15, 1911 ; yardmen schedule effec- tive January 1, 1913; enginemen joint schedule effective Aug. 1, 1915. Mr. Garretson : How have you got it there? Mr. Elisha Lee : Trainmen? Mr. Garretson : Yes, our man is here under authorization from his own manager. Mr. Elisha Lee : Trainmen include conductors in the sched- ule, Mr. Bremerman? Mr. Bremerman : Yes. Mr. Lee : Kansas City, Mexico & Orient E. E., Kansas, Mexico & Orient Ey. of Texas, engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen. Kansas City Southern Eailway, Texarkana & Fort Smith Eailway : Order of Eailway Conductors schedule for train- men effective June 1, 1911 ; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers schedule for locomotive engineers effective Sept. 1, 1911 ; Brother- hood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen effective Sept. 1, 1911; Brotherhood of Eailroad Trainmen schedule for yardmen effective June 1, 1911. Mr. Dodge : That included the trainmen, did it not, the Kan- sas City Southern? Mr. Elisha Lee : Brotherhood of Eailroad Trainmen. Mr. Garretson : But it is included in the first, wasn't it a joint affair? Mr. Elisha Lee : Order of Eailroad Conductors, schedule for conductors effective June 1, 1911. Mr. Dodge: I know, it is a joint schedule and has been effective for years. Mr. Stone : Mr. Van Pelt. In your Kansas City Southern schedule is your Arkansas Western covered by it? Mr. Van Pelt : It is covered as far as the seniority of the men is concerned, but not so far as the rate is concerned. Mr. Stone: How about the Poteau Valley? Mr. Van Pelt : That is not mentioned either way. 33 Mr. Stone: No matter who supplies the men for it? Mr. Van Pelt : They only have one crew and I do not know where they came from. Mr. Stone: Who handles it? Mr. Van Pelt : Springfield Line. Mr. Stone : All right. Mr. Garretson : Bush, what do we do on the Poteau? Mr. Bush : We claim our schedule applies, but we have never been able to make it effective over there. Mr. Garretson : But we put the man on there. Mr. Bush : No, we did not put him on there. Mr. Garretson: Where did he come from? Mr. Bush : He is an old ex-conductor off the Kansas City Southern. Mr. Garretson : Is the Arkansas Western in your seniority list? Mr. Bush : Yes, sir. Mr. Stone : That is a different rate from the Kansas City Southern but they are supplied from the same roster. Mr. Elisha Lee: It doesn't come in under the schedule? Mr. Garretson : I do not think it does. Mr. Elisha Lee : Let us make certain of that. We will hold out for further decision the Kansas City Southern. Kansas City Terminal Eailway: Engine train and yard service employees. Louisiana & Arkansas Eailway : Locomotive engineers, white locomotive firemen (excluding hostlers), con- ductors. Mr. Shea : We take the same position, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the hostlers on the property as we have on other roads that were parties to the Western Arbitration. Mr. Elisha Lee : Minneapolis & St. Louis E. E. : Engineers and firemen, conductors and brakemen, switchmen, hostlers. Mr. Garretson : We have stopped using the name of the LC. Mr. Stone : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Coleman, your schedule goes over all parts of the Iowa Central? Mr. Coleman : Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie 34 Ey. : Schedule for trainmen and yardmen effective April 1, 1910, and supplement thereto effective Feb. 1, 1913. Mr. Stone : Will you refer back to that "Soo Line" again? Mr. Elisha Lee : That is all we are authorized to represent. Mr. Garretson: It was a joint agreement. Mr. Elisha Lee : Missouri, Kansas & Texas Lines, including the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway, Missouri, Kansas & Texas EaUway of Texas, Wichita Falls & Northwestern EaUway of Ok- lahoma. Locomotive engineers' schedule effective Feb. 15, 1913; supplements A. and B. effective May 11, 1915. Locomotive firemen (including hostlers) schedule effective April 1, 1913, supplements A. and B. effective May 11, 1915. Conductors and brakemen schedule effective April 1, 1913. Yardmen (yard conductors and brakemen) schedule effective October 15, 1912, supplement (unnumbered) effective April 1, 1913. Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Eailway; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Eailway Conductors, Brotherhood of Eail- way Trainmen. Mr. Elisha Lee : Missouri Pacific Eailway : St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway : Conductors, brakemen and bag- gagemen covered by schedule effective May 1, 1916. How about that date? Mr. Garretson: That date right. Corn? Mr. Corn: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Good. Mr. Elisha Lee: May 1, 1916? Mr. Corn : That is correct, that is signed up. Mr. Dodge: All right. Mr. Garretson: What did that division amount to? Mr. Corn : We wrote the schedule and brought it down to date, including the conferences of 1912 and 1914 and 1915. Mr. Garretson : And your understanding was that you were free here. Your understanding was that it did not hamper you in this movement? Mr. Corn: Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : Yardmen covered by schedule effective Aug. 1, 1915; locomotive engineers, locomotive firemen and hostlers covered by schedule effective Oct. 1, 1915 (with the exception of 35 the employees in electric car service on Coal Belt Electric Eail- way). Mr. Stone : There is a street car line about 11 or 12 miles long over there. Mr. Garretson : You never represented that? Mr. Corn : No, sir. Our schedules do not cover it. Mr. Elisha Lee : New Orleans, Texas & Mexico R. E. : En- gineers and conductors. Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Ey. : Engineers and conductors. Orange & Northwestern Railway : En- gineers, firemen and conductors (excluding Louisiana Southern). Mr. Dodge : The trainmen did not receive any reply from the general manager. I do not know whether we have any men there or not. Mr. Garretson : The property is in the hands of the Court. That is the old coast lines in the Frisco System. They are now associated for operating purposes with the St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico from Houston south. Mr. Elisha Lee : Apparently there are separate understand- ings on that thing, because two of these authorities are for en- gineers and conductors and the third authorizes firemen, engineers and conductors. Mr. Garretson : I do not think there is a question but what they are — Mr. Shea: Now, Mr. Chairman, I notice the New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railroad, Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Rail- way, were parties to our Western arbitration, and it applied to the firemen on this property and there is no question but what they have a schedule. Mr. Garretson: They were then operating as a part of the Frisco System. Mr. Elisha Lee : And since separated? Mr. Garretson : They are under a separate court now. They are under the Federal Courts of Louisiana, while the others are under the St. Louis Division, but they have been formally separ- ated, there is no doubt of that. Mr. Shea : Information, Mr. Garretson, from over here indi- cates that they have recently reorganized. Mr. Garretson : Well, they kept those together in a certain degree but our Frisco agreement never did extend over them. We have an agreement for the Frisco properties, for the Frisco in 36 Texas, and we have for the Frisco Coast Lines, and for the St. Louis, Brownsville and Mexico. Mr. Elisha Lee : We will come to that a little later. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Now, the Coast Line is broken off from the Frisco proper, and it still holds a close relation with the St. Lonis, Brownsville & Mexico and I think has the same oper- ating officers; the one authorized under the Court, the other probably a corporation. Mr. Elisha Lee: I was trying to get it straightened out; some of them wanted to make a statement in regard to it. This just shows the authority we have had. Mr. Stone: There is no question but what our Chairman, Mr. Wood, got a settlement for the firemen and got the Western award for the firemen and the hostlers. Mr. Elisha Lee : That was your chairman? Mr. Stone : Yes. Mr. Elisha Lee : Northern Pacific Eailway, employees in engine, train and yard service. Mr. Stone : Is Mr. Morgan of the Northern Pacific in the room? Mr. Garretson : Hughes? Hughes, does your agreement there include the Northern Pacific Terminal of the St. Paul? Mr. Hughes : Yes, for the yards, it does. Mr. Garretson : But do you know about the motive power? Mr. Hughes : Yes, it does. Mr. Stone : The fireman is here for the road. Who repre- sents the firemen? Mr. Hughes : Gorman. Mr. Shea : Does your schedule, Mr. Gorman, embrace the terminal? Mr. Gorman : Yes, it does. Mr. Elisha Lee : Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen in engine, train and yard service. Oregon Short Line E. E., conductors, brakemen, yardmen, engineers, firemen. Oregon- Washington Eailroad & Navigation Company, engi- neers : First District, December 24, 1910, including amendments thereto. Second District, June 27, 1911, including amendments thereto. 37 Mr. Dodge : I think that is correct. Mr. Garretson : Rhodes, isn't that all one agreement? Mr. Rhodes : It is two separate agreements. The old 0. R. & N. is the first district schedule. Mr. Garretson : That is true. Mr. Stone : That is where they transferred the power from one division to the other and the rate didn't follow because it wasn't covered in the old schedule. I know all about it. Mr. Elisha Lee : Peoria Railway Terminal Company. We will pass that over. St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway, train- men, O. R. C. and B. of R. T. ; engineers, B. of L. E. ; firemen, B. of L. F. & E. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. and Paris & Great Northern Ry. : Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Lo- comotive Firemen & Engineers, Order Railway Conductors, Broth- erhood Railroad Trainmen (except all hostlers, negro switchmen, negro brakemen and negro firemen). Mr. Garretson: That is for Frisco entire? Bear in mind I have two committees and two agreements. Mr. Elisha Lee : You have the St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. and the Fort Worth & Rio Grande R. R. Mr. Garretson : Frisco and Frisco & Texas, all lines south of the Rio Grande. Mr. Shea : Before you pass that, Mr. Chairman, I want to make an explanation that the St. Louis & San Francisco Rail- road is in our western arbitration, except hostlers. And, of course, the award did not apply to the hostlers on that property, but the St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway did not except the hostlers, and I understand that the award rates for hostlers have been applied to that property. Mr. Elisha Lee : We are coming down to that ; that is a sep- arate authorization. Mr. Shea : All right. Mr. Elisha Lee : St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway, includes conductors, engineers and firemen. Mr. Garretson : That is made by the same officers as the New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railroad? Mr. Elisha Lee : I take it so. Mr. Dodge : Haven't they got any white men over there, Mr. Garretson? 38 Mr. Garretson : Mr. Manning, got any white brakemen? Mr. Manning: No. Mr. Elisha Lee : St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway, Fort Worth & Rio Grande Ry. : Locomotive engineers, locomotive firemen, conductors, brakemen; hostlers are excluded. Mr. Shea : Those are the Texas lines? Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes, sir, I take it so. Mr. Shea : We understand that it applied to the hostlers in the Texas lines and they are receiving the benefit of the award. Mr. Elisha Lee: St. Louis Southwestern Ry. including St. Louis Southwestern Ry. of Texas: Engineers, firemen, hostlers, conductors, brakemen and yardmen. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. : Locomotive engineers, covered by agreement with Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, dated August 17, 1912, and supplements thereto. Conductors and brakemen, covered by joint agreement with the Order of Railway Conductors and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen dated January 1, 1911, and supplements thereto. Yardmen covered by agreement with ithe Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen dated November 3, 1911, and supplements thereto. Firemen and hostlers, covered by agreement with the Brother- erhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, dated April 19, 1911, and supplements thereto. Mr. Shea: I presume in referring to supplements thereto means the recent supplements? Mr. Elisha Lee : I presume so, or whatever supplements there are to their schedule. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R R. : Conductors, brake- men, engineers, firemen, switchmen. Mr. Shea: Evidently, they excluded hostlers over there? Mr. Elisha Lee: I have made a note of that so we can get this thing perfectly clear. I would like you, gentlemen, also to make notes of these exceptions so we can take it up. Southern Pacific Company, Pacific System: conductors and brakemen, April 1, 1907, revised December 29, 1910 ; yard switch foremen and helpers, excluding yardmasters and assistant yard- masters, October 1, 1907, revised May 1, 1910, July 1, 1910, July 1, 1911 ; engineers, December 1, 1912 ; firemen, January 1, 1913. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. — 39 Mr. Garretson : Let me say, what form have you got with the Atlantic System, for I have it on the old form? Mr. Elisha Lee: Sunset Central Lines. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ey., Oregon Trunk Railway, and the Oregon Electric Ry. : trainmen, enginemen, motormen, host- lers and yardmen. Sunset Central Lines: Mr. Garretson : Does that include the Houston & Texas Cen- tral R. R., Houston East & West Texas Ry., and Houston & Shreve- port R. R.? Mr. Elisha Lee: Yes, those sections that I have named are one authorization which I will read : conductors, brakemen now covered by schedules, but no others. Yardmen now covered by schedules, but no others. Engineers, firemen, hostlers and round- house employees, covered by recent Chicago award to engineers, firemen, hostlers, but no others. They take in those covered by the agreement. Mr. Shea : I take it from that that they include the hostlers? Mr. Elisha Lee : That were covered by the Chicago award. Mr. Shea: Yes. Mr. Stone: Where you say "and others," are you referring to employees entered since that schedule? Mr. Elisha Lee : I would have to surmise a little on that and would say it meant the class. Mr. Higgins : It reads : Brakemen now covered by schedule but no others. Mr. Garretson : Every brakeman on the road is undoubtedly covered by the schedule the minute he comes into the service. Mr. Stone : Well, if I see anything new come up like that I want to know where I am at ; that is, I have been tripped so often. Mr. Elisha Lee : Well, I feel pretty certain in my own mind that is what is meant, but if there is any question we had better raise it. Mr. Stone : I have been pretty certain in my own mind sev- eral times, but I haven't been able to make the other fellow see it when he got through. Mr. Elisha Lee : Houston, East & West Texas Railway, Houston & Shreveport R. R. : Conductors, engineers, firemen, hos- tlers and roundhouse employees covered by recent Chicago award to engineers, firemen and hostlers, but no others. 40 Mr. Dodge : I don't think there are any white men on the System. Mr. Garretson : There are no white men on it as the Houston and Shreveport Eailroad is operated on an agreement of their own. I think they are all black brakemen. Mr. French : Harris represents H. E. & W. T. Mr. Garretson : Harris, he isn't here, evidently. Mr. Harris : No white brakemen on that. Do you want to know about H. E. & W. T., there are no white brakemen. Mr. Elisha Lee : Terminal Eailroad Association of St. Louis including St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal R. E. ; engineers, firemen, hostlers, yardmen. Mr. Garretson : The schedule is the property of the train- men. We are not interested in that. Mr. Elisha Lee : Texas & Pacific Eailway. Trainmen, yard- men and enginemen. Mr. Garretson : Was that Texas Pacific? Mr. Elisha Lee : Trainmen, yardmen, enginemen. Mr. Shea: They have separate schedules, that is, the en- gineers and firemen have separate schedules, but I assume by the term enginemen, it includes engineers and firemen. Mr. Elisha Lee : I don't assume that at all. Mr. Stone : I am satisfied they do. Mr. Shea: Mr. White, you don't have that joint schedule with the engineers on the Texas Pacific, do you? Mr. White : No, sir, we have not. Mr. Elisha Lee: Our authority does not show the firemen, but in reply of the road to the men, they addressed the general chairman of the B. of L. F. & E., and we will attempt to get our- selves straightened out. But as our authorization now stands, it does not include firemen. Mr. Shea : I think we have a letter. Mr. Elisha Lee : You have got a letter to the general chair- man of the B. of L. F. & E. on that road. Trinity & Brazos Valley Ey. : Locomotive engineers, loco- motive firemen, trainmen (conductors and brakemen), yardmen. Union Pacific E. E. : Conductors, brakemen, yardmen, fire- men. Union Ey., Memphis : Yard engineers and firemen, hostlers; yard foremen and switchmen (except colored switchmen). 41 Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha: Enginemen and trainmen in yard service. This Company engaging in switching operation only. Mr. Shea: Do they include hostlers? Mr. Elisha Lee: They do not specifically include the fire- men. Mr. Shea : They were not a party to our western arbitration, but the firemen have a schedule with that company. Mr. Garretson : What line is that? Mr. Elisha Lee : Union Stock Yards Company, of Omaha. Mr. Garretson : The trainmen have an organization there. Mr. Shea: I will take that back, Mr. Chairman, they were parties to the Western arbitration. I was confused with the stock yards of St. Louis. Mr. Elisha Lee : This is a similar case to that one just ahead of it, Mr. Shea, and we will wire about that. Mr. Shea: The same as the Texas Pacific? Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes, they wrote the B. of L. F. & E. chair- man. Mr. Shea : I am sure they have a schedule because I have their list showing that they were parties to the Western Arbi- tration. Mr. Elisha Lee : Apparently Avrote the Chairman of the B. of L. F. & E. Wabash Kailway, lines east of Detroit. Mr. Garretson : West, jon mean. That is what is undoubt- edly meant. Mr. Higgins : Wabash Railway lines west of Detroit is right, employees in engine, train and yard service. Mr. Garretson : We will make the exception there on the basis of insistence, that it will include, as the Michigan Central does, the lines from Detroit to Buffalo. Mr. Stone : The same here. Mr. Dodge : The same here, Mr. Lee. Mr. Elisha Lee : You want to include east of Detroit? Mr. Stone : Our schedule covers the whole system now. Mr. Garretson : So does ours. You bear in mind what under- lies is this : the Grand Trunk is not in the movement and they are Grand Trunk tenants. Mr. Elisha Lee : Western Pacific Eailway, engineers, fire- 42 men, conductors, brakemen, yardmen or switchmen. The Wig- gins Ferry Co. (East St. Louis Connecting Ey. St. Louis Transfer Ey. Co. ) , engineers, firemen, yardmen, except hostlers. Mr. Shea : We will have to take the same position there as we have on other roads, Mr. Chairman, because they participated in the Western arbitration. Mr. Elisha Lee : Chicago & Eastern Illinois E. E. ( Schedule of Engineers and Firemen, Feb. 1, 1916 ) . Trainmen and yardmen, including conductors, baggagemen, brakemen (August 1, 1911), not including switchmen in the Chicago district. Mr. Stone : Does that include the Evansville & Indian- apolis? Mr. Garretson : It is one property. Marshall, isn't that correct? Mr. Marshall : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Will you determine in that one whether Evansville & Indianapolis will be represented by C. & E. I. au- thorization? Mr. Elisha Lee : I have a note here — Is Evansville & Indian- apolis included? Minnesota and International Ey. Co. : Engi- neers and firemen, conductors, brakemen and yardmen. Now are there any that we have not covered? Mr. Garretson : Yes, I have got a few, I believe. The Cen- tral of New Jersey we will come back to. Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes. Mr. Garretson : You have nothing from the Central of Ver- mont? Mr. Elisha Lee : No. No representation. Mr. Garretson : The C. & W. C. Mr. Elisha Lee: How about that? Mr. Garretson : It is a Coast Line property. Mr. Albright : It is separately operated. Mr. Garretson : It is, but we have the advice from the men there that their company would be represented. That is what I am objecting to now. Bear in mind, I didn't bring the correspond- ence with me. I have got it down at the hotel. That is, the C. &W. C. Mr. Wallace : The advice was sent you that they had gone in- to this movement. Mr. Garretson: You have your notation — your direction — 43 from the company ? You haven't the original correspondence — you sent it to me, didn't you? Mr. Wallace: Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson: Do you remember the date? Mr. Wallace: I do not — about three weeks ago, though. Mr. Garretson : That is all. There is evidently a misunder- standing between the men and the management here. Rock Island — Mr. Elisha Lee : That I am holding out. That is on the way here, somewh9re. We have a message that the authorization is on the way. Mr. Garretson : I know the men have one. Houston & Central Texas is in your Sunset Lines? Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Macon, Dublin & Savannah — Mr. Elisha Lee: What is the name of it? Mr. Garretson: Macon, Dublin & Savannah. Mr. Seddon : I am Vice-President of that road. Mr. Garretson: I don't know what form it is in, but their notice was from the management. Missouri & North Arkansas? It is a little independent prop- erty. Mr. Higgins : It is in the hands of the Court. There is no authority. Mr. Garretson: Mr. Queen? (No answer.) Mr. Stone: He replied to our Committee he would not be represented by this conference committee. Mr. Higgins : We didn't even get a reply from him. Mr. Garretson: Missouri & North Arkansas — it is a line 150 to 160 miles long. Mr. Elisha Lee : The men received notice from the manage- ment? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Oregon Electric. Bear in mind the Oregon Electric is in with the S. P. & S. in their authorization. Mr. Elisha Lee : Yes. That is right. Mr. Dodge: The Ogden Union Ry. & Depot Co.? We have authority. It is a terminal proposition, I think. Mr. Elisha Lee : Wait until we get Mr. Garretson's list and then we will go right down the line. Mr. Garretson : Harry Keed, what is the name of that line Tou represent, the Wichita Valley? Mr. Eeed : Wichita Falls & Xorthwestern. Mr. Garretson : Mr. Flack, the Wichita Valley is your prop- erty? Mr. Flack : I hold that property. Mr. Garretson : Good. That is all of mine. Mr. Stone : I didn't get — at least 1 haven't it marked down here — the C. C. & O. I would like to ask a question for informa- tion. What are we going to do or how are we going to handle a number of the roads that have given to our Chairman a letter that they will be governed by whatever decisions arrived at here? I don't know why that is done, unless it is to keep from bearing the expense of the conference. I don't know what else. They simply say: "Well, we don't care to go into this, but Ave will be gov- erned by whatever action is taken," and they address a letter to the organization along that line. Take for example the /Elgin, Joliet & Eastern. They will apply any decision arrived at. Mr. Elisha Lee : I don't know that we can do anything with them if they won't let us represent them. Mr. Garretson : Well, we have got to just face this phase of it. We can't make them pay your freight, but if we have to make a movement, we will try to make them pay their share of ours. Mr. Elisha Lee : Well, that is all right. Mr. Garretson : We will be missionaries for you. Mr. Lee : Thank you. Mr. Garretson : Don't mention it. Mr. Stone : Well, take for example, here is the Des Moines Union — "WUl apply decision reached by other iroads." The same is true of the Detroit Terminal. It is practically Xew York Cen- tral property, is it not? Mr. Crowley: I don't know about the various railroad in- terests of the Xew York Central. I don't know just how it lies, but I understand the Michigan Central owns a large share of it with other roads, at least an equal share of it. Mr. Stone: Well, it is hard to tell the difference between them. Mr. Crowley: Well, possibly the money end, but not the managers. 45 Mr. Stone : Yes, I know. Have you anything from the Den- ver & Salt Lake? Mr. Lee : Is that a part of any particular system? Mr. Garretson : No, that is a MofEatt line. Mr. Lee : Did they give the men authority? Mr. Garretson : That is debatable. Mr. Stone: He says he prefers to deal with his own men, which is perfectly, natural, but it is still in the air and I wondered if you had any definite information in regard to it. The Detroit Terminal says : "Will apply agreement reached by other roads." Elgin, Joliet & Eastern the same. Now, the Norfolk & Ports- mouth Belt Line? Mr. Maher : It is owned by six proprietors. Mr. Stone : They gave our committee a letter, "Will be gov- erned by the jaction of the controlling roads." I don't like to hear that kind of an answer, because it is hard to find the con- trolling road. Mr. Maher: There are seven now. They are all in this movement. Mr. Stone : Then, why, in all fairness, if all proprietor lines are in, why shouldn't the terminal themselves be in? Mr. Maher : They say they will be governed by the action of the controlling road. Mr. Elisha Lee : Does that mean if all the proprietor lines come through, we will represent them? Mr. Maher : It doesn't say that. Mr. Stone : The Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City will apply agreement reached by other roads. Mr. Garretson : That is the Burlington itself. Mr. Stone : That is the same thing they told us before. Staten Island Railway, which is B. & O. property, gives a letter to the men, "Guarantee as good settlement as is reached in move- ment and effective same day." Mr. Elisha Lee : They held out on us. Mr. Stone : Evidently so. The same is true of the Wabash Terminal. Mr. Dodge: They said they wouldn't allow us to represent them. Mr. Stone: Now, we have no definite refusal, Mr. Chair- 46 man, from the Wheeling Terminal. He just says that he prefers to deal with his own employees later. Mr. Elisha Lee: We have no authority to represent the Wheeling Terminal. That is the one we were speaking about a while ago. Mr. Stone : Yes, and the Waynesburg & Washington is an- other. Mr. Elisha Lee: They both held out. Mr. Stone : Toledo Terminal owned by all the roads up there? Mr. Elisha Lee: Is that a joint terminal? Mr. Schoyer : Yes, a joint terminal owned by seven or eight roads. Mr. Stone : But all the roads that own it are in the move- ment. Mr. Elisha Lee: The Pere Marquette owns a portion of it. Mr. Elisha Lee : I don't know what we can do with those roads, Mr. Stone. . Mr. Stone : I don't like the idea of a number of the roads at this time, while it may be cheaper for them to stay out as far as the expenses are concerned, when the owners of the property go in, it seems to me in all fairness that they should be included. Mr. Garretson: The Oloverleaf and the JPere Marquette are both holders. Both the Michigan Central and New York Cen- tral are holders. Mr. Stone : Pennsylvania is a holder. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Schoyer : I don't know whether the Wabash is an owner or not. Mr. Garretson : No, none of those. In October the 0. H. & D. applied for permission to dispose of its twenty per cent. It doesn't say whether they got it or not. Mr. Elisha Lee : Mr. Shea, have you any roads? Mr. Shea : No, I think I have checked them all, with the ex- ception of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis. Mr. Dodge: I will check up with Mr. Garretson. I was wondering about this Ogden Union Eailway & Depot Company. Mr. Garretson : I think it is owned wholly by Union Pacific & Southern Pacific. No, I am wrong. The Eio Grande is in it, and possibly the Pedro now. 47 What is tlie name of it? Mr. Dodge: It says Ogden Union Eailway & Depot Com- pany. They advised that they would be represented here. Mr. Elisha Lee: Is it a separate organization? Mr. Dodge : I think so. Mr. Clark : The Ogden Railway Union Depot Company was handled by the Short Line Committee nntil about six months ago. Mr. Calvin, who is the Vice-President and General Manager of the Short Line, is the President of the Ogden Depot Eailway Com- pany, so that the General Committee for the Short Line has not handled it since about the first of last October, but they have a separate local committee of their own who deal directly with Mr. Calvin. Mr. Garretson : We can get the ownership in a half minute. It is jointly owned by the Union Pa,cific and Central Pacific Com- pany. That means Short Line just as much as it does Union Pacific, of course. The Central Pacific is Southern Pacific. Now, there will be those questions of exceptions that we will have to take up when we check them up and verify. Mr. Elisha Lee : There are two lines that I will let you know about, I ought to be able to let you know about them tomorrow sure. That is the Central of New Jersey and the Rock Island. Adjournment at 1 :30 P.M. to meet again at 10 :00 A.M. June 2, 1916. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING, NEW YORK JUNE 2, 1916 No. 2 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kotjns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. L. W. Baldwin, H. W. McMastek, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. E. H. CoAPMAN, N. D. Maher, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. Viee-Pres., N. & W. Ry. S. E. Cotter, James Russell, Gen'l Manager, Wabash R. R. Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. P. E. Crowley, A. M. Schoyee, Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. ResidentVice-Pres.,Penna.LinesWest G. H. Emerson, , W. L. Seddon, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. Vice-Pres. S. A. L. Ry. C. H. EwiNG, ^ _ ^ A. J. Stone, Gen 1 Manager, P. & R. Ry. Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. E. W. Gkice, Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. J. W. HiGGINS. C. p. Neill. A. S. Greig, Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J. G. Walbbr. Representing the Organizations A. B. Gabbetson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of R. T.) Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppard, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. 49 New York, June 2, 1916. Met pursuant to adjournment at 10:00 a.m./ Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman: I notice in the minutes that there are no statements of those present or representing different^ sides, and I will read in the minutes those who are on the platform, represent- ing the National Conference Committee of the Eailways : Eepresenting the National Conference Committee of the Rail- ways, Elisha Lee, Chairman. — L. W. Baldwin, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. ; E. H. Coapman, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. ; S. E. Cotter, Gen'l Manager, Wabash R. R. ; P. E. Crowley, Asst. Vice- Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. ; P. R. Albright, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. ; G. H. Emerson, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. ; C. H. Ewing, Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. ; E. W. Grice, Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. ; A. S. Greig, Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. ; C. W. Kouns, Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. ; H. W. McMaster, Gen'l Manager, W. &iL. E. R. R.; N. D. Maher, Vice-Pres., N. & W. Ry. ; James Russell, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. ; A. M. Schoyer, Resident Vice-Pres., Penna Lines West ; W. L. Seddon, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. ; A. J. Stone, Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad; J. W. Higgins, C. P. Neill, J. G. Walber. Representing the Organizations. — A. B. Garretson, Pres., O. R. C. ; W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. ; Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) ; T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of R. T. ) ; L. E. Sheppard, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. The Chairman : Then, the same representations from the East are here today and the same representations from the organi- zations with the exception of Mr. Grifflng? Mr. Garretson : Well, the representations will just stand the same day after day with us. The Chairman : Mr. Bardo is not here today, from the rail- roads. Now, do you want to make some statement on the repre- sentations, Mr. Stone? In the minutes of yesterday on the At- lanta Joint Terminal, Page 17, there was a mistake in the state- ment of the authorization. It included engineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen, in road service. I understand there is no road service on that road. 50 Mr. Garretson : I noted that when it was read. While I did not call attention to it, I supposed it was a lingual error, be- cause, as far as I know, there is no road service at all on that property. Mr. Dodge: No, I think it is simply a switching proposi- tion. Mr. Garretson: Mr. Moore, there is no road service on the Atlanta Terminal, is there? Mr. E. W. Moore : No. The Chairman: Therefore the authorization agrees, white hostlers, engineers, white yard firemen, white yard conductors and white yard switchmen. Mr. Dodge: While, Mr. Lee, in several of the statements you made yesterday in regard to the roads from the southeast and some of those in Texas, you designated the white trainmen and the white switchmen, of course our organization has always rep- resented the class in the service. The Chairman : This company has no desire to change either the existing rates of pay or the working hours. Mr. Dodge: We contend, you know, that we represent the class in the service regardless of color. The Chairman: What road particularly is that, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge : Well, you can take the Atlantic Coast Line and the Seaboard, the Central of Georgia, The Southern Railroad and the A. G. S., and one or two roads in Texas. You will find all of those southeastern railroads, some of which employ the colored men. The Chairman: Are the colored men in the schedules, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge : In most of the schedules, yes, sir ; in the South- ern, the Seaboard and the Central of Georgia. The Chairman: As I understand it, in the past they have only dealt for the white trainmen, Mr. Dodge : My understanding was that they dealt for the class of service. Of course, the negroes didn't get the same rate, in all instances, as the white men. I just wanted to file a protest so that it could be further taken up when Mr. Lee came. The Chairman: My attention has just been called, Mr. Dodge, to the Seaboard Air Line schedule. It says the word "trainmen" referred to in these rules, applies to conductors, yard 51 foremen or yard conductors, white switchmen, white brakemen and flagmen. Mr. Dodge: My understanding is, the seniority clauses cover all classes without regard to color. The Chairman : Well, with that stipulation, I don't see how you can get away from only dealing with those classes. Mr. Garretson: That question has always existed in the Southeastern Associations. There isn't any question but that in many instances in the dealings there (I am saying this subject to verification by at least two men that were present, as members of that committee) it has always been dealt with directly or in- directly, and increases have even been arranged for the colored brothers without naming them in the schedule. The Chairman: Informally? Mr. Garretson : Yes. There are properties represented here who pay the black brother exactly the same as the white man. The Chairman: And in those cases we have authorization without restriction. Mr. Garretson : Yes, but you bear in mind that Mr. Dodge is conserving the same right to deal as heretofore. The Chairman: Well, as far as that is concerned, I would say that the authorizations that we have here would have to govern us as far as the National Committee is concerned. Mr. Garretson : You recognize, though, that wherever they are provided for in the agreement, the authorization covers it? The Chairman : If they are covered in this specific authoriza- tion to us, yes, if not, no. Mr. Stone : Kegardless of the agreement to the contrary. The Chairman : Agreement with the road? Mr. Stone : Yes. The Chairman : We only have authority, Mr. Stone, to repre- sent those classes of employees that the roads have given us au- thority to represent. Mr. Garretson : Well, now, let us get one idea that is con- tained in that, correctly. Because that would be a subject for dissension under certain conditions. You will bear in mind there are at least three roads here represented, I mean by individuals, where the negro is absolutely contracted for. I am speaking there from personal knowledge. If the authorization doesn't cover the contract conditions, we will certainly dissent from the right of 52 the companies to modify those schedule conditions by not giving it, regardless of what their authorization to you may be. In other words, we would reserve our right to use every means in our power to exact compliance with the application of any conclusion that might be reached. The Chairman: That would be your right, any rights that you might have under the circumstances, Mr. Garretson, regard- less of what authority we have, but as far as we are concerned, we can only deal with the classes of service that the road authorizes us to deal with. Now, if after we get through with our dealings, the question should arise as to certain schedule qualifications on the roads, then that would have to be handled afterwards. Mr. Garretson : Well, we haven't had time to make careful check here. We will file with you, when we have been able to make that check, those instances where the authorization does not cover the schedule provisions on that line. The Chairman : That will be agreeable to us. Mr. Garretson : And we will expect you to use your good offices in getting that amendment authorized. We don't mind how you phrase it; we are looking to. you as our means of communica- tion, to present that from our standpoint. I don't mean that you would appear as our attorney, but to make our attitude clear. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Stone : I don't want to get the idea from the statement that you have just put into this record that after we get through here we will go back and take it up with the individual road. If we settle at all, we will settle it here. We are not going back to the individual road and thrash over the same grist again after we get through here. The Chairman : Well, you can give us your protest, Mr. Stone, and we will act on that protest. If at this end we decide we can not represent those roads, that is a matter then for future discussion. Mr. Dodge : That is why I entered the protest this morning, because I want it entered for a time when W. G. Lee is in. I want to be square, you know. The Chairman : That is right, Mr. Dodge. Any objections or any question you have to raise on these authorizations, if you will put it down after you had a chance to check them over, then we can know exactly what we are talking about. This is to a cer- 53 tain extent preliminary, for the reason that there are some things in there that we have to find out a little bit more about on account of the questions raised yesterday, and as soon as we ourselves find out we will communicate with you further in regard to them. In the meantime, if you are going over these things and can get them lined up and state the differences between what you think should be done, and what this statement covered, we will be very glad to see if we can iron it out. Mr. Shea: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss that phase of the question for just a moment and bring out a concrete question. Now in your list of roads in the Southeast territory, you have the Southern Eailway Company in which you say that the Con- ference Committee of Managers are authorized to represent the en- gineers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen and white hostlers in road service, and engineers, white firemen, with con- ductors and white SAvitchmen in yard service. Now, I have a letter here, or rather a copy of a letter, from Mr. Coapman, Vice- President and General Manager, addressed to the four chair- men, and four Secretaries, representing the Southern Eailway, under date of April 21, 1916, the last paragraph of which is as follows : "This Company has requested the Executive Committee of the Bureau of Information of the Southeastern Eailways, to repre- sent them in arranging for the appointment of a joint committee representing the several territories, and when such joint com- mittee has been constituted, it will communicate with your repre- sentatives and arrange for meetings. Any authority given to such committee to represent this Company will not, however, commit the Company to any extension of the schedules to lines or em- ployees not now covered by existing schedules." Now, I understand the schedule between the Locomotive Fire- men and the officers of the Southern Eailroad embraces the rates of pay for negro firemen and rules of employment. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : Now, do we understand that under those condi- tions you have authority to represent all classes of employees cov- ered by the existing schedules? If you can't answer, probably Mr. Coapman can give us some authentic information. The Chairman : Well, as far as that is concerned, Mr. Shea, if you will just enter that as one of the questions you want straight- ened out we will take it under consideration. I can't say just at the present time and I don't know whether Mr. Coapman is prepared to say just at the present time as far as his schedule is concerned, but if you will just enter that as one of these things you want us to iron out we will be very glad to take it up. Mr. Shea: This also applies to several other roads in the Southeast territory where the B. of L. F. & E. represents, or rather they negotiate, a rate of pay and rules of employment for the class. Now, this class comprises some negro firemen and some negro hostlers, but notwithstanding that, they have rules governing their employment. The Chairman : Now, if you will just note the same way, Mr. Shea, those exceptions that you want to take to that statement when you have a chance to check it up, we will see if we can get that ironed out, too. The other roads you understand. Mr. Shea : While I am on that, Mr. Chairman, I notice in your list as one of the subsidiary lines to the Southern Eailroad you include the Va. & Southwestern Ey. Now, do we understand you have authority, also, to represent the Northern Alabama Ey., which is operated under Mr. Coapman? Mr. Coapman : We will include that. Mr. Shea: Now, you have, Mr. Coapman, three other small lines running out of Knoxville, Tenn. There is the Knoxville & Augusta Eailroad, the Knoxville & Bristol Eailroad and Ten- nessee & Carolina Southern Eailway; now are these lines in- cluded in the Southern Eailway proper? Mr. Coapman : No, sir. Mr. Shea: Now, I think the firemen on the Southern Eail- way or the representatives of the firemen negotiate rates of pay for the men on those roads. Mr. Coapman : Not with the managers of the Southern Eail- way. Mr. Shea : Mr. Goff, can Jrou give us any information with regard to these three lines that I just mentioned? Mr. Goff: Yes, the Southern Eailway Committee of en- gineers and firemen jointly negotiate schedules for engineers and firemen on these three lines with the superintendents of those lines, and in handling adjustment matters under that schedule, we have the right to appeal to operating officials of the Southern Eailway proper. 55 Mr. Shea : Well, the executive officers of the Southern Rail- way proper have jurisdiction over these lines? ^ Mr. Goff : I understand so. Mr. Shea : And you have jurisdiction over the firemen? Mr. Goff : Yes, sir. Mr. Shea : The chairmen of the engineers have jurisdiction over the engineers? Mr. Goff : I understand so. Mr. Shea: Well, if that is true, Mr. Chairman, it seems to us that those lines should be included as a portion of the Southern Eailway. The Chairman : Well, if you will just make a memorandum of that also, Mr. Shea, so that we can have it concretely before us when we take the matter up, we can get something definite on it. Mr. Dodge : Is the Philadelphia Terminal represented by the Pennsylvania? That is part of the Pennsylvania, but I didn't see it in this list. The Chairman : Why, that is a part, Mr. Dodge, of the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington; part of it is Pennsyl- vania Eailroad. Mr. Dodge: But you represent it? The Chairman : We represent the Pennsylvania Eailroad, and the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington. The Philadel- phia Terminal comes under the general manager of the Penn- sylvania Eailroad, and those portions, as I understand, of the system that come under the general manager of the Pennsylvania Eailroad, we are authorized to represent. Mr. Dodge : I just asked the question. The Chairman : Exactly so, it is not a joint terminal or any- thing of that sort, it is distinctly a part of the Pennsylvania Eail- road. Mr. Garretson : The question I am going to ask now is from a little different angle than any other one that we have record of. Has your authorization from the Southern Pacific system any limitations whatever, except what are named here? This grows out of a communication from Mr. Scott to the four chairmen in which he listed a list of exceptions which didn't leave anything but the cover on the schedule. I think Scott isn't noted for having a grouch, but that morning his breakfast evidently didn't agree with him. 56 The Chairman : Our authority reads this way : The em- ployees in the schedule covered by this authorization are as fol- lows: Conductors and brakemen, April 1, 1907, revised Decem- ber 29, 1910. Yard switch foremen and helpers, excluding yard- masters and assistant yardmasters, October 1, 1907, revised 5-1-10, 7-1-10, 7-1-11 ; engineers, December 1, 1912 ; firemen, Janu- ary 1, 1913. Mr. Garretson : You may have seen a copy of the communi- cation to which I refer. The Chairman : About four pages long. Mr. Garretson : I think. The Chairman : I saw something about it ; I didn't read it, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Well, we wondered. Now, there is a whole list ; I want to draw the line here between what might be termed auxiliary properties or subordinate properties which are abso- lutely dominated by the same ownership, even where they have a certain part of the staff differing from the parent company staff and where the line of appeal would lie in the last instance in exactly the same court. We will make up a list of those that we will desire you to take up, those that have not authorized represen- tation with the parent property. You have some yourself as Pennsylvania. The Chairman : I don't remember. Mr. Garretson : Well, you bear in mind you have made some exceptions, either east or west. The Chairman : On the west? Mr. Garretson : Well, one part or another, because we deal with Pennsylvania as a concrete whole. I mean we refer to it as such. The Chairman : Well, there are separate schedules east and west. Mr. Garretson : Well, if we charge you with what belongs to Mr. Schoyer, just pass it on to him. But there are a number of large properties and we Avill furnish you that list later on. We will take the position that in the event it becomes necessary to use those men we will use them exactly as we use the men on the parent property. The Chairman : Well, that is your prerogative. Mr. Garretson : Sure, but we want that perfectly clear. I am drawing the line between auxiliary properties or those that 57 could be classed as such, and a certain class of little independent property which, you /can't expect to exercise an influence on, directly or indirectly like you could on the others. Because, in the question of ownership, there is no doubt that that influence can be exerted by the common owners of the property. Now, we want the whole idea of the conference founded upon the assertion of that right on our part. The Chairman : When will you give us that? Mr. Garretson : We will give you that list in its complete- ness. We haven't had time to make it up yet, and we are re- serving the right to enter it here, and then you will take such action in regard to those as you see fit. Just as a fair sample; Boston & Maine, St. Johnsbury, Lake Champlain K. K. Co., New York, Susquehanna and Western, and Wheeling Terminal. I am only citing those as instances, to illustrate gust what we have in mind in that. The Chairman : I see. Mr. Garretson : That list can't be taken up today, Mr. Lee. The Chairman : That is true, Mr. Garretson, it seems to me that you should have whatever time is necessary to get that up. Mr. Garretson : Without waiving any right. Mr. Stone : We have been handicapped by the fact that there is only one ' sheet of this in existence and we have been trying to pass it around. The Chairman : Can't we have two or three more sheets made today? Mr. Garretson : We have only one of Western, none of the Eastern. Mr. Stone: One. Mr. Garretson : Well, I wasn't able to locate it this morning. Mr. Shea : You gave us one eastern. Mr. Garretson : I tried this morning to locate the eastern. Mr. Shea : One eastern and two southeastern. Mr. Garretson : We have got the southeastern, I think ; we have got three of those. The Chairman: Well, I was undet' the impression that you had about three of the eastern, too. Mr. Garretson : Well, I found this morning when I went to go into this southeastern question, that I had no copy of the eastern, and they had none of the western. 58 The Chairman: Well, I will try and have them make up today four or five. Mr. Garretson : Well, that will simplify things for us some- what. The Chairman : Yes, and expedite the matter, too. Mr. Garretson : Now, is there any other preliminary matter that you desire to take up? The Chairman: None that occurs to me. Rock Island all came in. Mr. Garretson: Yes, and have you settled Central of New Jersey? The Chairman: We will do that. Mr. Dodge : I don't suppose you ascertained anything about the Ogden Union Railway and Depot Company? The Chairman : We Avired them about that. Mr. Dodge : Then on my list, the General Manager says that your committee has the St. Jo Terminal. The Chairman: [Addressing Mr. Higgins] Did you wire about St. Jo Terminal? I think we wired about it. If we didn't I will make a note of it to make sure of it. Mr. Dodge : How about the Terminal Railroad of St. Louis and Merchants' Bridge Railroad? The operating officers advised Mr. W. G. Lee that we would represent them. The Chairman : [Reading] The Terminal Railroad Asso- ciation of St. Louis and the St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Termi- nal Railway, engineers, firemen, hostlers and yardmen. We haven't taken up the St. Jo Terminal yet. Mr. Dodge : You haven't taken up the St. Jo Terminal yet? The Chairman: We will do that. Rock Island employees covered are locomotive engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen and flagmen. The yardmen employed on this railroad are affil- iated with the Switchmen's Union of North America and not with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. And the same for the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company. Mr. Shea: Did they include hostlers in that list? The Chairman : We wired to find out definitely, Mr. Shea. It is not specific and I think we should have it specific. Mr. Shea: In checking over your list, or rather the rail- roads' list, I find that there are a great many roads that do not mention hostlers. 59 The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea: But they do not say that hostlers are excepted. Now, I think we had better have an understanding about that, so that you can make some inquiries as to whether or not they have included hostlers with other employees. The Chairman: A message went out to those roads last night about that very feature, Mr. Shea, and Ave ought to hear in a day or so definitely in regard to that particular feature. That is, particularly, many of the western roads that didn't specifi- cally say one thing or the other. The eastern and southeastern are pretty clear, I think. But there was some question in your mind yesterday, as to whether or not they were included, and we thought we had better make certain definitely whether they were in or out. Mr. Shea : You cover all the roads where that Question was not specifically covered in their authorization? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Well, now that we have provided for as many of these preliminaries as we are in a condition to deal with, and have arranged that the other can be disposed of at a later date, I suppose we might as well come to the presentation of the propo- sition. Have you gentlemen all copies of what is usually referred to as Form 35? Mr. Garretson : Now, for the purpose of the record I will read it through in its entirety before we make any analysis of it whatever. I am going to read it into record so that it will be put in concrete form before there is anything asked. The propositions which were universally presented all over the territories that are under the jurisdiction of the Conference Committee on the one hand and of these organizations on the other, was known as Form 35, and reads as follows : Aeticlb 1. (a) In all Eoad Service 100 miles or less, 8 hours or less will constitute a day, except in Passenger Service. Miles in excess of 100 will be paid for at the same rate per mile. (b) On runs of 100 miles or less overtime will begin at the expiration of 8 hours. (c) On runs of over 100 miles, overtime will begin when the time on duty exceeds the miles run divided by 121/2 miles per hour. 60 (d) All overtime to be computed on the minute basis and paid for at time and one-half times the pro rata rate. (e) No one shall receive less for eight hours or 100 miles, than they now receive for a minimum day or 100 miles for the class of engine used or for service performed. (f ) Time will be computed continuously from time required for duty until released from duty and responsibility at end of day or run. Article 2. (a) Eight hours or less will constitute a day in all yard and switching service. The minimum day's pay for S hour yards shall not be less than the present day's pay for 10 hours yards. Provided, that in yards having a minimum day of more than 10 hours, the present day's pay as in effect January 1, 1916, will be continued with the eight hour day. (b) Time to be computed continuously from time required for duty until released from duty and responsibility at end of day or run. All over 8 hours within any 24 hour period to be computed and paid for at the rate of time and one-half time. (c) All overtime to be computed on the minute basis. Article 3. (a) Eight hours or less at present 10 hours pay, will constitute a day's work in Hostling Service. (b) Time to be computed continuously from time required for duty until released from duty and responsibility at end of day or run. All over 8 hours within any 24 hour period to be com- puted and paid for at the rate of time and one-half time. ( c ) All overtime to be computed on the minute basis. Article 4. Any rates of pay, including excess mileage or arbitrary differentials that are higher, or any rules or conditions of employment contained in individual schedules in effect January 1, 1916, that are more favorable to the employees, shall not be modified or affected by any settlement reached in connection with these proposals. The general committee representing the em- ployees on each railroad will determine which is preferable and advise the officers of their company. Nothing in the settlement that may be reached on the above submittted articles is to be construed to deprive the employees on any railroad from retaining their present rules and accepting any rates that may be agreed upon or retaining their present rates and accepting any rules that may be agreed upon. The propositions in their entirety constitute simply the dec- 61 laration for three classes of service ; Article 1 being the declaration as applied to freight service in general; Article 2, providing ex- actly the same essential principle embodied therein as applied to yard service; Article 3 provides for the application of the same to hostling service, thus taking in all of the classes that are rep- resented by, and hold a membership in, the four organizations party to the contracts. Article 4 is nothing more or less than what is usually described as a saving clause. The Chairman : A little more stringent than usual? Mr. Garretson : It is enough more stringent, possibly, to tend to cure some of the weaknesses that have existed in former ones and to prevent some encroachments upon the rights of men. [Turning to Committeemen.] Let me draw the attention of the men to just one thing. The Managers' Committee on the other side has not any claque to appreciate anything that is good from their side. I will ask every man of ours to refrain from any form of expressing appreciation for anything that is said. They have got to give it to both sides if they give it to one. [Turn- ing to the Chairman.] It is not necessary to call attention to our, you might say, "eternal" attitude. I will speak now for the train- men and ourselves, the Order, in regard to the weaknesses that developed in the last effort to maintain the saving clause; and there are members of this Committee, a number, who are perfectly familiar with the attitude that we maintained throughout that the article which stood as a saving clause in our latest proceeding was, from our continuous declaration, assailed unrighteously, or un- rightfully, by the parties that passed thereon. This is the attempt to make it apparent that there should be no such curtailment of the rights named in that clause by any agency whatever ; to make it perfectly apparent that we stood on the ground that we do stand on ; that we are not standardizing down. The Chairman : Always standardizing up. Mr. Garretson : We always standardize up. We admit that it is not for the purpose of bringing any man down, but of bring- ing the standard to the highest, and leaving the highest standard stand until it is submerged by a better one. There is probably no road where that was gone into at greater length than on your own line in 1910 (referring to Mr. Elisha Lee). That is for myself the absolute attitude I assume — and for the men I represent. 62 The Chairman : Well, as I understand, there is no man that was standardized downward on our line in 1910. Mr. Garretson : The idea was accepted in 1910. It was not accepted in the last arbitration. The Chairman : As I understand, though, in the last arbitra- tion, Mr. Garretson, there were no men standardized down ; there were some men who did not get an increase. Mr. Garretson : There were some men who had to surrender the standard which was maintained in order to get what they did. The Chairman: This attempts to add to what they already have. Mr. Garretson: It attempts to give the rate that exists or the condition that is best obtainable, while at the same time plac- ing them on a parity elsewhere, on a common condition. Xow, I have no apologies to make nor any side-stepping to do on what is our purpose. We have always openly announced that that was our idea of standardization. The Chairman : There may be some questions I want to ask you afterwards. Mr. Garretson: Bear in mind, I am open to interruption at any stage of the game after this is read in as a whole. It seems to me it would probably be well to generally analyze in detail now what those propositions mean from our standpoint. The Chairman : I see. Mr. Stone : I would like to correct there, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, the statement of Mr. Garretson that Article 1 dealt practically with freight service. I want it dis- tinctly understood that Article 1 deals with all service except that passenger. Mr. Garretson : Well, that is a distinction well made. While I meant to say exactly what Mr. Stone said, there is no doiibt but what the technical question is : Would this class some service as not freight service? That correction was well put in, and it was my intent that it would be understood. The Chairman: Then we understand the passenger service is not involved in that at all? Mr. Garretson: That is my understanding. Everything in there applies to all service except passenger. You see, I am adopt- ing the other form of phrase. Mr. Stone: Unless you would class switching in a coach 63 yard as passenger service, as they would attempt to do in some places, all switching service, regardless of whether they are switching varnished cars or gondolas, -nonld be switching service. Mr. Garretson: The term "passenger service" as applied there, means road passenger service. In other words, the move- ment of passenger trains from one point to another. Now, I want to draw attention right in this connection to one thing. While I am analyzing this in general, you will bear in mind that I was not present when it was prepared, and I am doing it subject to correction by Mr. Stone or Mr. Sheppard, who were both present and party to its drawing. The Chairman : That is perfectly all right. Mr. Garretson: Well, I am just as human as you are. I might place a different construction on some phrase to what was intended, and that is why I make it subject to correction by them, who were parties to its framing. Bear in mind that I was half- way in a coffin at the time it was written, and I only got out, and I didn't bring any inspiration from the other side. In paragraph A, Article 1 : "In all road service, 100 miles or less, 8 hours or less will constitute a day except in passenger service." That simply means that where agreements now provide that 100 miles or less, 10 hours or less, or any other figure above 8 miles per hour, that 8 will be substituted therein, and the basis of computation will be 12y2 miles an hour instead of 10 or whatever may be inserted. That the miles in excess thereof will simply be paid at the same rate as they are now paid, at the going rate that obtains on any given line here represented. The Chairman : As I understand it, then, Mr. Garretson, take for instance, where you have got a four-cent rate for freight conductors (I take them because that is a flat figure) a four-cent rate, four dollars for a hundred miles at the present time? Mr. Garretson : For one hundred miles or eight hours. The Chairman : I say, taking at the present time, four dol- lars for 100 miles or 10 hours, that will become, as I understand it, |4 for 100 miles or 8 hours. That is four cents a mile, or fifty cents an hour. Mr. Garretson : The going rate that obtains and overtime after 8 hours instead of 10 hours of the runs into hours. To ex- plain your illustration I had to make the explanation there. "B : On runs of 100 miles or less overtime will be given at the 64 expiration of 8 hours." Xow, that simply changes what is vir- tually the standard rule in most cases; we want that instead of 10 or any other figure that may exist. In your eastern territory I think, 10 is universal. The Chairman: Very nearly except where we have a trip rate. Mr. Garretson : But wherever the pure mileage rate exists that is universal. The Chairman: I think so. Mr. Garretson : "C : On runs over 100 miles, overtime will be given when the time on duty exceeds the miles run, divided by 121^ miles an hour." The phrasing there is a little cumbersome, but it would be divided by 12i/^. Mr. Stone : He is simply trying to make it plain that there would be no chance for misunderstanding and we had to go in detail in order to do it. Mr. Garretson : They followed the practical side in term of grammar. I have never broken a grammatical rule. Mr. Stone : You have broken about everything else. The Chairman : That depends on the point of view, doesn't it, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Sure, the angle you approach from is all that that amounts to. I will continue with this on the Eastern terri- tory, because there is the greatest universality there on these questions. Where you now divide by 10, you will under that clause divide by 121/2 ; use it as the divisor instead of existing figure. "D : All overtime to be computed on the minute basis, and paid for at time and one-half times the pro rata rate." Have you the minute basis anywhere in the Eastern territory? Mr. Stone : Yes. Mr. Shea : Xearly all roads. Mr. Garretson : There you have got the method of payment for time actually used. There is no 30 minutes or less, or over 30 minutes, or 30 minutes or over. It all resolves itself into a prob- lem of the watch. There is no incentive that is so often used for the man to drag to get in 30 minutes to get an hour, because he gains nothing by dragging. He can't drag to exceed a minute or two even if such was the intent. It pays for the minutes that are run over and at the time-and-a-half. In other words, in the $4 territory, where the overtime rate is 40 cents an hour, under the 65 present basis, it T\'Ould, under the new factor, become an eighth of the four dollars, and as a payment for overtime, one-half of that result would be added to it. A vevv distinguished predecessor of some of Tou gentlemen, in a deal of this kind, described it once before as punitive overtime. It isn't a bad term. The Chairman : Well, as I understand, just to get the con- crete figures. Mr. Garretson, that where we pay for overtime at the present time at 40 cents an hour, in that four-dollar territory yoii are speaking about, that is, at the pro rata rate, the pro rata rate becomes 50 cents? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : And the time and a half becomes 7.5? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : That is, we pay under this proposition 75 cents an hour overtime instead of iO cents an hour? Mr. Garretson : That is exactly what it will do, provided overtime is earned. You bear in mind our attitude toward over- time in general is founded on old experience, that it is a largely controllable factor when it becomes uneconomic. You bear in mind our memories go back to when overtime was earned before it was not paid for. The Chairman : So does mine. Mr. Garretson : Well, I have no doubt of it because I signed the first agreement under which a conductor ever was paid an hours overtime in the union. It was like the general manager of that property said, and I needn't look very far to see a man that graduated under him in a certain degree. The general manager of that property jumped onto me two months after overtime went in and he wanted to know if I knew what it cost the first month. I said, "Xo." He said, "It cost this company $35,000.00, and 16 dispatchers." There you have got it. The next month it didn't. It is just so here. We believe it is a controllable factor and our experience is based on the growth of the practice of the payment of overtime and the amount of it. That wasn't paid, because in the old days the manager looked on the payment of overtime at all, or the demand for the payment of overtime, as a pre- sumijtuous sin on the part of the men. Prior to that time there were 21 hours in the day. Xow it has grown until there are 10 hours a day in the Eastern territory. You are the greatest sinners in that territory and we hope to reform yoii, to get you down to S, 66 which is the minimum in all the territory with a few possible ex- ceptions, where it is less. I think there are exceptions. The Chairman : There are exceptions and they are combined with others. Mr. Garretson : It doesn't mean that the 8-hour day exists, it only means that the allowance for a trip is a modification of the 10-hour principle. "E : No one shall receive less for 8 hours or 100 miles than they now receive for a minimum day or 100 miles for the class of engine used or for the service performed." There the double form of description becomes necessary on account of engine class- ifications in fixing the rate of pay for the enginemen, which of course doesn't exist in the train service, and what is purely re- ferred to as train service. Conductors and brakemen are de- scribed under service performed. That provides for the going to the 8-hour day without any reduction in the rate now paid. The Chairman: Then it means that whatever they get for a day now, they will get for a day under this and 8 hours. Mr. Garretson: That is it exactly. The rate of pay for a day's work remains unchanged, although the conditions describ- ing a day do change. No change in mileage, only in hours. "F : Time will be computed continuously from time required for duty until released from duty and responsibility at the end of day or run." Now, there you have the payment for preparatory time where men are on duty and subject to discipline. That is in exact consonance with the Commission's interpretation of what constitutes duty and responsibility. The Chairman : Well, isn't it a fact that preparatory time is generally paid? Mr. Garretson: I would say, generally paid, yes; but not universally. There is one of the associations' territories where very little of it is paid. Western. It is more than general in your territory, and I believe it is in yours, Mr. Coapman; but in the western territory it is not even generally; it might be said to be not more than common. It is not altogether exceptional, but nothing in the line of general. That provides that it will be universally paid. The Chairma,n: Well, aren't there some of the schedules, Mr. Garretson, where the preparatory time is paid as an arbitrary? Mr. Garretson : I fancy there are, where a specific allowance 67 of time is made for tliat work. There are others where the bulk of it, where it exists at all, proyides that whenever they are called for duty, it commences. For instance, after our settlement in the East, here is what took place: roads which had been in the habit of calling men an hour before leaving time and requiring them under discipline to be there, cut the time to fifteen minutes when they got to paying for it. The Chairman : That was, I thought, a pretty universal cus- tom, that the men were paid for all the time that they were on duty. You say that there are some of the schedules that haven't been ironed out on that feature yet. Mr. Garretson : A very considerable number of them. The Chairman: Where that is paid as an arbitrary, I un- derstand there are some of them that pay as an arbitrary. Now, does that contemplate that the time of the man shall begin when he does report for duty, and wipe out the arbitrary feature? Mr. Garretson : I am of the opinion that where there is an arbitrary allowance, it is an element that enters into the earning ability of the man. You bear in mind I would have to reserve a positive answer, but I am of the opinion that where there is a contract provision that there was an arbitrary existing, that would not serve to abolish it. The Chairman; You mean that the man's time would not begin when he is required to report and when his arbitrary begins? Mr. Garretson : The fact is, wherever there is an arbitrary the man is required to report when the arbitrary begins. The Chairman : Would he get paid then under this proposi- tion, not only the arbitrary, but the time from when he reports? Mr. Garretson: I get your idea, now. In other words, he reported at 6 a.m. His leaving time, we will say, is seven. There would be an hour's arbitrary in, and he is called at six. Your idea is that if now, he was called at six-thirty, would he get the arbitrary and a thirty minutes also? No, I should say not. Mr. Stone: I would stand under Article 4: that the man would reserve the right to accept either — the settlement we made here, or the existing schedule, but not both. The Chairman : He could decide whichever he wanted? Mr. Garretson : He would keep his arbitrary and start his road time from the end of the arbitrary. That would be my inter- pretation. 68 Mr. Shea : In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we have such / conditions as that now on some of the Western roads and that was clearly brought out in our Western Arbitration, and particularly during certain recent meetings of the Board of Arbitration to in- terpret their award. Now, for instance, there is a road in the Western Arbitration that the schedules provide for thirty minutes arbitrary time before beginning their trip. Now, this time is paid separate, and dis- tinct from any other time or mileage made on the run. We will say that under this thirty minutes arbitrary, a crew is supposed to leave at 6 o'clock. They are to report for duty at 5 :30. Now, the award provides that time shall begin when crews are required to report for duty. Now, there are instances on this road where they allow the thirty minute arbitrary time, when crews are re- quired to report forty-five minutes before their time set to depart. In this instance, their road overtime, in order to get the benefit of the fifteen minutes which they are not paid as arbitrary, will be computed fifteen minutes before they are ordered to leave. That is how it is interpreted under the Western Arbitration. The Chairman: That is the way you would interpret it in this case and they would get the thirty minutes arbitrary, but the road time would not begin until after the arbitrary time stops? Mr. Shea : Say they were required to report for duty forty- five minutes before they were ordered to leave. Now, they would get paid for thirty minutes of that as arbitrary and instead of computing their road overtime from forty-five minutes before they were ordered to leave, their road overtime will be computed fifteen minutes before they are required to leave in order to get compensa- tion for the fifteen minutes time in which they were required to report for duty in addition to the thirty minutes paid as arbitrary. Mr. Garretson: They would not lap. Mr. Mailer : Why do you change (he language to "Time re- quired for duty"? The Chairman : Many of the schedules have that, to be com- puted for time required to report for duty and do report. Mr. Sheppard : This is a modification of that language. The Chairman: What was the reason for changing that language? Mr. Stone: We thought this covered it more plainly, and because a few of our pencil artists throughout the country claim 69 that a man hadn't reported for duty yet when he was down getting his engine ready. Mr. Garretson: You will bear in mind some modifications of language arose from this. The standard phrases that were used by the two engine organizations often differed in language from the standard phrases that were used by the other two. Xow, when you come to amalgamating the language in the two, it often required the changing of a phrase in greater or lesser degree, while endeavoring to convey exactly the same meaning and purpose that was embodied in both. That explains some of those changes of phrases. The Chairman: What I wanted to get at particularly was whether there was any significance in the change. Mr. Garretson : My own opinion is, there is none whatever. This is only for bringing out as strongly as they could, in language, what the other was intended to do. Mr. Sheppard: They might be required to report and have no duty, be waiting for something, don't you see? Just take, for instance, when he was not working. The Chairman: If he was required to report for duty and the schedule required payment from the time he was required to report, it seems to me you would have to pay him from the time he reports whether there is work there for him or not. Mr. Sheppard: AVe had some difficulties in deciding that, from the fact that they did not go to work. Mr. Stone : Call it deadheading, or something of that kind. Mr. Sheppard : Whenever the Company requires them to be on the Company's property or prepared to go to work, we thought duty covered both contingencies. Mr. Garretson: If a man can be suspended for not being there, he is carrying responsibility. The Chairman : Well, it says here "required for duty." Suppose he is required for duty and isn't there. Mr. Garretson : My experience has been, you will stop him — actual suspension. The Chairman : Probably take the matter up with him any- way? Mr. Garretson : Oh, sure, you would want to know why. Mr. Maher : Now, a man's time begins (which is very im- portant) at the "time required to report" in those cases. Now 70 you say "required for duty." Is that as definite as the other, and can't that be misunderstood while the other never was? Mr. Stone : I would have to differ with you, because this was put in for the express purpose of covering the weak spots in the other. For example, particularly to engine crews, an engineer was required to report anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half before leaving time. Well, the question at once arises : When does he go on duty? They say, when he is checking up bulletin and getting a time slip and comparing his watch and checking over the registers he isn't on duty yet. Some take the position that he isn't on duty until he actually starts the machine to move. We say he is on duty from the time he reports. Mr. Maher : That is a question of registering when he is on duty. Mr. Sheppard: Take, for example, conductors deadheaded; they do not register, they are deadheaded to some other point. They will register when they get there. Mr. Garretson : I think the bulk of them register arrival but not departure. The Chairman : Many of them do. Often you have to have that to know whether the men have gone or not. Mr. Garretson : Where the roads have systematized that, they register them up, but that is of comparatively recent growth. It used to be universal that they didn't register departure or arrival, they only reported. Mr. Stone : Again in the question of deadheading, the ques- tion at once arises, did the man register deadhead or did he start on duty when he started the machine? The Chairman: This means, then, that whenever the com- pany requires him for duty, then his time starts? Mr. Garretson : I would say when he signs the call book to be down there. Mr. Maher: Then why not say so? Mr. Garretson : The company fixes his time, we don't fix it, but the minute they require him to come there, pay starts. Mr. Stone : We want to nail it down so hard and fast there is no question when his time begins. Mr. Maher : It seems to me it is not as definite as the other. Mr. Stone : In our opinion it is far more definite, the other means anything. 71 The Chairman : Does that mean then, Mr. Stone, when the man signs the call book, suppose he signs the call book at 7 A.M. to report at 9 A.M., his time begins at 9 A.M., whether he is there or not? Mr. Stone : If he isn't there, he will probably get a suspen- sion. The Chairman : That is true, but does it mean that his time begins whether he is there or not? Mr. Stone : If he wasn't there, no, but I would say if he was there, and ready to begin duty, then was when his time begun. The Chairman : If he has reported? Mr. Stone : Well, it is a question of reporting. You can't report some places, because there is no place to report. Mr. Garretson : Isn't it a fact right on that question of re- porting, in practical operation, that hundreds of men — now — I will take trainmen and conductors because I am going to illus- trate from what I know of actual practice — will come into the yards at a place where there is no reporting station, and none re- quired of them, and take up their work, get their numbers and look after things generally. At outlying stations where there is no reporting practice. The Chairman : I am not familiar with any of those places. Mr. Garretson : Well, I think if you will consult with your associates, you will find that there are. The Chairman : I think that is a rather unusual practice, where you have got hundreds of men coming into a yard. Mr. Garretson : Not hundreds in 1 yard, hundreds in many yards. The Chairman : You mean 2 or 3 here and there? Mr. Garretson : Sure. I think that may be common even in some of your territory. The Chairman : There may be some outlying points here and there. Mr. Garretson : Smaller yards is where that is done. The Chairman : But it is a rather unusual thing where a man doesn't go at least to the telegraph office. Mr. Stone: That is the last place he goes after working 2 or 3 hours and before leaving town. The Chairman : I don't agree with that statement. 72 Mr. Stone : I have known them to work 5 and 6 hours before they get to a telegraph office. Mr. Shea : This also applies to switching service, and men in switching service, of course, are not required to go to telegraph offices in order to receive any special orders. Mr. Elisha Lee : That comes in under 2, Mr. Shea, I think. Mr. Shea : The language is just the same. The Chairman : Yes, I take it that way. Mr. Garretson : I suppose there is no question about yard- men having a given place to report, but as applied to roadmen, there are scores of yards (scores is a charitable term, too) where there are not any outlying offices where they report, and where they do their work before they come near an office, a great part of them. Where men take all their own numbers, do all their own inspections. There are roads represented here who, you will take a majority of their yards, do business that way. Eoadmen, I mean, do it that way in those yards. The Chairman : There isn't any question as to who specifies that time. The company specifies that time. Mr. Garretson : The company specifies the time and pays for its specification. Mr. Stone: We have discovered that the company has that right since we had our Western arbitration, where we used to have thirty minutes preparatory time before, they have discovered they can get ready in three or four minutes, calling passenger en- gineers five minutes before leaving time, and calling freight men on time, and expecting them to be ready to move. The Chairman: That is where engines are handled by hostlers? Mr. Stone : No, sir, they get them ready when opportunity presents itself. I can find you instances where they are expected to have them step right on the engines and move them. Mr. Maher: Why couldn't you say "until relieved" instead of "until released"? Mr. Stone : Because you will relieve a man out in the yard, 5 miles from where his responsibility ceases, if you put in "relief." Mr. Maher: What would you do? Mr. Stone: You would expect him to take the engine to the roundhouse. Mr. Maher: You claim then that the men are required to 73 do a good deal of duty after they are actually relieved, and now you are going to specify when he is released. Mr. Stone : As long as the man is held responsible we expect him to be paid. Mr. Garretson : The company may, but the companies do not. Mr. Stone : There are numerous cases where men have been disciplined where they were not under pay when accidents oc- curred. Mr. Maher : The thing to do is to have these perfectly clear, so there will be no misunderstanding. Mr. Stone : It is absolutely impossible to write a rule so plain that there isn't a chance for misunderstanding. Mr. Maher : Lots of times a little thing may be a very im- portant thing. Mr. Stone : It is true there "may be." Mr. Maher : My idea was to make it so clear that there would be no misunderstanding. It seems to me these are general terms here, and it would be pretty hard to define them. Mr. Garretson : Here is what is bothering you : You bear in mind, in thrashing these out we are getting each other's under- standing, and it is easy enough to use language that will describe the intent, if it becomes a part of the record what the purpose was, in writing that language. This is a thing we can overcome better that way than any other, but what we are after is this: For instance, take Mr. Maher's statement — that the company desires thus and so. It may be that in this or that instance that absolutely works out. But you will take it, in a lot of other instances, the man is penalized time after time, and a thousand penalizations means a lot of money. It doesn't mean a great amount, possibly, from any given man, but it means a great deal of hardship for many and a whole lot of money when there is no justification for it. And if it doesn't cost to hold him, they let him stay there until they have to get him out of the way. It is just like the payment of overtime. I say to you that I have laid fifteen hours outside of the yard on a branch line and was not let into the yard and not paid a cent. The Chairman : That is a good ways back, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : That is. That was before overtime was paid. That can't occur now. It would cost the company too much money. But all the dispatchers expect is reasonable treatment. 74 The Chairman : Your remark here a moment ago about this western proposition, about cutting down preparatory time: Is it the thought in this that that can be cut down, or hadn't you gone into that feature? Mr. Stone : Where we have an arbitrary allowance, I think Article IV would allow the men to keep it if they wanted to — at least that is what we had in view when we wrote Article IV, and we think it is acid-proof and will stand the test. The Chairman: Just for information, Mr. Stone, in con- nection with that : Would you hold under this that where there was a preparatory time of 45 minutes for the engineers and a hostler was put on to handle the engine, and he wasn't required to perform that preparatory service, is there anything that could be held under Article IV? Mr. Stone : I couldn't understand you could put a hostler on to assume any responsibility for the machine after it left the terminal, as long as you are going to hold the crew responsible for anything that occurs after they leave the yard. Mr. Stone: If there was an arbitrary 45 minutes now, I would understand that was optional with the man. The Chairman : Even if the company put on the hostler service? Mr. Stone: Well, they don't put on hostlers to assume re- sponsibility for engines out on the road. What do you mean by putting on a hostlei* to do the work, get the engine ready? The Chairman: I would understand from that, that the engine would be prepared, examined, perhaps by the mechan- ical department, and the engineer told his engine is ready. Mr. Stone: And also told that he would not be held re- sponsible for the machine that somebody else has gotten ready? The Chairman: He would not be held responsible for the machine, except what might happen to it afterwards. Mr. Stone: That wouldn't mean anything. The Chairman: It wouldn't? Mr. Stone : No, because the engines don't break down stand- ing still, they break down out on the road. The Chairman : That is very true, but what I mean is, he would be relieved of the responsibility of the inspection before he left. Mr. Stone: I would like to ask you a question there if I 75 might. Suppose some other engineer has come in on an engine and reported some work that he believed to be necessary to be done, and some other engineer, who perhaps hasn't seen this engine before in his life, takes her out, or I, who have reported the work, take her out myself. Unless I examined that engine, who would be responsible in that case? The Chairman: Under the question I asked, the Mechani- cal Department. Mr. Stone: Well, you would have a devil of a time fixing it on the Mechanical Department. The Chairman: Not if you relieve the engineer of the in- spection. Mr. Stone: They never relieve the engineer of the in- spection on the road. They always say if it had had proper care it never would have happened. The Chairman: Then you would still expect the engineer to get the 45 minutes? Mr. Stone : If he had an arbitrary allowance to that ef- fect now, yes. The Chairman: That would be 45 minutes in addition to the 8 hours to be paid ; 12i/^ miles or 10 miles. Mr. Stone : Forty -five minutes, and the road time would be- gin at the expiration of the 45 minutes arbitrary. The Chairman: On the 8-hour basis? Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind that our schedules provide, first an arbitrary for terminal time and then under provisions in that schedule, the arbitrary can run out and road time can commence all before they start. And that is further complicated in one or two instances if they do certain switching, terminal switching, before starting, there will be another allowance there for it and two of those at least are arbitraries. The third one probably is not. The last named is, but the middle one that I mentioned is the regular road overtime allowance. The others are arbitraries. Let me call your attention to arbitraries in general. I have probably written as many as any man alive. In every in- stance they have grown out of the local conditions on that line that required some special provision. For instance the line that Mr. Higgins came off of. That allows that at a certain point men are permitted an hour for doing certain things, if they don't do 76 that, they are not paid. If they do do it, they are ; and it would stand unchanged by any schedule provision or any settlement here, that didn't specifically meet that condition and a general decision don't meet it. You remember one I refer to, Mr. Higgins, where the neighbors had to come in and help. Mr. Higgins : That was before my time. Mr. Garretson : No, no, that is the day you broke the chair over naming the division. There is the type of arbitrary that none of these things will interfere with. Mr. Maher: In the other case where you mentioned three, they would all be retained and the 8-hour basis put in? Mr. Garretson : The arbitraries would be retained undoubt- edly. The one that is not an arbitrary would be modified in a degree by this settlement because that applies to the ordinary overtime rule with us, the middle one which I mentioned but arbi- traries would maintain. You bear in mind if there was some- thing in the award covering that point that the men considered more desirable than the possession of the arbitrary, they could relinquish the arbitrary and take the conclusion. The Chairman : Where the schedule provided that that arbi- trary (this preparatory time we have been speaking of as an arbitrary) should be paid at overtime rates, would that take the time and a half rates? Mr. Garretson : I am of the opinion that it would. The Chairman: On the other road right alongside of it that had to be paid pro rata rate, one fellow would get stuck time and a half and the other a lower rate. Mr. Garretson : We have done some missionary work in ob- literating that kind of cases, and I will say to you we have a view now of doing some more. The Chairman: In that case one fellow would have to pay for language and the other for work. Mr. Garretson : He would have to pay for language until we made him pay for work. The Chairman : I don't get your point. Mr. Garretson : We will squeeze the man that isn't paying, as hard as we can. The Chairman : That is the man that is paying the pro rata, you will bring up to the overtime rate? Mr. Garretson : Sure. 77 The Chairman : Where this preparatory time is not paid as an arbitrary, would the railroads have to continue to call the men at those advanced periods of time, and the time commence where it does now? Mr. Shea : Yes, if it was an arbitrary. The Chairman: Not as an arbitrary? Mr. Stone : I don't imagine so, no, sir. They will discover that they won't need so much preparatory time when they have to pay for it. The Chairman : Then, I understand, that is optional with the railroads; where it isn't on an arbitrary they can designate the call. Mr. Shea : I think that has been done in the past. Mr. Garretson : I think you will find, if you will consult the files, that the Secretary of the Bureau of Information of your Association has passed on that subject quite considerably. The Chairman : Well, we are asking for it under this now. Mr. Walber : I would like to remind you of the 30-minute rule on the New York Central. It is passenger, I understand, but to illustrate the point: — they have a rule providing that crews shall be called 30 minutes in advance. Now, there was an arbi- tration decision on it. They held to that rule excepting that it would apply only to the initial trip. Mr. Garretson : The initial trip on each day? Mr. Walber : Each. Now, that illustrates the point. If a schedule contains a rule that crews shall be called 1 hour in ad- vance, 45 minutes in advance, 30 minutes in advance,- must the railroad companies continue to call crews for those respec- tive periods of the day and time begin from the time they are re- quired to report for duty? In other words, these rules fix the time when the railroad companies may require men to report for duty? That is what I am trying to develop. Is there anything in this proposal that would permit the railroad companies to eliminate those arbitrary time periods and themselves designate the time at which crews shall report for duty? Mr. Garretson : I answered that specifically to Mr. Lee, for he asked it in just that way. That whereve? arbitraries exist the men will have the right to maintain that arbitrary and it will deprive the company of the right to substitute fifteen minutes for that hour where that arbitrary rule exists, because that is founded 78 on this. We recognize the right of the company to fix the time for call, according to its necessities, where they haven't signed away that right. In other words, they have made the men partners with them in designating on this road what that time will be. They have relinquished that right to the men; where it doesn't exist they can exert it, modified only by their own necessities and their readiness to pay ; but where it exists, this won't affect it. Mr. Walber : The reason I brought it up again is because I see a distinction between an arbitrary and this kind of a rule. The arbitraries — Mr. Garretson : What kind of a rule? Mr. Walber : This one, our preliminary call, forty-five min- utes preliminary, and thirty minutes preliminary call ; and, in the cases I have in mind, the periods are not segregated. In other words, the terminal time is not distinguished from the road time. And the answer to that Mr. Shea gave, the terminal time is paid for independent of the road time. In the cases that I cite, the road time simply begins from the time these crews are required to report for duty. For example, you may have a run going from A to B, 100 miles ; the schedule provides that crews shall be required to report for duty one hour in advance of the leaving time of their train. Now, what I am trying to develop is, whether the railroad has any option to change that rule or whether they must continue to maintain the one-hour call, so reducing the period within which they make the run, 100 miles in seven hours, instead of the eight hours under this proposition. Mr. Shea : First, Mr. Walber, in that question : Are the men paid that preparatory time as an arbitrary? What I mean by that is, are they paid that time in addition to the time or miles made on the run? Mr. Walber : They are not. The time may be run off on the speed basis. Mr. Shea: Then from what point do they compute their road time? Mr. Walber : From the time they begin their trip. The road overtime is not computed on the mileage from terminal to terminal, in case of an engine the mileage in the majority of cases is computed from the ready track to the relief track at the opposite end of the run. All the actual miles run are worked out on the speed basis of the schedule. 79 Mr. Shea : Well now then, this casie that you have referred to; we understand from your statement that notwithstanding the men have been called to report one hour before their train is due to leave, they have never received any compensation for that time? Mr. Walber: They absolutely had to be paid for every minute. Mr. Shea : But I asked the question, in reference to when their road overtime ^as computed, whether it was computed from the time they are ordered to report or from the time they are ordered to leave. Mr. Walber : The road overtime is computed from the time they are ordered to report. Mr. Shea : That is the point. Mr. Walber: Every minute by the clock is paid for. Mr. Shea : Then, Mr. Walber, if their road overtime was com- puted from the time they were ordered to report, then they have received compensation for that time, provided the train runs into road overtime? Mr. TTalber : 'No matter whether it runs into road overtime or not, or if it is paid on the mileage basis, in either case no dis- tinction is made. They are paid for every minute they give the company. Mr. Shea : But there is no value in preparatory time unless it is an arbitrary, or unless the train runs into road overtime. Mr. Walber: Well, the distinction there, is what you call "value." If value could only be a separate and distinct com- pensation for the same time, I would agree with you. But when the value is for one payment for one service rendered, he gets it. He don't get double compensation under the rule that I have stated. Mr. Shea : What I mean by that is that preparatory time is no value to employees unless it is an arbitrary allowance or unless their train does run into road overtime. Xow take a case — a division from A to B, 100 miles. They are called to leave at 8 o'clock in the morning. The train is due to leave. They are ordered to report at 7 o'clock in the morning, one hour in advance, to prepare their engine and do work incident to their trip. ^STow, we will assume that they made the trip in 8 hours. Eight hours from the time they were ordered to report for duty, they received 80 100 miles and no road overtime. Therefore, the one hour which they were required to report for duty in advance of the time the train was due to depart, is of no value to the crew because they receive no compensation for it. Mr. Walber: You mean they receive no additional com- pensation for it. Mr. Shea : Now, then, what I mean by that is, preparatory time is of no value unless the train runs into road overtime, and their overtime is computed from the time they are ordered to re- port for duty. Now, we thrashed that out on the Western roads during our Western Arbitration, and there was great stress laid on the preparatory time by the counsel for the railroads in this arbitration, because they said every engineer and fireman was re- quired to report for duty thirty minutes in advance of the time the train was ordered to leave, and they received no compensa- tion for this 30 minutes. Therefore, they said, if we pay the men all time for which they are required to report for duty, it means an increase of approximately 5 per cent, in the wages of all the en- gineers and firemen on all of the railroads in the Western Arbitra- tion. Let us follow this out now, and see what they did. We went into executive session and the representatives of the rail- roads just hung on to that point, and they said, "Why, gentlemen, we are going to pay the engineers and firemen from the time they are required to report for duty instead of paying them from the time they are required to leave as in the past." And they said, "All these engineers and firemen will receive at least a 5 per cent, increase in their wages," and it had its effect. What I mean by say- ing it had its effect, is, it had its effect upon the neutral members of the board. Now, let us see what they did. Let us see how the five per cent, worked out. Before the award became effective, every engineer and fire- man was required to report at least thirty minutes before they were due to leave. They immediately cut this down, and many railroads issued bulletins to the effect that engineers and firemen instead of reporting for duty thirty minutes or forty-five minutes as they were required to do in the past, they would report fifteen minutes, five minutes, ten minutes. On many of the roads, so far as switching service is concerned, men were ordered to report at the time the engine moved. Now, some roads issued insti;uctions that crews would be required to report for duty 15 minutes in advance of the time they were due to leave, but they would only be paid 81 from the time they actually leave. Therefore, that five per cent, increase that they tried to make the public believe the engineers and firemen were going to receive, they received nothing from, be- cause they were not required to report for duty. Now, there were two roads in the Western Arbitration, involving 98 railroads, where the men did receive and do now, 30 minutes as arbitrary time and which is paid in addition to all time and mileage made on the run. And if the train runs into road overtime, they receive compensation for that time in addition to the road overtime, but there are so few roads that pay preparatory time as arbitrary time, so far as the engineers and firemen are concerned, that it is not worth mention, because there is only one or two in the entire West. In the East, I am not quite so well versed, but as far as the engineers and the firemen are concerned, I think there are very few roads in the East that pay preparatory time as arbitra- ries in addition to the other time made on the run. You want to make these distinctions. Therefore, when the Western award went into effect, and having a proviso that the engineers' and firemen's time would begin from the time they were required to report for duty, it modified all of the rules they had in schedule, requiring them to report for duty 30 minutes or 45 minutes in advance of their leaving time, unless it was paid as an arbitrary. On roads where it was paid as an arbitrary, the men retained that. Now, that is all there is to this question of preparatory time. The Chairman: Well, now, that is just a point I want to get, Mr. Shea; it is clear in my mind from what you say that where it is paid as an arbitrary it remains as an arbitrary. Where it is not paid as an arbitrary, but there are stipulations in the schedule that the men shall report a certain length of time before leaving, I understand then, that remains with the company to change, if they so desire. Mr. Shea : No, I won't say in this, but I say it did in our Western arbitration. The Chairman: I am trying to find out what this is? Mr. Shea : Now, I am speaking about the past practice and how the men have been jobbed. The Chairman : I am not interested in the past practice so much; I want to know at this time what we are going to do with this thing. Mr. Shea : We are very much interested in past practice, and 82 I might say in that connection, that if the men had not been jobbed in past negotiations, and past arbitrations, we may not have been here at this time. Mr. Higgins : Let me ask, do you claim that the western railroads have violated the award of the Arbitration Board in the West? Mr. Shea: Yes. In many instances. Mr. Higgins : I mean the particular matter you are speak- ing of, that of time required to report for duty. Mr. Shea : Yes, they violated the intent and spirit of their statements to the members of the Board of Arbitration. Mr. Higgins : I asked if the award of the Arbitration Board, the spirit and intent, and the letter, for that matter, were violated. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Mr. Higgins : What railroads did it? Mr. Shea : I will say on no less than 6 railroads, which in- cludes many violations bearing on different articles of the award, and in addition to that, gentlemen, let me say, and maybe it is proper to say, that, on many of the railroads, the award has not been applied yet. In addition to that, there are some of the rail- roads that have not paid the men as yet under the application of the award. Mr. Higgins : That, Mr. Shea, is not the point I asked in- formation on. If you have not agreed with certain railroads, that is a matter between the men and the management of those rail- roads. The men had to elect what they would take under the award, and some of them have not done so yet. Therefore, their management could not apply the award, but what I am asking especially about is, your statement here, if I understood you, that where the railroad required men to report 30 minutes before the time due to leave, that the award of the Arbitration Board fixed that as an arbitrary. That was your position as I understood it. Mr. Shea : No, don't misunderstand me. I said that there were one or two roads in the Western arbitration that paid the engineers and firemen an arbitrary for preparatory time. Mr. Higgins: Since the — Mr. Shea: Wait a minute, now. The railroads took the position that if the employees elected to accept Article V of the award, "beginning and ending of a day," it eliminated the ar- bitrary payment as preparatory time. The men contested that. 83 The Board passed upon that. Other roads had schedule pro- visions requiring the men to report thirty minutes in advance of their leaving time — other roads forty-five minutes in advance of their leaving time. I did say that on such roads the award did modify that provision in their schedule, and instead of giving the men the benefit of this preparatory time, which time they had been giving to the Company for years and years, they just simply posted a bulletin stating that instead of reporting thirty minutes in advance of their leaving time, they would report fifteen minutes and in some instances, when they were due to leave. Mr. Higgins : Do you take the position that the Arbitration Board award, under the "beginning and ending of a day," fixed the thirty minutes as an arbitrary? Mr. Shea : No, I didn't say so. Mr. Higgins : You said — excuse me — that the men had been jobbed in the West, on that very proposition. Now, you say that you don't claim that the award of the Board fixed that thirty minutes as an arbitrary. Then, the railroads had a perfect right to elect the time of reporting for duty, did they not? Didn't the Board intend they should have that right? Mr. Shea : When you get through I will answer. Mr. Higgins: I am through now. Mr. Shea : I want to say again in the way of emphasis that during all of the proceedings, the counsel for the railroads and the expert Tvdtnesses for the railroads, including Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Trenholm, stated that it was necessary for engineers and firemen to report for duty at least thirty minutes in advance of their leaving time in order to prepare their engine and get it ready for the trip. Mr. Trenholm went so far as to say, and it is a matter of record, that in many instances forty-five minutes is necessary, and they said, therefore, that if these men received compensation for all time, it will be equivalent to an advance of 5 per cent, in their wages, and since the award became effective, instead of re- quiring the men to report thirty minutes and forty-five minutes in advance of their leaving time, they have eliminated that, and are requiring them to report, in many instances, when they were due to leave. Therefore, I claim that they have violated the spirit and intent, as they intended to convey it, to the members of the Board of Arbitration, so fiar as that time is concerned. Now, then, there are other instances, and right on one road 8i that I have been negotiating with the last three weeks, where there are, I will say, no less than fifty violations of the Western Arbitra- tion award. Mr. Higgins: You have your court of redress. Mr. Shea : Yes, but bear in mind, gentlemen, the award was handed down on the thirtieth day of April, 1915, and became effective on the eleventh day of May, 1915, over one year ago, and it has expired by Statute of Limitations, and on many of the roads the men have not received the benefit of the award as intended by the members of the Board of Arbitration. Mr. Shea : Now then, you ask us why we come here. The Chairman : We haven't asked you any such thing. Mr. Higgins: If you please, I would like you to say, Mr. Shea, if you intended to convey the impression here that the Board of Arbitration, by its award, "the beginning and ending of a day," fixed the 30 minutes which many roads required crews to report before they were due to leave which was a requirement when the rates were made for those men, and which was fully considered when those rates were made. I am asking now if you intended to convey the impression here that the board fixed that 30 min- utes as an arbitrary that could not be changed? Mr. Shea : Mr. Higgins, if you want me to repeat Avhat I said — Mr. Higgins : No, answer the question. Mr. Shea : It is a matter of record what I have said. Mr. Higgins : It is ; but answer the question, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : My answer is a matter of record. And I say, and I repeat it again, that the violation of the award refers to the spirit of the representatives of the railroad in trying to convey the impression to the members of the Board of Arbitration that the men would get at least 30 minutes compensation for every time they went out. Mr. Higgins : I very much doubt if anybody seriously in- tended to convey that, unless the 30 minutes was made an arbi- • trary. Now I am asking you if you understood the award of the Board on "the beginning and ending of a day" made that 30 min- utes an arbitrary? Mr. Shea : Not as an arbitrary, but I understand that in all fairness when the award became effective, the railroads would not defeat the men in compensation that they were justly entitled to, 85 by reducing their preparatory time, and_which was a great factor in connection with the writing and making of the award. , Mr. Higgins : You should then, Mr. Shea, have made it an arbitrary. Mr. Shea : Yes, I know, Mr. Higgins, we should have made it. Mr. Higgins : You might have known precisely what the rule meant and what an intelligent and businesslike application of it would result in. The men are paid for every minute of their time by that rule from the time they report. There was no jobbing, no intention, as far as I know, to deprive the men of anything they were justly entitled to under the award, provided they elected what they were going to take from the award. Mr. Shea : I don't subscribe to your statement. We claim, and I want to say again, that if there ever was a class of men jobbed in an arbitration, the Western Arbitration was the most complete method of jobbing that I have ever known so long as I have had any dealings with the labor question. I make that state- ment openly and publicly. Mr. Stone : iNow, Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to a point of order. The Chairman : Go ahead. Mr. Stone : Now that we have given the Western railroads a clean bill of health, I propose that we take up the question that is before us. The Chairman : I am very agreeable, Mr. Stone. Mr. Shea : Sometimes we have to deviate from the usual and ordinary path when these questions are brought into the negotiations. Mr. Stone : While this is all very educational and all that, I am glad to learn for the first time that the railroads never did seriously contemplate what they said they would in regard to pre- paratory time. Mr. Higgins: They did what Mr. Carter repeatedly said you wanted done, which was to relieve the men of this work. Mr. Stone : Those figures that it was going to cost, that 45 minutes before they left, were the same figures you put up now in your one hundred million cost in this movement. The Chairman : We will develop that later on, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Yes, I have seen a few figures compiled by their experts before, and I will probably see some again. 86 The Chairman : You rose to a point of order, and I will rise to a point of order. Go ahead, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : No, I have something to say, because I want to dissent from the statements made by the representatives of the two associations that they pay the men every minute. They don't pay every man every minute if he runs a hundred miles on time, and the fact is that your agreements all provide that a man who is paid $4 when he has given you 100 miles of running, or 10 hours of time, he has given you an equivalent of |4, and whenever you hold him 30 minutes in preparatory time, and then run him the 100 miles in 7 hours and 20 minutes, you have taken from him with- out payment 40 minutes' work in every instance, and he isn't paid for every minute because he gave you 40 minutes more than the contract called for. The Chairman : He is paid for the equivalent. Mr. Garretson : He is not if he doesn't get into overtime. The Chairman : A certain amount of his time is required for him to get ready for his run, and after he is through it goes into the rates and it is considered in his rate. Mr. Garretson : There isn't anything of the kind ever con- sidered in his rate and the mileage clause in your agreement proves it. The Chairman : Then is that in here to cut out anything of that sort? Mr. Garretson : No, I am only calling the statement that yoii pay every minute and you don't. We will cite the five per cent, increase ; what it means is that if you require of a man one hour, and then he makes up that hour by running 100 miles in nine hours, you have taken from him ten per cent, instead of his earn- ing five per cent. The Chairman : But you are giving him an opportunity to earn it. Mr. Garretson: You are giving him opportunity, but op- portunity isn't money. Mr. Stone : You claim not only the miles the man produces, but you claim the hours, too. You want the hundred miles and you want the hours that go with it. The Chairman: Oh, no. Mr. Stone: When I have run a hundred miles for you, if I am a pieceworker, if I run the hundred miles in three hours. 87 there isn't any more time coming to you, and if I have fooled around two hours, I don't get anything for it. If your figures filed are correct, in 78 per cent, of the freight train runs in this country, they don't run into overtime. Therefore he don't get preparatory time. The Chairman : I don't know what figures you are referring to, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Well, the figures compiled by the statistical de- partment of the Bureau of Economics, that are supposed to be correct. The Chairman: If you will mention the statistics you mean — Mr. Stone: The Western Arbitration — 78 per cent, of the freight trains are run at a higher rate of speed than 12i/^ miles per hour. The Chairman : I will look up that. Mr. Stone : I will be very glad to bring it down and show it to you. Mr. Higgins: I don't know that your percentages are cor- rect but I know your speed bases are not correct. It is 10 miles, not 12%. Mr. Stone: Wait a minute. It is one of those juggling cases of figures, although sworn to ; it is correct as far as figures go. i The Chairman : You are speaking for yourself? Mr. Stone: I am speaking for all. I have learned it from you fellows, you know. The average trip per freight train is 116 miles and a fraction. I have forgotten the fraction. And the average time between terminals is 8.2 hours. The Chairman : If you will just bring that down. Mr. Stone : Yes, I will be glad to. Mr. Shea : I think, in addition to what Mr. Stone says, that, being familiar with that phase of the subject, the record will show that the railroads, parties to the Western Arbitration, claimed that all through and irregular freight, that 78 50-100 per cent, of all irregular and through freight, on all of the railroads, in the West- ern arbitration for the month of October, 1913, made an average of approximately 113 miles between terminals in eight hours and twenty minutes. Mr. Stone : Eight and two-tenths. 88 Mr. Shea : Eight and two-tenths. Therefore, according to that statement, if it was true, and I assumed it was true, because it was sworn to, that if this proposition which we are now contend- ing for, an eight-hour day, and the computation of overtime at a speed of 12% miles an hour, it would not mean any increases to the train crews of oyer 78% of the irregular and through freights on the Western railroads for the month of October, 1913. The Chairman : Well, Mr. Shea, I am not familiar with it at this time ; you have just called my attention to this statement. E would like to see the statement and see what the statement says, before I make any reply to your proposition. That doesn't' come in here now, just at this time as Mr. Garretson is attempting to ex- plain these things to us. That will come up a little bit later, after we get this thing ironed out and find out what it means. Mr. Shea : The impression has gone out that this proposition would require the railroads to pay time and a half for all time consumed in excess of eight hours in freight service. The Chairman: Where they do not make the miles? Mr. Shea : Yes, and I was going to say that in order that there may be no misunderstanding so far as our side is concerned, that that is true on runs where the mileage does not exceed 100 miles, but on runs of 125 miles, overtime will accrue after 10 hours instead of 8 hours? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : And on runs of 150 miles, instead of overtime ac- cruing after the expiration of 8 hours, it does not accrue until after the expiration of twelve hours. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Shea : So, on a run of 150 miles, instead of getting time and a half for overtime after 8 hoiirs, they would not receive any overtime until after 12 hours have elapsed. The Chairman : Yes, and continuing along the same line, your proposition, say, on a 200-mile run — Mr. Shea : After 16 hours. The Chairman : Would not start until after 16 hours. That is perfectly permissible under this proposition? Mr. Garretson: That is right, and that is what it carries with it. The Chairman : It does not limit, as I understand, does not strictly limit, the road service to an 8-hour day, but it does 89 limit to a 12i/^-mile speed basis for anything in excess of 100 miles in computing road overtime. Tliat is, it is perfectly permissible under this proposition that time and a half would not start, say, on a 200-mile run until after 16 hours. Mr. Garretson : It is an effort to apply to railway service, as near as consistent with the necessities of that service, the 8-hour day. And it only applies to overtime on the speed basis of the various runs. In other words, we want to make it costly for you to work us above the 8-hour period, or its equivalent in longer runs. The Chairman : I wanted to get at today and tomorrow what these things mean, and then we will get into your arguments later on. Mr. Garretson: Well, there are times when our mucilage doesn't work very well. The Chairman : I see. You can't break loose. Mr. Garretson : Article 2 : As a whole there is comparatively little analysis needed of Article 2, because it applies only to the yard service in its entirety, precisely what Article I applies to the road service in its entirety. The language is only phrased to meet the difference of the kind of service the men perform in yards and on roads. It applies to yardmen exactly what it has been shown Article 1 applies to road service — the substitution of the eight hours. It retains those features for yardmen that the other retains for roadmen. It gives to them in the yard the same things that Article 1 gives to the men on the road, and provides for the establishment of exactly the same basis. Mr. Maher: That is the ten-hour. Mr. Garretson : That is the ten-hour or other rate to main- tain on the eight-hour basis, because the yard differs from the road in this : the yardman is a day worker. For him it establishes what we would be glad to do for the road, were it possible — the eight-hour day, in its purity, the basic eight-hour day. That is on account of the fact that he can be relieved when the clock reaches a certain point. The Chairman : In most instances, I think — Mr. Garretson : There is nothing stops it unless accident intervenes. That might hold him there. The Chairman: Well, if he is off somewhere? Mr. Garretson : That is the company's convenience. The 90 company's convenience, I will admit, is like charity — it coders a multitude of sins. But there you have exemplified, in Article 2, the purpose that we would desire to apply to the service in its entirety, were we not confined by the necessities of that service. Men in transit can't be relieved as men in a fixed service can, but we attempt to minimize the period or the place. Here we do minimize it. The Chairman: Now, where a man gets in an eleven-hour yard, twelve-hour yard — Mr. Garretson : At the present time this distinctly provides that the pay that obtains in that yard will obtain for the eight- ^our day. Those are very few and far between, taken as a whole, but I mean the roads that have them are exceptions. The Chairman : Does that refer to schedule, regulation pro- vision or practice? Mr. Garretson : Frankly, it is difficult for me to interpret exactly that phase of it, Mr. Lee, because, as you are aware, I don't represent yard service, nor have I ever had the opportunity to go over it with Mr. Lee, who is the proper mouthpiece of that class of service, just what that was intended to be, and I don't know whether Mr. Dodge took up that phase or not. Mr. Dodge : No, I did not, but you will find it is an absolute necessity for some railroads to employ their yardmen over ten hours to complete the work, but, of course, those are few and far between. The universal day in yard service is ten hours. And we want to change that universal day of ten hours to an eight-hour period for the same compensation that they are receiving for ten hours today. The Chairman : And the twelve-hour man — bring him down to the eight hours? Mr. Dodge : Yes, sir, with the twelve-hour wages. Mr. Garretson : Isn't it true that wherever there is the twelve-hour contract today the pay per hour is lower than where the ten-hour days obtain? The Chairman : That I am not clear about. Mr. Dodge : It used to be in Pittsburg, before the 1910 set- tlement, that a great many of the yards in the Pittsburg switching territory had a twelve-hour day, one hour of which was for dinner or supper. If they worked over eleven hours, that gave them eleven actual hours Avork — if they worked over eleven hours for 91 that day's work, their overtime was based on a twelve-hour day basis; therefore they got less for the twelfth hour than for any other. The Chairman: Is that in effect now? Mr. Dodge: No, that has been eliminated. Mr. Sheppard: The discussion on this proposition was in- tended that whatever was considered the basic day, the regular day, that was the idea. Mr. Walber : Would this be the case under that, Mr. Shep- pard? You may have a yard where they normally work 11 hours and pay for 11 hours, but in that same yard should they have an engine for which they only had 8 hours' work and they did not pay 11 hours as a minimum, but they paid 10 hours, this proposition won't apply to that kind of a local condition. Mr. Sheppard : I did not hear that mentioned in connection with this proposition. The proposition was about the 10, 11 and 12-hour day. Mr. Stone: I can probably refresh your memory to what had a bearing on this. No doubt you will recall the 1912 ar- bitration of the engineers in the East, which we tried to apply to the local trains. In Pennsylvania, they tried to trade us time for it. They tried to equalize it by making a reduction on time. The result is no man's pay will be reduced. We don't propose to reduce his pay by going to 8 hours. Mr. Walber : I have in mind a yard where they go over their time, and you will find the men are normally working 11 hours, but in that same yard, should they only have part time for a crew to work, they won't pay them a minimum of 8 hours, they would 10. Mr. Garretson : They have a 10-hour day, but they work their crews overtime each day. Mr. Stone : Isn't it a fact that in a number of these yards you advertise a certain run paying so much per day? And whether they work 11 hours or not, they are paid for 11 hours for that day. Mr. Sheppard : That is the basic day, the 11 hours in that case. Mr. Dodge : And the basic day under this new arrangement is 8 hours and if they work over 8 hours, you have got to pay a penalty for it. 92 Mr. Sheppard : No matter whether it is a schedule provision or practice, it means that much pay for 8 hours. Mr. Garretson : That is the earning ability of the man. Mr. Walber : The schedule itself for the basic day may have a regulation 10 hours or less, 1 hour for meals, that is the basic portion of the schedule. They may have a yard where certain crews, certain trips or jobs in the yard may be 11-hour jobs, but that goes only to the regular men on the job. Should they have only 5 or 6 hours' work, they would not pay the crew 11 hours, they would only pay 10 hours. Mr. Stone : I want to correct you on that. That is not the case. Mr. Walber : I have that case in mind. Mr. Stone : Well, I have a number of cases in mind just the other way where they have use for 11 and 12 hours for a certain rate and the crew might perhaps only work 5 or 6 hours, but they are paid a rate that the bulletin advertised for. Mr. Walber : I have no doubt of that, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garretson : In that case that would be the basic day for that yard. Mr. Walber : In Mr. Stone's case, it would. Mr. Garretson : The case where you cited, I don't see any difference between your case and Stone's, only you cite an outside crew is brought in and there isn't necessity for working them eleven. They are paid on what obtains as the basic day. In other words, the company takes advantage of what it asserts to be its right to pay only a ten-hour minimum. Although they do it in a yard where eleven hours is the basis. In other words, you are discriminating against the extra man because he hasn't bid in. Mr. Walber: Not at all. I would say any arbitrary hours per day would maintain the same situation as the ten-hour day does. Mr. Garretson : Here is all you do. You bear in mind, this question isn't controllable as a general proposition in road ser- vice as it is in yards. We recognize that because the yard is the hour proposition, while the road is the mile proposition. That being the case, you are up against the existing condition, if you re- quire 11 hours from those men, and if you paid them for 11 hours. This will put, in my opinion, those men on the 8-hour basis on the 93 eleven-liour pay. You may say there is an inconsistency there. I won't attempt to deny that there may be, but that is what this calls for in my opinion. The Chairman : This specific date here says "in effect Jan- uary 1, 1916." That doesn't mean what they are doing just on that particular day, does it? Or what the custom is at that time? Mr. Garretson : There never has been a proposition pre- sented but what went back a certain period to establish existing conditions that won't be departed from to defeat these conditions. In other words, we go back to where anyone desiring to do so can't change the conditions temporarily to evade what this would place upon them. Tlie Chairman : Suppose a man working from 7 :00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., January 1, 1916— Mr. Garretson : It is the individual schedule in effect on that date. The Chairman : This refers, then, to individual schedules in effect at that time. Mr. Garretson : And their effect on the men working. Mr. Stone : For example, if a man was working at that time on a twelve-hour run, whatever that rate was, he would still be paid that for eight hours. Mr. Higgins : If he was on a ten-hour day. Mr. Stone : He was not on a ten-hour day ; he was on a twelve-hour day. Mr. Higgins : I am assuming you mean on a road having the ten-hour day in their schedule, when that crew worked from 7 :00 P.M. to 7 :00 A.M., twelve hours on that day. Mr. Stone : I would say in a case where you have the ten- hour day established, and all over is paid overtime, I would say no, but there are a number of cases where you don't do it that way. Mr. Dodge : Where the regailar day is eleven hours or twelve hours, eleven hours or less for a day. Mr. Garretson : You will bear in mind where this contract and bulletin condition exists, those are exceptions and not the rule, and while I haven't handled the yardmen, bear in mind I have been their partners in crime for a good many years and I haven't seen to exceed probably half a dozen lines where such an arrangement exists, and I doubt if half that many. Mr. Sheppard : You take it in the whole country, you 94 wouldn't get more than half that many. You will find a few in the South. Mr. Dodge : Very few. The Chairman: I would understand from this, Mr. Dodge and Mr. Garretson, this fellow that is working as you say, the necessity of the service requires him to work eleven and twelve hours — he works eleven hours now? Mr. Dodge : For a certain sum of money. The Chairman : Take it at forty cents because that is easy to calculate. Under the new proposition, if he worked that eleven hours — Mr. Dodge : He would get time and a half after eight hours. The Chairman : Yes, that is, he would get |4.40 for his first eight hours, then time and a half. That would be |6.89 for his eleven hours, whereas now he gets |4.40. Mr. Dodge : We want to stop that practice. The Chairman: Yet you stated a while ago the necessity of the railroad required that. Mr. Dodge : Well, I think it is an operating question they can handle. Mr. Walber : Even if they can cut off the work and work that man only eight hours, they still have to pay him |4-.40 for the eight hours? Mr. Dodge : Yes, sir. That is what it means. Mr. Walber: Or fifty -six cents an hour? Mr. Dodge: That is what it means. It means eight hours for what he is getting today for ten or twelve hours a day. Mr. Garretson : Don't confuse the man and the engine. The Chairman: You mean, then, that the engine may be on eleven hours, but the man only has to be on eight? Mr. Garretson : I mean that the men who hold those assign- ments, whoever they may be, that their pay Avill continue for those assignments for whoever runs them. There will be the work- ing out of that. You wouldn't name men on a contract ; it will be the positions that will pay them, that is what I want to draw your attention to. The Chairman : You don't mean that the man himself — Mr. Garretson : That position is going to give the man the capacity to earn the amount named that he earned on it before. 95 That is what I wanted to draw to your attention, because that confusion is mighty easily made. Mr. Higgins : That is only on assigned runs, as I understand, or jobs carrying a daily wage for a given number of hours. Mr. Garretson : That is just in the cases like Mr. Walber cited, which are almost utterly exceptional. The Chairman: Now, how about the meal-hour provision? Mr. Stone : There is not any. Mr. Dodge : This is my personal idea. I don't suppose on an 8 hours there will be any meal. The Chairman : That is, this would wipe out — Mr. Dodge : My understanding is that it would. They have no meal hour, I understand, on the New Haven, where they have the 8-hour day. The Chairman : Yes, that is very true. Mr. Walber : We understand that, but we didn't know what would happen under Number 4. Mr. Garretson : As I tell you, I was not — Mr. Stone : Well, I will say when this was made up there was no meal hour contemplated in switching service. Time was intended to be computed continuously. Mr. Sheppard : It was also intended that there might be a local condition, where they might get a few minutes off for a bite. Mr. Garretson : I understand that all yard agreements pro- vide for the meal hour, at the present time. The Chairman: Except 8-hour yards. Mr. Garretson: Well, there are none except on the New Haven, and there is no meal hour there. What is the practice that obtains? Mr. Walber : They do not eat within the 8-hour period, but if they are held on after 8 hours, the Company, I understand, undertakes to get some food to them. Mr. Stone: Mr. Evans, what do you do in regard to meal hours in your 8-hour switching crews? Mr. Evans : We haven't any. Mr. Stone : If they are compelled to work the second trick, they make arrangements to have lunch? Mr. Evans : Usually, yes. 96 Mr. Garretson : Mullen, what is the rule on the New Haven in regard to noon hour for switchmen? Mr. Mullen : They work the entire eight hours. Mr. Garretson: Without any meal arrangement, whatever? Mr. Mullen: Yes. Mr. Garretson : If they go on to an extension of time, they have a right to eat? Mr. Mullen: Yes, if they go into the second trick, as Mr. Evans said, they have a chance to eat on the Company's time. Mr. Sheppard: They get about 20 minutes whenever they can. Mr. Maher : Usually the nature of the service would provide for that. Mr. Garretson : There is only a few of them providing any- thing about eating. The large majority don't have exact pro- visions, but still it is a practice that they do give them a chance to eat. Mr. Sheppard: They regulate the service so that they do get a few minutes. Mr. Garretson : This clause of the time to be computed con- tinuously evidently refers to where the eight hour is now, that it is counted continuously just as the road men count it, and the computation is on the minute basis. All over eight hours, within any twenty-four hour period, to be computed and paid for at the overtime rate. There you have got exactly the same punitive rate which will compel virtually, except in cases of dire necessity, the release of the men after eight hours. The Chairman : That is, if they work the first trick, then they couldn't come back until the first trick the next morning without paying time and a half? Mr. Garretson : That is it exactly. The Chairman : That is, if you work eight hours, from six to two, then you came back again at ten o'clock, that would require time and a half after ten o'clock? Mr. Garretson : Any time within the twenty-four hour period from the commencement of the work. The Chairman : Now, certain of the schedules have a pro- vision of this sort, that men going to work at other hours than between six and eight A.M. in the morning — Mr. Dodge : Split trick. 97 The Chairman : Yes, under this proposition, if a man went to work at half past eight in the morning and was off at half past four, would you expect him to get the night rate? Mr. Dodge : That would all be left to the schedule. A great many of the schedules state that he would have the night rate. Some schedules do not. The Chairman : Yes, I understand that. Mr. Dodge : Now, this is just my opinion. I may be wrong, because Mr. Lee intended to be here. It is my understanding that that would be governed by the rule in the contract. Mr. Garretson : This only covers this thing. It first reduces hours to 8. It leaves the rate in effect as the individual schedule fixes them, together with the determination of the men as to what they take, either of those rates that maintain. Day foreman and helper and night foreman and helper and the split trick rule, pro- vide what other crews take, one or the other of those rates. Mr. Walber : They vary. Mr. Garretson : The hours determine the break. The bulk of the split tricks will take a night rate, I think, as a general proposition. Mr. Dodge : Yes. Mr. Walber : Not in the east. Mr. Sheppard : Very large in the southwest. Mr. Garretson : It depends on the hour of starting, but the individual schedules provide one way on your road and another way on yours, possibly. That is usually done to meet the necessi- ties of your local requirements, and they would be left in full force and effect. The Chairman : Then, as I understand this question that has just been brought up, I presume, if you have a 24-hour yard and your first crew starts at half -past eight and the next one at half -past four, with this provision, all those crews get night rates? Mr. Dodge : Yes. The Chairman : The answer to that would be to start one crew at least 6 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Dodge : Well, if they started at six, they would close at two. If they started at eight, they would b'e off at four. If they started at midnight, they would be off at eight the next morning. The Chairman : The New Haven, however, have a graduated 98 rate. Under this schedule I speak of, it would require day rate for one crew and night rate for the other two. Mr. Walber : In the New Haven case, they also have a ten- hour yard. What would their rate become in their present eight- hour yards under this proposal? Mr. Dodge: Whatever they are receiving for a ten-hour day on the New Haven in the ten-hour yards, they would get the same compensation for eight hours. Mr. Walber: In other words, under Article 2, the New Haven eight-hour yards would have to be increased the equivalent of the pay for ten hours. Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir. Mr. Walber: Notwithstanding they are on the eight-hour day basis? Mr. Dodge : Yes, that would be my understanding. Mr. Walber: On your other argument, that the hours for even individual assignments, as in effect January 1, shall estab- lish a minimum day under this proposal, what about yards on the New Haven where they have no ten-hour engines at all, where all engines working in the yards are on an eight-hour basis ; if in- dividual assignments are to govern in one case, why shouldn't the engines working in a yard govern, if they have no ten-hour engines? How are they going to find the rate for them? Mr. Dodge: Well, I have given you my opinion. You ask Mr. Lee. Mr. Crowley: Mr. Dodge, let me get clear on this, please; in the New Haven case — Mr. Dodge: No, you let Mr. Lee give his decision and Mr. Lee and I won't cross. The Chairman: You mean Mr. W. G. Lee. Mr. Dodge: Yes. Mr. Stone: Let me call your attention, Mr. Crowley, to the reading of the Article 2 itself. I will say to you very frankly, we had in mind the very question you have raised — the minimum day's pay for 8-hour yards shall not be less than the present day's pay for 10-hour yards. Mr. Garretson: And if the 8-hour day on the New Haven road now is less than the standard 10-hour day, it will bring it up to that. Mr. Dodge: It is less. 99 The Chairman: The hourly rate is the same. Mr. Garretson: When the 8-hour day was established on the New Haven it was established on the basis of 8 hours pay only. Mr. Dodge : They just got the rate— 13.20 for 8 hours. That is 40 cents. The Chairman : Go ahead, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Well, I think we have covered all of Article 2. Attention was drawn that if a crew was called any time within 24 hours from the first call, they were under the overtime rate. The Chairman: After 8 hours? Mr. Stone : That was done to keep from breaking up all the daylight runs in these yards, with the older men. Mr. Garretson: Article 3. (a) "Eight hours or less at 10 hours' pay will constitute a day's work in hostling service." That simply provides for those men engaged in the hostling serv- ice to be paid on exactly the same basis as the yardmen, who, I suppose, in most instances handled the other parts, or the road- men, who in the exceptional cases do; while there is a purely hourly service that puts them on a parity with all the other men working in that terminal on the eight-hour basis, just as the others are. (b) Provides for the computation of their time exactly in the same manner as of the other men. The language, I think, being exactly the same as contained in "B" of Article 2, they both being on hourly service. And, of course, the application to them would be exactly the same that it would to the other men. While, of course, there is only one man in a crew as a hostler, while there are a number of men in a yard crew. And the provision in "C," for the payment of overtime, is exactly the same as the other. Is there anything you want to bring up? Mr. Dodge : No. The Chairman : That means 8 hours at the present 10 hours' pay. Mr. Garretson : Yes, sir, undoubtedly ; to be subject to ex- actly the same conditions that the 6thers are. He won't receive less for 8 hours than he did for 10. On the 12-hour day, he won't get less than he was getting for 10. Well, see if I am wrong. It is only on 10. Are there 12-hour men on that basis? Mr. Stone : Oh, yes. Mr. Garretson : You explain, then, to them. 100 Mr. Stone : I would rather Mr. Shea would handle that. Mr. Garretson : I haven't hostlered enough. Mr. Stone : We haven't any hostlers any more. They are assistant foremen now, since we have gotten an award for hos- tlers. Mr. Higgins : While we are waiting, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a question. I notice in Article 1, paragraph D : "All overtime to be computed on the minute basis, and paid for at time and one half times the pro rata rate," while in paragraph B, Article 2, you say: All over 8 hours within any 24-hour period will be computed at the rate of time and one half time." Why the dif- ference? Mr. Garretson : I am not aware. Mr. Stone : If you will read Paragraph C in connection with Paragraph 2, you will see they mean practically the same thing. It is, overtime is to be computed on the minute basis. The reason we do that is to prevent the company from working a man two eight-hour tricks within any twenty -four hours' period on straight time. Mr. Higgins : Oiit in the West, on a branch line, where the engine might serve the daily requirements, five days a week, in eight hours, or ten hours on two days a week it is required to come back for an hour or two, we will say between six and nine o'clock in the evening, to load stock. Now if he was called for that ser- vice, we will say two hours, between six and eight o'clock in the evening, what could he claim under that, time and one-half time? Mr. Stone : It would be largely a question of the schedule. But if you are going to release the man at four or five o'clock, and then call him back at nine o'clock, I would say a new day begins. And if he was working on the same crew, I would say that he would be paid a minimum day at time and one-half Mr. Higgins: For two hours' work, between six and eight in the evening? Mr. Stone : If you released the man at five o'clock, he would already have performed a day's service — or say four o'clock ; you might just as well say we will call him out at midnight and work him thirty minutes. They used to get a man out about forty de- grees below zero to push a train up a hill. He couldn't go anywhere and do anything with his evening, or go anywhere 101 with Ms family. And while you only had him in service two hours, you took all of his time. Mr. Higgins : Well, then, if I understand your interpreta- tion, Mr. Stone, he could claim more than time and a half at the pro rata rate, for the two hours' work. Mr. Stone : He is on a second shift within the twenty-four hour period. Mr. Higgins : He could claim eight hours for the two hours' work and four hours in addition. Is that right? Mr. Stone : That is one of those hypothetic cases that will happen about once a thousand years. Mr. Higgins : I have in mind a number of cases out in Nebraska and Kansas where they will happen frequently. Mr. Stone : Yes we heard about those cases going to happen, but as soon as we got the award we found they didn't happen. You would at once detail another crew and you would sit down and figure. If you were going to release him at 6 o'clock you would keep him on continuous time. That is where you would beat the minimum day on a second assignment. Mr. Walber : You would have to resort to sharp practice. Mr. Stone : That would be all right. Mr. Sheppard: That is what you do now, pay continuous time. The Chairman : Mr. Shea, we were holding up a few minutes on account of this "hostling" proposition. Mr. Shea : Oh, excuse me. Now, what did you want, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : Why, the question was raised, Mr. Shea, while you were out, what would happen to the twelve-hour hostler men. Would they get pay for eight hours on the ten-hour basis? Mr. Shea : I would say this offhand, while I was not present when this proposition was formulated, but I understand that on roads where they now have a twelve-hour basis they will receive for eight hours the rate for a ten-hour day. Noav, in other words — The Chairman : That is different from the yardmen in this way. Mr. Shea : Yes. Now, we will take the West, for instance. We have in the West, under our Western Arbitration award, roads 102 whose hostlei's receive f4.20 for 12 hours, or less. That would be equivalent to 35 cents per hour ; for ten hours it would be |3.50, which they would receive for 8 hours. Now, we have another rate, in the West, of |3, reduced to an hourly rate of 12 hours, or less, to constitute a day's work, which would be 25 cents an hour, and for 10 hours it would be |2.50, which they would receive for 8 hours. Now, in the East, we have t-w^o rates. We have, first, the |3.25 rate for 10 hours or less. Therefore they would receive |3.25 for 8 hours on the Eastern roads, and we have ^nother rate of f 2.40 for 10 hours, or less, which they would receive for 8 hours. Now, that is the way I understand that rule was to apply. Mr. Garretson : You will accept that as the interpretation? The Chairman : Yes, that is what I wanted to get. Mr. Garretson: While all 12, 11 and 10-hour periods are the same, the one difference as to hostlers being that the 10-hour rate applies, instead of all that may apply to the yardmen. Mr. Shea : I see there is a distinction on the computation between hostlers and yardmen. Of course, I hardly approve of that distinction, but if that was the understanding of the Committee when this proposition was drafted, why, of course, I am wedded to it. The Chairman : Yes, I understand that. Mr. Shea : I say this, Mr. Lee, now that statement is subject to correction from Mr. Carter, because he was present when that was formulated. Now then, if he places a different interpretation upon that rule, why of course I want his interpretation to be accepted and no attention paid to what I have said. Mr. Garretson : In that case he would be divorced instead of wedded. Mr. Walber : I want to ask a question about the New Haven yard regulation and the rate applicable. My understanding is that they have an overtime regulation in addition, applying only to the 8-hour yards, where they work an 8-hour engine more than four hours additional they must pay two days for it. What be- comes of the regulation? Mr. Shea : I don't quite get that. ' Mr. Garretson : You will bear in mind its application would apply to enginemen also in the yard. Mr. Walber : Well, I don't know ; it may. 103 Mr. Garretson : That proviso may not be in the enginemen's agreement but in the trainmen's alone. Mr. Dodge will have to answer that for the trainmen. Mr. Dodge : What is that? Mr. Walber: In many 8-honr yards on the Xew Haven, where they work the man 4 hours overtime, they must pay him two days' pay, that is, a full day for the i hours or 5 hours, what- ever it is. Mr. Dodge : The man goes to work at 8 o'clock in the morn- ing. His 8 hours is used up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. You want to know what they will pay him for 4 hours longer? Mr. Walber : What they will pay for over 4 hours longer. ]Mr. Dodge: They will pay him time and a half. That is my understanding, that if the man goes on duty at 8 o'clock in the morning and his 8 hours finishes at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and you require him to work any time after he has completed his day, you have got to pay a penalty of time and a half. Mr. Walber : Well, I appreciate that. The only thing I wanted to know, what would happen to that under Article 4. So far as the straight overtime provision of Article 2 is concerned, it would be plain, but what would happen under Article 4? Some of the men might feel that the full day regulation was of more advantage than the time and a half. Mr. Garretson : Doesn't it mean that they work the second day's hours straight through? In this case, it would undoubtedly put on the time and a half rate on the second. Mr. Walber: All the way through? Mr. Garretson: And whether it would operate to relieve the 4-hour provision, the people that are under it will have to say. Mr. Walber : They would have to say? Mr. Garretson : I wouldn't interpret that phase of it, be- cause I am the one man that hasn't such a rule, and I am not sub- ject to a committee. Mr. Dodge : My understanding of it would be that for the 4 extra hours you have got to pay them a penalty. If you have got work enough, instead of paying that penalty you would as- sign another switching crew to perform' that service for 8 hours. Mr. Walber : Well, the rule is never involved under regular conditions, it is only where it is not possible to relieve the man. Mr. Stone : The engineers and firemen have that same rule 104 on the New Haven, and that thing has happened three times within the last year, that I recall. They just work him straight ahead for another 8 hours. Mr. Walber : That is one reason I wanted to raise the ques- tion. Now, there is a point between 5 and 6 hours, where the time and a half wHl equal a day at the present rate. That is the reason I wanted to develop this point. Mr. Dodge : Here is what the men in the yard service want : an 8-hour day, and they put this penalty on the railroads so that you won't ask them to work longer than 8 hours. Now, they want 8 hours' work or less for a day. They are not enthusiastic over this overtime proposition. They don't want overtime. Mr. Walber : I will grant all that. Mr. Dodge : Then, it is an operating question that will occur once in a thousand years, or once a year, we will say. Mr. Walber : Yes, but try to take the rule out, if it happens once in a thousand years. You cannot do it until you get a grand lodge ofttcer to use the pry. Mr. Dodge : We will get it fixed. The Chairman : We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. The session tomorrow will be from 10 to 12. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING, NEW YORK JUNE 3. 1916 No. 3 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albbiget, C. W. Kotjns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. L. W. Baldwin, H. W. McMasteb, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. E. H. COAPMAK, N. D^Ma^r, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. Viee-Pres., N. & W. Ry. James Ritssell, S. E. Cotter, q^^-j Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. A, IVl. OCHOTEB, P. E. Crowley, ResidentVice-Pres.,Penna. Lines West Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. ^_ l. Seddon, G. H. Emerson, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. ^ j Stone, C. H. Ewing Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. G. S. Waid, Vice-Pres. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset E. W. Grice, Central Lines. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. j ^ Higgins. A. S. Gheig, C. p. Neill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & 8. F. R. R. j. Q. Walbeh. Representing the Organizations A. B. Garretson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of of R. T.) Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E. L. E, Sheppard, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. 105 New York, N. Y., June 3, 1916. Met pursuant to adjournment at 10 :00 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman: I have some answers to telegrams that we sent out in regard to certain questions that were raised the other day, and I will just read them into the record. The question was raised as to whether our authority covered the Western Lines as well as Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul. I have a letter from Mr. Bush to the effect that authority of May 2d includes Western Lines. There were some questions on the Sunset Central Lines, I think, raised by Mr. Stone, as to whether our authority only covered the employees that were now in the service — ^you remember that peculiar wording, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman: "Authority for representation covers posi- tions, not present employees individually. It is not the intention to exclude men hereafter employed to fill positions now covered by schedules listed." Is that clear, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: Yes. The Chairman: The question was raised by Mr. Dodge about the Ogden Union Eailway & Depot Company. "It is intended that the Ogden Union Eailway & Depot Company be rep- resented by this Committee in negotiations now in progress, and you may act accordingly." — Signed by Mr. Calvin. From the Northern Pacific : We asked them whether or not the St. Paul Terminal was included. He says : "Yours of yesterday. Do not know what you mean by St. Paul Terminal. Do you mean St. Paul Union Depot Company?" Mr. Dodge : I don't think I raised that question. I think someone else did. The Chairman : He says : "If so, I have no authority to authorize the committee to represent the company." Mr. Shea: What does that jDroperty consist of? The Chairman : I am not familiar. Perhaps Mr. Higgins can tell us. Mr. Stone : I think I raised the question. The Chairman : Are you familiar with it, Mr. Kussell? Mr. Russell : Practically all the roads entering St. Paul have access and proprietary interest in the Union Depot. 106 Mr. Garretson : How mucli territory outside does the Depot Company control, Mr. Rnssell? Mr. Eussell : About a mile and a half. Mr. Garretson : I thought it was very limited. Mr. Russell : Very limited. Mr. Garretson : Unless it is Great Northern, there are no great facilities on it? Mr. Russell : No, sir, the individual roads do their own switching. Mr. Garretson : Each have their own yards? Has the Union Depot Company any crews of its own? Mr. Russell : They had not a few years ago, and I don't think they have now, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: They have crews of their own, the Union Depot Company in St. Paul, to handle the coaches, passenger switching crews, Mr. Hughes? Mr. Hughes: They have some engines switching cars, and there are a number of railroads handling their cars and in that way — Mr. Garretson: Part of the roads handle their own trains? Mr. Hughes : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Or take them off onto their own tracks and others are handled by the U. D. crews? Mr. Hughes : Yes. Mr. Garretson : That is a later development, probably. The Chairman : From the Texas and Pacific Railway. Their authority includes firemen. There was some question raised about that. Mr. Garretson : And enginemen. Mr. Shea: Well, does it include hostlers? The Chairman: I think I have another message from him in regard to that. We have information from the Colorado Southern Ry. that they did not intend to include the Denver and Interurban R. R., so that they do not intend to include that in their authorization to us. From the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry., "My authority to the conference committee does not include Evansville & Indianapolis, which is under a separate receiver- ship." The Kansas City Southern Ry., "Our authority does not in- 107 elude Arkansas Western and Poteau Valley." Now, we come to hostlers, Mr. Shea. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, "Authorization covers hos- tlers"; Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf includes hostlers; Santa Fe, Coast Lines, "Our authorization includes hostlers"; Chicago Northwestern includes hostlers ; Texas & Pacific includes hostlers. That is that other one you asked about, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea : That is it. The Chairman : Great Northern includes hostlers ; Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha includes hostlers; I. & G. N. in- cludes hostlers; Kansas City Southern includes hostlers, with other enginemen, and I suppose they are in the enginemen's schedule? Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman: Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe include hos- tlers; Spokane, Portland & Seattle include hostlers; Chicago & Eastern Illinois include hostlers; T. & B. V. include hostlers; Northern Pacific include hostlers. Those are all we heard from this morning. Mr. Dodge: I would like to say to Mr. Coapman that Mr. Hamilton, our General Chairman on the Southern Kailroad, ad- vises me that the K. & B. Kailroad, the K. & A., and the T. & C. S. made a schedule with the Superintendent in 1910. The Chairman : What are those, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: Those are some small lines that are controlled by the Southern Railroad running out of Knoxville, Tenn. The K. & B., the K. & A. and the T. & C. S. Lines. The schedule was made in 1910, through the Superintendent. The Chairman: I understand that you are bringing this up now, Mr. Dodge, because we simply didn't have authority. Mr. Dodge : I am just simply reading it into the record. The Chairman : You will include that in your objections. Mr. Shea : You will recall, Mr. Lee, I called your attention to the same lines yesterday. The Chairman: Yes. I understand you will include those in your statements. Mr. Shea: Have your Committee been authorized to rep- resent any more roads than what are provided for in your list, since the list was introduced? The Chairman : I think, Mr. Shea, that there is one, or per- 108 haps two, more roads in the South from which the authorization to us will arrive. We have wired about some of these other roads that we were discussing the other day, but in only one or two in- stances have we received a reply, but the reply was not altogether clear to us. As soon as we get that straightened out we will give it to you. Mr. Garretson: In that connection I Avant to draw your attention to. the C. & W. 0. You remember thevOther day there was a question. I told you I had the letter. Now Mr. Anderson, the General Manager of that property, wrote to one of his chair- men under date of April 26. I am not going to burden you with the whole letter, but just the point. "This Company has requested the Executive Committee of the Bureau of Information of the South- eastern Eailways to represent them, in arranging for the appoint- ment of a Joint Committee representing several territories, and when such Joint Committee has been constituted it will communi- cate with your representatives and arrange for meetings." The Chairman : That is one of the roads in the South, Mr. Garretson, which I mentioned that we rather expected the authori- zation from. It hasn't arrived yet. Mr. Garretson : Well, I want it clear I haven't misquoted in regard to the advices the Committee had. The Chairman : That is one of the roads we expected to come in. Mr. Albright : I do not represent the C. & W. C. I have no connection with it whatever. Mr. Garretson : I believe the C. & W. C. was nearest your territory. I thought it was you that spoke of it the other day. The Coast Line dominates the property, in some ways at least. I only wanted to get that in the record, supporting a statement I made. Mr, Shea : While we are on that subject, Mr. Lee, have you anything further from the Buffalo Creek? The Chairman: Buffalo Creek? Mr. Shea : Yes. The Chairman : No. Mr. Shea: Or the Lehigh & Hudson? The Chairman: I know we have from Lehigh & Hudson. I don't know about the Creek, but we have advice from the Lehigh & Hudson that they do not wish us to represent them. 109 Mr. Garretson : Is there anything further you have in that line? The Chairman : No. Mr. Garretson : I suppose we might Just as well go on with the exposition of Article IV. The Chairman : Yes, a general explanation of it. As I said before, there will be some questions. I have got quite a bunch of questions here. Mr. Garretson : Oh, I have no doubt. Ai'ticle IV, as stated yesterday, is nothing except that it is intended to act as a saving clause for the preservation of any rates or rules that are more desirable than those contained in the presentations, as a whole, and would enable the men on any line where they possessed rates or rules and allowances more desirable, in their opinion, than any settlement that might be arrived at in regard to Articles I, II and III, to retain such desirable rates, rules or allowances in prefer- ence to accepting these. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : It further provides that the committees on the various lines will determine which is preferable and advise the offlcers of the Company thereof. In the entire make-up of the rule, the effort is made to preserve that unquestioned right, from the approach of any agency, internal or external, to interfere with that right. In other words, we have framed it in just as binding a way as we knew how. There may be weaknesses in it, but if there are we will try and cure them some other time. In a gen- eral way that is just as full a construction as I can give to it, be- cause it is one of those things that will be difficult to analyze by separate sentences, because each sentence is a part of the whole. You will note that founded on past experience each article therein stands by itself. There is no coupling of rates and rules, or allowances and rules, or anything of that kind. They stand separate and alone from each other in the matter of making the choice. In other words, you can take the old rate and the new rules. They can take the new rate and the old rules. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : They can take the new rate with the old allowance. I am using allowance in the effort to describe any ar- bitrary or other allowance that may be made separate and dis- tinct on those roads from the rate of pay. You bear in mind all 110 of those things have their effect on earnings, while having no bearing on wage. I differentiate sharply between the two terms j wage, describing the basis, earnings the amount that comes there- from. The Chairman: I see. Well, there will be some questions that we want to ask. I do not know just how we will work down on this thing. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : Now you have described yours in a general way, and I want to make clear the position of the Committee in regard to the reply of the Eailroads to the men. I thought we might just put it in here now and get it out of the way and then we can discuss it. After we get through discussing yours, why, we can discuss this one as far as you desire. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : I will just give you copies of it right here. (Distributes copies.) Mr. Stone: This is a duplicate of the standard form? The Chairman : In a way, yes, except it is the statement of the Committee. "Before taking up the formal discussion of your proposals" (that is, these things that you are talking about). Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : "Our Committee, as expressing its attitude, and on behalf of the companies it represents, hereby restates the position of said companies as follows : "The Eailroads have no desire to change either the existing rates of pay or the working rules, nor to reduce the earning pos- sibilities of the employees under their existing rules, but inasmuch as your proposals contemplate fundamental changes in operating methods and practices on Avhich the schedules have been built up, this Committee reiterates that in connection with, and as a part of, the consideration and disposition of your proposals, there shall be opened for consideration and disposition those provisions in the schedules or practices thereunder, governing compensation in the classes of service affected by your proposals or those in conflict with the following principles, as they apply to such classes. "(A) No double compensation for the same time or service. "(B) The same classification for the purpose of compen- sation to be applied to all members of the train and engine crew. Ill "(C) Two or more diiferently paid classes of service per- formed in the same day or trip, to be paid proportionate rates according to class of service, with not less than a minimum pay for the combined service." I jnst read that in there so that we can have it with this when we are ready to discuss it, and I thought we would go ahead with the formal discussion. I want to ask you some for- mal questions about this thing, just to get it straightened out in my mind. The Chairman : In discussing these, Mr. Garretson, I sup- pose it is perfectly agreeable to you if we happen to dodge around a little bit on them. Mr. Garretson : You mean from one class to another ? The Chairman : Yes, I will endeavor to keep them in the order in which you have them here ; but some of these questions will apply to more than one of your articles. Mr. Garretson : Yery well ; that makes no difference as far as I am concerned. The Chairman : Assume a branch run of 85 miles, which trains run in 9 hours; under your proposal the conductor in the Eastern District will be paid four dollars for the run plus one hour overtime at 75 cents, or a total of four dollars and seventy- five cents? Mr. Garretson : If the Company let the schedule stand as it now stands, that would be the result. The Chairman : I don't get the point. Mr. Garretson : For the 9 hours. The Chairman : If it — as I say — this is under your proposal. Mr. Garretson : Under the proposal, if that train is gone nine hours, and there is no shortening of that, that is what the men would get under the proposal. The Chairman : Now, for a train on the main line? Mr. Stone : Just a minute before you get away from that. We don't think for a minute if this request of ours became effect- ive that they would leave that schedule at nine hours, do you? The Chairman : That I don't know. Mr. Stone: This is simply one of those hypothetical ques- tions. The Chairman : The question I asked, Mr. Stone, is that if a train on the branch line runs eighty-five miles in nine hours — 112 I am not speaking about a schedule — that is, for the time they actually consume under your proposition, then I understand they would get four dollars and seventy-five cents? I am using the conductors' rate because it is the more easily divisible, the four-dollar rate. A train, as I understood, another train, say, on the main line, runs one hundred and twelve — Mr. Garretson : Now, let me stop you right there before j'ou leave the other question — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Let me draw attention to this ; that if that train made it in eight hours under the proposition he would get just what he gets today, four dollars. The Chairman : Four dollars, I understand. Mr. Garretson : Well, I wanted that understood. The Chairman : A train going over the main line of the same railroad runs 112i/^ miles in 9 hours, what would the conductor re- ceive? Mr. Garretson : Oh, runs 112 miles in 9 hours? The Chairman : And a half, yes. Mr. Garretson : Under the present rate the man would get 11214 miles at 4 cents per mile, which equals |4.50. Under the proposition, if the man ran 112% miles at a speed of I21/2 miles per hour, the 9 hours would pay him exactly what it pays him now, because he is inside of the limits and doesn't earn overtime. He'd get 1121/^ miles at 4 cents per mile. The Chairman : That is my understanding, he'd get |4.50 for the 1121/2 miles. Mr. Garretson : Here, bear in mind I haven't accustomed myself to figuring mentally on the I2I/2 basis. That is why I am depending on those figures, 9 hours being the limit of time on 1121/2 miles. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : No overtime would accrue and he'd get for it exactly, under this proposition, what he gets under the present rule, under the present schedule and method. The Chairman : He'd get $4.50. Mr. Garretson : |4.50, yes. The Chairman : Your proposal, as I understand it, applies to branch line service, exactly the same as to main line service. 113 Mr. Garretson : I should hold it made no difference what- ever. The Chairman : And where now we have schedules that pro- vide pay for overtime after twelve hours on branch lines, that would be reduced to eight hours. Mr. Garretson : Now, there is a phase of the question that I haven't given any application of this to, but offhand I would say that it would apply to every man on the road excepting in pas- senger service under the terms of the mileage proposition. The Chairman : Do you want to take that [hands memo- randum] and decide this later? Mr. Garretson : I will reserve the right to modify that after- ward in regard to intent. Here are the two men who were present and there is only one other. I will take the answer of these two and say that I answer it. What is the intent and purpose of the rule? The Chairman : That applies just the same as to whether or not a man is on a monthly salary or not. Mr. Garretson: What do you mean by monthly salary? The Chairman : Why a good many of the branch line runs have a monthly salary, |125 say, for a short run. Now, what I have in mind is — or fllO. I don't know whether that rate exists at the present time or not, but I think it does. That is monthly rate, overtime after twelve hours. Mr. Sheppard : I would understand that he took the monthly rate and overtime after 8 hours under the proposition, and any excess miles that might be run. The Chairman : Well, those monthly rates, Mr. Sheppard, as I understand them, I haven't in mind where the mileage is. Mr. Garretson : Well, we have a great number of Western local freights. I am speaking now of conductors and trainmen; I am not speaking of what obtains with the enginemen. We have a very large number of local freights in the Western territory that are paid almost wholly on the monthly basis. Local freight in the West, except in a few instances, has seldom been a mileage proposition, but has been a monthly. This would place them on the mileage basis undoubtedly, and would pay on the basis of the miles above one hundred. Mr. Higgins is perfectly familiar with that provision, for he had a schedule, on his own line for years with that proviso as applied to local freight men where the miles 114 exceeded one hundred, miles were paid in addition to monthly wage. Mr. Higgins : I think so. Mr. Garretson : I haven't handled it for some years. I have lost the details of language. Mr. Stone : You understand, of course, Mr. Lee, that under this Article IV, if the monthly allowance was better than the set- tlement arrived at here, they would have the right to retain it, of course. The Chairman : That would be my understanding under your interpretation that you put here. Mr. Stone : Well, I want to make it perfectly plain so that there will be no chance for a misunderstanding. Mr. Walber : The point I have in mind in regard to that is this: Some of those monthly wages in the different schedules cover assignments of over 100 miles per day — 110 miles per day, 118 miles per day. I want to understand whether your answer con- templated that the present monthly salary would apply only to 100 miles, and they would have to pay the miles in excess of 100, in addition to the monthly salary? Mr. Garrfetson : Assuming for a moment that we arrived at a settlement of these questions, then the question would arise — I am of the opinion that the settlement would abolish the monthly wage, put the run on a mileage basis. But that committee would determine for themselves whether they would retain that monthly rate, and the accompanying conditions with it, or whether they would take the new rate and its accompanying conditions, or whether they would take the old rate and the new conditions? Mr. Walber : Where would you find the rate — where would you find the per mile rate to be applied to these runs where they were all on the monthly basis? Mr. Garretson : You would apply your provisions of your schedule to the rate per mile that obtains therein for mileage serv- ice. That would give you your basic rate for figuring mileage, 100 miles or less a day. Mr. Stone : If the statement is correct, that all these trip rates have built up from a standard, basic rate on that particular road, there wouldn't be any question in arriving at what is the basic rate to compute from. Mr. Walber : Well, what I am getting at is this : You may 115 have a local rate for conductors, say, of four and one-half cents per mile, and that assignment, drawing a monthly wage for the miles run on the assignment, may produce a higher rate per mile. Then if any miles are added to that assignment, would they take the average mileage rate of the assignment or the basic rate in the schedule? Mr. Garretson : In answer, Mr. Walber, I want to draw your attention to this fact, and I am drawing it on this account. We are here trying to reconcile a series of conditions that in three virtually competitive territories in the wage line, under all dif- ferent conditions, have grown up in these years in the way of arriving at a monthly rate. For instance, in the Southeastern ter- ritory, the payment of a mileage rate for local freight is, I might say, universal. It is so general that it is virtually universal. In the Eastern territory, on main line, wherever mileage predom- inates that service, that is true. Now, I am speaking of conduc- tors and trainmen, bear in mind, because I don't know how the enginemen take care of that. In the Western territory, local freight has almost universally been paid on the monthly basis, and the foundation for it lies here — that phase of it I am speaking of from actual knowledge. That practice came in when the old going rate in the Western territory was three cents and two cents for the conductor and for the brak^en per mile, three and two dol- lars a day. It was almost universal that local freight was paid ninety dollars. That was the 30-day wage for a through-freight man, but the local man only ran six days a week, and he was allowed ninety dollars for his month, the same as the other man earned if he ran a hundred miles for each of thirty calendar days. Therefore nearly all the variations grew from that. The various percentages that were put on made more spread as a rule, and on many roads they were modified by the existing conditions on a given run. For instance, the same road would pay ninety dollars to one local freight train, and would pay one hundred and five to another on account of the length of the run. Then the running four days a week came in, on account of the conditions of that run. Well, out of that has grown a multiplicity of local freight rates in that territory, which the application of the mileage rate to them at once would wipe out of existence, but you have another kind in the Eastern territory, where you have taken something approach- ing a basic rate, or you have absorbed a line and started from the 116 rate that obtained there, not reconciling it with the rate of a parent property, and out of that has grown a multiplicity of monthly rates, mostly on side lines. That I don't think God him- self could find a reason for, Avhy that rate obtains in a good many places. The Chairman : Some of them are back of that. Mr. Garretson: Before God was here? I will accept the amendment. And there were some of them that God has not got there yet on. The Chairman : That is true. Mr. Garretson : We are trying to act for Him. The Chairman : And have you the authority? Mr. Garretson : We have not got credentials. Mr. Walber: Another one there. There are a number of schedules — take the Michigan Central, the B. R. & P., and if I re- member rightly, there are a number of them on the L. & N., where they have three-crew locals, paid a monthly wage, well, say $116.00 or f 117.00 a month, and 12-hour overtime limit in some cases. How would those be worked out? Mr. Garretson: Mr. Higgins, didn't we have something like two or three hundred in the West, of those three-crew locals prior to 1907? Have you any information on that? Mr. Higgins : I haven't, but they were numerous apparently. Mr. Garretson : And they have almost wholly disappeared. When the settlement was made in 1907, I think only about four or five lines continued the three-crew locals on account of the fact that on those four days the minimum day allowance went on to every one of them, and the company made different arrange- ments with the men and took them off. Today there may be an occasional road that has one set of them. Hazel, how many have you? Mr. Hazel: None. Mr. Garretson : There was one of the last survivals on the first road. (To Mr. Hazel.) How many did you have prior to 1907? Mr. Hazel : Three sets — three or four sets, I think. The Chairman: That on the Frisco? Mr. Garretson : That is the Frisco proper. The same thing obtained on the Union Pacific. 117 Friday, how many three-crew sets did the Union Pacific have in the old days? Almost the whole K. P.? Mr. Friday: Yes, it and the Nebraska division. Mr. Garretson : The whole of the K. P. extends from Kan- sas City to Denver, the Nebraska division, and they were the semi- desert lines of the West? Mr. Friday : No, we didn't have any in the West. Mr. Garretson: The Southern Pacific had a number of them, whether they have got any left or not. Mr. Waid, are there any left on the Sunset proper? Mr. Waid : There are some three-crew Locals. Mr. Garretson: There you have got about all that is left of them. It is adjusted. We have the overtime division as applied to the three-crew run. If you will bear in mind the men on the Michigan Central, in a case you have cited, the men themselves contended that the men were determined to maintain what they desired. The Chairman: Then you would hold that a company in this proposition would have the right to abolish the three-crew — Mr. Garretson : . There is not any question in my mind, that if the men took the new rate and the new conditions, then the company would have the right to meet those conditions legiti- mately. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : But no answer could cover all of those con- ditions. The Chairman : I understand that. Mr. Garretson: Because the origin of them was so varied. That is, the causes in which they have their origin. ^ The Chairman : Yes, I realize that the statements have to be more or less general. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind, when a specific case is there, then you can figure out what its application would be. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: But as a general rule, no man can answer just what it would — can't answer because he don't know. He has only his own experience to draw on. The Chairman: Take the case of the ciccus "train rules, for instance, on the Santa Fe and Kock Island, and the Milwaukee, 118 and a number of other Western roads, they allow 16 hours for 160 miles made. How would you handle that, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson: I think you would leave them with full force and effect. That is my opinion, because wherever those rules exist, they have grown out of negotiations between the men and the management, and they figured out about how much the man lost on the current of business on that road by an assign- ment to a circus train, and they have endeavored to make him an allowance that protected him against loss in a normal stage of business. The Chairman: That is, if he held his 160 miles he would have to hold the 16 hours, would he? Mr. Garretson: The chances are that there it would come in in the form of an allowance. He could throw it down and take the open field. The Chairman: That is eight hours for 100 miles? Mr. Garretson : Yes, but from my knowledge of circus train movement — and you bear in mind that is a far greater problem in the West than it is elsewhere — on account of the distance of the move, I am of the opinion that the both, of them would prefer to retain the allowance of a given period of time for each move, than to reopen the question and leave it shifting, because here is what it would mean : A crew could not be assigned for a period to move over the line unless he is protected to make a par month. And that rule protects him in that and it protects him in very little more. The Chairman: It won't mean then that that 160 miles would bring the overtime limit, at a speed basis of 12i/^ miles an hour, down? Mr. Garretson: Now, there is a point that I haven't con- ferred upon at all and I don't know how strong it was taken into consideration. It seems to me that on a rule of that character where the time named is a positive arbitrary allowance for the move made, and for the time consumed in lay-over (for it is both) , that its provisions probably won't apply. We have had instances where a new rate didn't apply on raising the rate in some given allowance rule. If it was a sum of money named, it has often got free ; while if it was a period of time named, they have taken the increase with the proportionate increase. Mr. Stone: But is it a fair proposition, Mr. Lee, to take 119 a circus train rule on the Santa Fe, where a man gets 160 miles, and overtime after 16 hours, and apply it to the general prop- osition of some three or four hundred railroads, where perhaps two-thirds of them don't have any such rule at all, and it is simply covered by the rule in freight service? The Chairman : Why, Mr. Stone, this is, as I understand it, a pretty general rxile through the West. Mr. Stone: No. The Chairman : And we would like to know how your prop- osition applies to these various — Mr. Stone : That isn't a general — Mr. Garretson: No, not with us, the rules governing circus movement are common. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : There is no one rule, no one rule is general. The Chairman : That is what I mean, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garretson : What does Mr. Waid pay for a circus train movement? Mr. Waid : Two hundred miles and no overtime. Mr. Garretson : There I think is the limit of allowance, in any one case, and that grows out of the conditions of their terri- tory. Nearly every one of those rules is founded on the local con- dition. The length of the division, the number of turns a man loses, and consequently, it can't be general in its nature and it's got to be local in its construction and allowance. The Chairman : Well, as far as the miles or the hours are concerned, ibut these circus rules do exist pretty generally through the West and through the Southeast. Mr. Garretson: Well, in one form or another. Now, Mr. Walber went into it. I think there were about two-thirds of the Western lines who had some forms of allowance, didn't they, Mr. Walber? Mr. Walber : Yes, it varied something like 160 in 16 hours, 150 miles in 15 hours. The South also have a different rule. Mr. Garretson : I think it was established by some form of general agreement, Mr. Walber, which the Western never had. Is Dr. Neill there? Isn't that true. Doctor, the circus rule was established in the South? [Dr. Neill absent.] Mr. Garretson : While the West had no such origin, it has never been before a Conference Committee, either direct or in- 120 direct. Bear in mind this, passing over those things, you will raise questions. Just passing over here, questions will come to us that never were worked out in their application here. The Chairman : Oh, undoubtedly so. Mr. Garretson : And in interpreting them I have simply been compelled to give you as near an understanding as I can of how it would apply in this or that instance, or where it couldn't be applied. What I am trying to do, and what our purpose is, is to give you just as full and clear an understanding of what this will mean, as generally applied, as we can. The Chairman : Take, for instance, now, this "held away from home terminal," the one in the East — the Engineers' Eule, that is of general application, and I will just read it. "The engi- neers in unassigned freight service held 28 hours at other than designated home terminals, without performing service, are to be paid overtime rates as follows : Ten hours for the first 28 hours so held, and 10 hours additional, etc." Would you hold that that would take time and half time? Mr. Stone : I certainly would, and then we would be losers. Mr. Garretson : Well, you can take it for the people that have the 18, that they /expect it to. The Chairman : Well, I think yours reads a little differently. Mr. Garretson : That may be. The Chairman : I am coming to that. Go ahead, Mr. Gar- retson. Mr. Garretson : No, if you are coming, why, I will wait till then. The Chairman : That is, an engineer on an engine taking a five-cent per mile rate, he now has an overtime rate of 50 cents per hour. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman: Under your present proposals, the 12% miles per hour basis, or eight hours for a 100-mile run, produces a rate of 62i/^ cents per hour. Let me figure it here. That is five divided by eight, 621/2 cents — then you take the time and a half on that, and it makes 93 8-10 cents per hour for this engineer. Mr. Stone : I think that would be about right, as I figure it. The Chairman : Mnety-three and eight-tenths cents, I think that is about what it comes to. 121 Mr. Stone : The workmen right over here in the government yards are getting |1.12 for working overtime. The Chairman: Then, where now the engineer receives |5 for that, he would receive $9.38 for it. Mr. Stone : If you held him that long. You would probably get him out of there to make it cheaper. The Chairman : Oh, unquestionably, but if you did hold him there, that is what he would get. Mr. Stone: But you must remember his overtime doesn't begin until ten hours after all the rest of the crew are on overtime. The Chairman : If the men held away from home — Mr. Stone : Yes, that is where they were liberal with us in the East, you know. Mr. Shea: Mr. Lee, on what basis did you figure that rate for overtime? The Chairman: On the five cent-a-mile? Mr. Shea: Held-away-from-home time. The Chairman: On the engineers' rule, Mr. Shea, which reads: "Engineers in unassigned freight service, held 28 hours at other than designated home terminals, without performing service, are to be paid overtime rates as follows: Ten hours for the first 28 hours so held and ten hours additional," and so forth. Mr. Shea: I understand it now. The Chairman : See, the engineers are different from the firemen and conductors and trainmen. Mr. Shea : I see the distinction. The Chairman : Take the firemen, conductors ' and train- men's rules, in effect : "That when such men, in unassigned service, are held at other-than-home terminals they will be paid continuous time for all time so held after the expiration of 18 hours, from the time relieved from previous duty at the rate per hour paid them for the last service performed." Then it goes on to say, "should one of these employees be called for duty after pay begins, time will be computed continuously." That does not take in the overtime rate there, you notice, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : That was one of the reasons I was very glad to say that the 18-hour men would like Stone's rule. Stone's rule says "that it would be paid at the overtime rate." The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : If the overtime rate becomes time and a half. 122 he consistently claims it. This does not provide that way, for it provides that it will be paid at the rate for the last named service. I am speaking of your second contingency. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Now, the overtime rate would not, in my opinion, apply under this rule. Mr. Lee may differ from me, but as I read it, I doubt strongly if it would. The Chairman: Well, then, they would take the increased pro rata rate, however, I take it — Mr. Garretson : How is that? The Chairman: They Avould take the increased pro rata rate. Mr. Garretson : Undoubtedly that would apply, but doesn't Mr. Stone's rule provide for the payment of overtime? The Chairman: At the overtime rate? Mr. Garretson : Men paid as overtime at whatever the over- time rate may be. The Chairman: It says, "are to be paid overtime rates." Mr. Garretson : Well, the overtime rates — in the event time and a half was paid, that becomes the overtime rate of the schedule and would be paid that way. This does not provide for its pay- ment as overtime, as I read it. The Chairman : No, sir. Mr. Garretson : It provides for its payment under continu- ous time and it is in the form of wage allowance. The Chairman : Then would he get that increased pro rata rate for the ten hours? Mr. Garretson : He'd get it for all the hours that he worked, whatever that was. The Chairman: Not this. This is held "away-from-home terminals." Mr. Garretson : If the eight-hour day is put in and that man formerly for an hour's work got 40 cents, or one-tenth, thereafter for every hour's allowance he gets an. eighth of $4 instead of a tenth, and each one of these hours will take that rate. The Chairman : That is the 50c rate instead of the 40c rate? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : Just using that $4 conductors' rate as an example, that is all because it is easily divided by 5, and easily divided by 10 and easily divided by 8 — 123 Mr. Garretson : And, moreover, there is an allowance here in regard to when a new day begins, isn't there? Isn't that in here? Mr. Sheppard : It ought to be after 8 hours instead of being after 10 hours. It will be after 8 hoiirs. Mr. Garretson : They will be paid for the next succeeding 10 hours. There is a question there about the substitution of 8 for that. 'Mr. Walber: The second period? The Chairman : That is the second period. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind I am trying to bring it out just as much as you are, where those applications will come. The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Garretson : I never analyzed that at all in connection with it. The Chairman : It says here, if held 14 hours after the expiration of the first 24-hour period they will be paid continuous time for the next succeeding 10 hours. You say that means the next succeeding 8 hours, Mr. Sheppard? Mr. Sheppard : Yes^ the basic day is changed from 10 to eight ; that is, a basic day of 10 hours. The Chairman : Then what becomes of the other two hours? Mr. Sheppard : The new period starts. The Chairman : You say this is divided up into 24 hours, divided up between 14 and 10, making it 24 hours. Now you say to be divided up between fourteen and eight. Mr. Sheppard : No more 10-hour days and no more 10-hour periods. The Chairman : The calendar day is still 24 hours, Mr. Shep- pard. Mr. Sheppard : That is true. Mr. Garretson : Let's move the clock ahead. I don't know whether there are 24 hours left in a day or not. Mr. Shea : I think if the eight-hour proposition was adopted it would modify that rule to that extent. Mr. Garretson : Now, you bear in mind that has a two-fold bearing, Mr. Lee. It gives the man pay — virtually, the eight-hour day would give him exactly the same money as he got under the 10-hour day. The Chairman : Exactly. 124 Mr. Garretson : The only difference is it would start his basing time forward two hours earlier and he'd get the benefit of the increase at the other end. The Chairman : Aren't you just missing a bet there, Garretson? Mr. Garretson : I don't think I am. The Chairman: Suppose you are held ten hours, you get paid for the ten hours at 50 cents an hour. ^ Mr. Garretson : If it applies here. I am not telling you how this applies. The Chairman : I understand that, Mr. Garretson. I am leaving that until Article IV. Mr. Walber: Mr. Lee, you may understand this. Perhaps it isn't necessary that I should understand it, but I would like to anyhow. Take the first ten hours cited in there. If a man is held the full ten hours, would he get eight hours and two hours over- time, or as Mr. Sheppard intimated, if he was held eight hours be- yond the eighteen, or 26, then he would start another 16. Mr. Garretson : If he is held 14 hours after the expiration of the first 28, well now, let's start and figure it right through. The Chairman : All right. Mr. Garretson : The first proposition is, in irregular freight or in unassigned service held at other-than-home terminal, they will be paid continuous time for all time so held after the ex- piration of 18 hours from the time relieved from previous duty. There is the first statement. He goes in there and you hold him over 18 hours. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : You pay him for all succeeding hours, what- ever they may be. There is no minimum day application there, nor any application of the overtime rate, but it is of the going rate per hour. Mr. Garretson : The next proviso is, if held 14 hours after the expiration of the first 28-hour period, this doesn't come to life unless he has been held 28 hours. Then if you hold him 14 hours after that, they will be paid continuous time for the next succeed- ing ten hours, that is, a day's wage. Therefore, in 24 hours, that is what it is equivalent to. And this would make it for the next suc- ceeding eight hours, you'd pay him the going rate and he'd get just the same money as he did under this rule on the ten-hour day. 125 Mr. Walber : Why any distinction there on the ten hours in the second cycle, compared with the first? Mr. Garretson : Because the first one isn't based on any day whatever. It is based on an allowance if he is held for a certain period. Mr. Walber: It is based on an allowance if he is held ten hours, the difference between 18 and 28. And the other is a differ- ence between 24 and 14. Mr. Garretson: It is based on the question of continuous pay or contingent pay. It isn't based on any working period at all. It is 18 hours, an arbitrary time set up just as yours. How much. Stone? Mr. Stone: Twenty-eight. Mr. Garretson: The basic day don't enter into that first thing at all. Mr. Stone: There is no question, Mr. Chairman, but what the article submitted by the men clearly contemplated that wher- ever any other specified number of hours for days service above eight, was now in effect, it contemplated replacing it by an eight- hour day. No question about that. That is the intention of the men. And if they have a ten-hour allowance there for a day, it contemplates eight. Mr. Garretson : Oh, this second clause was intended for the purpose of paying a man one day's time in every 24 hours, then, 10 hours. What is a day's pay? Mr. Walber : One minute, I would like to ask Mr. Stone on his. He says it contemplates reducing from ten to eight. His held away-from-home terminal rule says that they shall be paid for ten hours at the time and one-half of overtime rate. Are we to understand that for the engineers, it would mean that their rule instead of providing for 28 hours detention before they get any- thing on account of being held away from home, would be re- duced to 26? And therefore, the railroad companies would have to pay eight hours at the overtime rate and then start a new free period after that? Mr. Stone : No, sir, for the reason that the first period is a fixed period; it is not a day at all. It is a 28-hour period and the man is paid ten hours at the overtime rate, which would be time and one-half time. 126 Mr. Walber : I want to get it clear, I am not arguing with you at all. The Chairman: Your proposition means then, Mr. Stone, that he would get ten full hours at the overtime rate if he is held 28 hours. Mr. Stone : Undoubtedly so, because it is a fixed period, it is not a day at all. And then the second part of the award or set-, tlement starts off with each daily period of 24 hours, after that a certain time, but the first is a fixed period, it's not a day at all. It is simply 28 hours. Mr. Shea : The conductors' and trainmen's rule is different from the engineers', Mr. Walber. Mr. Sheppard: In other words, the company is given 18 hours for which there is no payment. After that the time begins. The Chairman : You may have made it clear, Mr. Sheppard, but I don't quite get it yet. You say that for every 24-hour period there is to be an 8-hours' pay, after the first period. Is that right? Mr. Sheppard : Yes. As I understand it. The Chairman : Yes. Then that rule would have to be modi- fied to that extent. Mr. Sheppard : Ten is the basic day? The Chairman : Yes, but instead of 10 you are only going to get 22 hours there. Do you get me? Mr. Garretson : The 10 don't enter in ours until the second contingency. The Chairman : Second period, I am talking about. Mr. Garretson : And the second period is where the inten- tion was to pay a day's wage during every 24 hours. Now, a day's wage, and the description of the day, of the day's wage, remains the same. But if the hours are changed, you will pay the same money for 8 hours that you formerly paid for 10. In other words, you get a day's pay out of every 24 hours held. Mr. Walber : Now, under the last clause of the conductors' and trainmen's article, and also the firemen, the provision is made that if they go to work after pay begins under the rule, the time will be computed continuously? Mr. Garretson : Yes. Mr. Walber : Otherwise, or if they experience a complete 10 hours' detention after 18, that is paid for independently of any 127 road service, separately and distinct. Now then, what becomes of that 10-hour section? Mr. Garretson : The 10-hour section — there is no 10 hours in the first section. Mr. Walber : The first 10 hours, Mr. Garretson, you must pay for independently of any road service. Mr. Garretson : You do what? Mr. Walber : For the first 10 hours after 18 you must pay independently of any road service. You can't run it off, in other words. Mr. Garretson : You are getting clear away from the fact that there are three contingencies provided for here. That is where you are confusing yourself, I think. Mr. Walber : Maybe I am. I am trying to get you to straighten me out. Mr. Garretson : Good God ! Think of the energy I have given to that in the last 10 years and look what he is noAv! Here is ■what takes place: If a man comes in, and here is the 2S-hours period or the 18-hours period before anything takes place. That is simply an arbitrary mark set up; has no reference to a day or anything else. He is supposed to have made an earning, coming in here, and you can hold him 18 hours because he has had his turn. Then, at the expiration of 18 hours, if you hold him 24 hours more, you pay him one day, during that period when he is under pay for that day, whether it is eight or ten hours. The third contingency may come to life — that he is called for service. .Should a conductor of trainman be called for duty after pay begins? — that may be in the second period, or that second might have continued into a second 24-hour period. After pay is once commenced in that ten hours and you call him, then from the time pay commenced until he is off duty, his pay will be computed con- tinuously, and there is no confusion with this intermediate period when nothing was done. He was only paid a day during that 24 hours. That is what the rule provides for as I interpret it. Mr. Sheppard : You have got to have eight hours in where the ten is to get the eight-hour day if he goes to work. The Chairman: He gets paid for eight hours of the first 24-hour period. Mr. Walber : Oh, I am not so stupid after all. You haven't 128 yet told me what you are going to pay that mau who is held 32 hours, say. Mr. Garretson : Held 32 — Mr. Walber: Yes, held 32 hours. Therefore, it means that he is held the complete ten-hour period of the first 28. Now, what are you going to pay him for those ten hours? Mr. Garretson : Under your schedule in the East you would pay him |4. Mr. Walber: You would not pay him |4 and two hours overtime at time and a half? Mr. Garretson : Not in that first period. Mr. Sheppard : Ten hours at 50 cents. Mr. Garretson: All the difference is, it will change this rule. Mr. Walber : Why didn't you say so at first and I wouldn't have asked you anything more? That is what I wanted to find out. Mr. Garretson: That is the first thing I said. You strike out ten and insert eight, and I believe if I were at your side of the table I would convince you. The Chairman: I have no doubt but you might do it. Mr. Garretson : I know. That is the reason I said I might do it. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson, now, this fellow that starts out, after he is held away from home terminal, pay starts, say he has been, he is on pay in here, he is in the terminalfor 26 hours. Mr. Garretson : Twenty-six, that w6uld be 18 and 6. The Chairman: Eight hours. Mr. Garretson : Yes, on 26 hours. I thought you said 24. Go ahead. The Chairman : Eight hours have elapsed for which he has been paid. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : Now, if he starts out on a run, would the rest of his time be all time and a half? Mr. Garretson : No, I don't think it would. Now you bear in mind you have put — Mr. Stone : May I ask you a question so as to get that clear? Are you computing that on the first period or the second? The Chairman : Either period. You don't have this provi- sion in yours. 129 Mr. Stone : I know we don't, but I am trying to get where you people are at with this other, your first period. The Chairman : First period. Mr. Stone : You don't want to couple it up with his time on the road and make it continuous then? Mr. Walber : That is what we are asking. Mr. Garretson : Oh, you are bringing a peculiar phase into it, that the rule itself doesn't meet. That is, now here I figured this first period with the 18 hours that there is no pay for. Then commences the eight hours which he will be paid, and right follow- ing that, you bear in mind you have coupled on service. Mr. Chairman : Clear that then. Take 25 hours. Mr. Garretson : Now you are getting to where I can answer, because you bear in mind you could not couple up the continuous time if the eight hours had elapsed, for then he is not under pay. He is called independently after that. Mr. Stone: I want to call your attention, Mr. Lee, to the reading of the article itself, and it says he will be paid continu- ous time for all time so held at terminal. That doesn't say anything about going into service in the first period, for all time so held. Then when he is called for duty he certainly begins a day under that, and you don't couple the time so held with it in the first period. You would in the second. The Chairman : "Should a conductor or trainman be called for duty after pay begins — " Mr. Stone : On the second period? The Chairman: I don't understand you, Mr. Stone. Time will be computed continuously. Mr. Garretson: Well, now, we have always held that to apply whether there is eight or ten hours, as the case may be, for the application is exactly the same — ^it is one or the other. We have always held that when the man started in here, if before the lapse of the paying period he is called, then his continuous time is from here on to where he goes. The same would be true here if you paid him for the ten hours. Then came the other 14 in which there was no pay, and if you called him then, there it is an independent trip. Then if you go in here and call him again while the period of pay is still lapsing, then it would be continuous from here to his terminal, or wherever it might be. The Chairman : Yes. 130 Mr. Garretson : The only question that would arise on that is this : Overtime on that new trip will commence from eight hours instead of from ten. That is what this would work out on. The Chairman: That is if he has been laying seven hours in the terminal under pay, then he starts out on the road, he gets out on the road one hour. Mr. Garretson : Overtime would commence after one hour, provided it was a 100-mile trip. Mr. Stone : Then, according to that interpretation, if he is held 9 hours before he was called, overtime would have begun be- fore he left the terminal at all. The Chairman : No. Mr. Garretson : No. Mr. Stone : Why not? The Chairman : Because he would only get 8 hours' pay, as I say. The new trip would start. Mr. Stone : It don't say anything about it. It says he will be paid continuous time for all time held. It don't say anything about it at all. Mr. Walber : Well, fortunately, Mr. Stone, we have the rul- ings of two illustrious arbitrators on this question. Mr. Stone : What was it you called them? Mr. Walber : "Illustrious." Mr. Shea : I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the conductors' and trainmen's and the firemen's Eastern "held away from home terminal" rule is identical with the rule for the engineers and fire- men in the West, with the exception they are paid overtime in the East, after a delay of 18 hours, where, in the West, the time begins after a period of 22 hours. Now the way I understand this rule to apply would be, we would merely substitute 8 for 10. That is, if a crew was held away from home terminal 26 hours, they would be entitled to one day or 100 miles for the 8 hours beyond the 18-hour period. The Chairman : That is speaking of the Eastern roads. Mr. Shea: Eastern roads, yes, sir. Now, then, under the application of the rule, the way it is applied in the East, the crews would be required to lay at that terminal a period of 14 hours be- fore overtime would accrue again. The Chairman : On the second period? 131 Mr. Shea : On the second period. Now, under the appli- cation of this proposition which we have submitted to you, that if they were held 14 hours beyond the second period, then they would be entitled to 100 miles or one day, if held eight hours be- yond. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : Now, in the first period, if a crew was ordered to leave at the expiration of the 25-hour period, time would be com- puted continuously, and that would be added to the time making the trip. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : But if they were held, we will say, ten hours after the 18-hour period and were called, why, then it would be con- sidered beginning a new day. The Chairman : Yes. In that case, they would have had their eight hours' pay for "held away from home terminal" time. Then after that eight hours, there would have been a two-hour lapse and they would have started then the new day, leaving the ter- minal towards home. Mr. Shea : Correct. In other words, before they would be entitled to any compensation after being held 26 hours for the next period of 14 hours it would be considered beginning a new day. The Chairman : That would be service and not "held away from home terminal." Mr. Shea : Yes, sir, that is the way the rule is applied now under the ten-hour feature. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : And that is the way we understand it would be applied under the eight-hour feature. The Chairman: Your thought, as I get it, is not exactly clear to me, whether it is exactly the same as Mr. Sheppard's or not. Mr. Shea : I guess it is. The Chairman: Speaking of the first period, you would only expect that that would apply to eight hours on the first period, and that applies to ten now after the first eight hours. Is that correct, Mr. Sheppard? Mr. Shea : That is correct. Mr. Sheppard: Yes. It advances the day two hours. 132 "Dutch time," that is what it is called. On the first ten, it is increased. Your free period starts two hours earlier than it would before. I give that to be consistent. The Chairman: I understand, Mr. Shea, from your exposi- tion a few minutes ago, speaking of that man held 25 hours, that would be seven hours after the first period? Mr. Shea: Yes. The Chairman: His time would be continuous? Mr. Shea: Computed continuously. The Chairman : Computed continuously, and his time and a half overtime rate would begin one hour after he started. Mr. Shea: Correct. That is right. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea: Now, in the West, Mr. Lee, you would have to make the distinction or differentiate between the 18-hour period and the 22-hour period. The Chairman : That is the only difference, as I understand, between the two? Mr. Shea : Yes. The language of the rule is identical with the exception that in the East, overtime accrues after a period of 18 hours, whereas in the West, it is after a period of 22 hours for the engineers and firemen. Mr. Garretson: Any more of them? The Chairman : Just a minute, I will see. How would that apply to the present 16-hour law, the application of the present 16-hour law — Paragraph (e) ? Mr. Garretson : It will knock the settlement on the hours of service higher than Gilroy's kite. It will start every man on a new trip when he starts, as it ought originally to start. The Chairman: Then this is intended, as I understand, it knocks out this engineers' provision of 50 miles or five hours. The engineers have a provision in the East, when they continue on this trip, they are paid 50 miles or five hours, whichever it is. Mr. Sheppard : They get not less than 50. Mr. Garretson : Well, Mr. Stone will have to interpret this from his own schedule, from Lee. Mr. Stone : What are you referring to? The Chairman : The Eastern Arbitrators awarded a 16-hour rule, if you remember? 133 Mr. Stone : I understand what you refer to now — the hours of service. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : What I understand is this — Mr. Shea: You are referring to the modification of Para- graph E, of the hours of service law? The Chairman : That is it, yes. It is modified in the Eastern Engineers? Mr. Garretson : Let's get that service settlement straight in the record. You will bear in mind, the hours of service settlement, as applied to conductors and brakemen, is exactly the same in the three territories, because the Eastern Conference Committee and the Southeastern Conference Committee accepted the exact particulars of the settlement made with the four organizations in Chicago, for all that territory, for these two organizations. If there is a modification of it in effect for the Engineers' Association, it is better to be entered in the record. Mr. Stone : Later on in the Southeastern territory we modi- fied it to the extent that after being tied up for a rest period under the law a new day would begin, and they would be paid a minimum day for bringing their train to the terminal. In the East we asked the same thing, but the arbitrators gave us a compromise of a mini- mum of 50 miles, or five hours. I understand that this article would change that and the new day would begin. We have the same rule handed down by the Board of Arbitration in the West. The Chairman : It does not then, wipe out the provision that the man can be tied up under the 16-hour law? Mr. Garretson : Oh, we recognize absolutely that — we bow to the law of the land. We had a large number of schedules under which no release was possible — Western territory. In the face of those we entered into the hours of service separately, because we took the ground that the law of the land had acted virtually as a nullification of those clauses in the agreement, and we modified them so that no release could take place except under the terms of the law, and if you will bear in mind that settlement defines strict- ly itself, what will be under the law and what won't; we put in there an arbitrary period that would constitute release under the law, and it didn't matter what reason was set up, they'd pay under the terms of the schedule. The Chairman : That is the 14-hour provision? 134 Mr. Garretson : That is the 14-hour pi'ovision. The Chairman : And that would remain under this propo- sition. Mr. Garretson : That phase of it would remain undoubtedly because that is necessary for your good and for ours, but that phase of it about the continuation of a trip, this will send galley westward. The Chairman : That is the feature of the payments when the trip is continued, to start again. Mr. Garretson : The settlement provides, now, I am quoting generally, not attempting to quote verbatim, that if a crew are advised of a change of direction after they are tied up, it will start a new day. The only way that can be avoided is to notify them before they are released of a change of direction. Otherwise, a new day begins, but if they continue on, it even provides for a second period, that they will be paid miles or hours. This will make a new day begin whenever they are tied up. If you tie them up three times between terminals, you will pay them three days, to- gether with what overtime may be earned. Mr. Walber : Now, then follow up with the next clause of your rules, which provide — I mean of the rules for the applica- tion of the 16-hour law. Mr. Garretson : Yes. Mr. Walber : Which provide that if crews are towed or dead- headed into terminal after having been tied up, they would be paid for the same as if they had run the train to the terminal. Then, are we to understand that if you tie up the crew for a rest, and then tow or deadhead them into a terminal, we would have to pay the same as under Article E ; namely, a new day? Mr. Garretson : Wouldn't we be in an utterly absurd posi- tion to take any other ground than that, when you worked a man for 16 hours he has given you a day, or the equivalent for a day's pay and he has started a new day whether it is deadheading or any other way. Don't mistake our attitude there for one minute. Under that rule we want the minimum day for him just as if he bad run the train in. Mr. Walber : A new day? Mr. Garretson : What? Mr, Walber : A new day? Mr. Garretson : Yes. i 135 Mr. Stone : We will live in hopes, in the meantime, that the time and a half for overtime would make it so expensive that you wouldn't keep him on duty so long. Mr. Garretson : We have no intention of doing what we did in one conference committee meeting. I brought some data in from one road on which I was in conference, where I showed two time slips for one month for a through freight crew and the manager openly admitted — I didn't name the road — but he recog- nized the case, and this was 31 days after the conclusion of that month. He admitted it, he didn't know whether the man was off the second time slip yet or not. Two time slips for a month, con- tinuous service, too. Mr. Walber: Under continuous pay? Mr. Garretson : No, he wasn't under continuous pay, but he was paid for each 24 hours a day's wage, but there were only two time slips rendered in the month. Mr. Walber : Well, he was making miles all the time. Mr. Garretson : I don't know whether he was making miles all the time he was making hours. Mr. Walber : Whether on a side track or on the main track? Mr. Stone : He was subject to call at any minute. He had to be ready. Mr. Garretson: The fact is, he was not subject to call; he was trying to get some place ; there was a condition- existing and that was on the main line of one of the big roads, and its man- aging officer is sitting here. The Chairman : Those conditions exist like we had them down here in New York a while ago. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind, I am not taking this up as a case of hardship or complaint; I am giving it to you dead straight. We don't intend after this that a man is going to put in thirty days on one day's work. The Chairman: How much did he get, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Oh, I think in this case the man drew on those two time slips something like |118. The conductor— The Chairman: He got more than a day's wages? Mr. Garretson : Yes, he got |118 for a day but we contend he ought to have that |118 for the eight hours. (Laughter. ) The Chairman: Take, for instance, now, a 100-mile run. The crew gets through in seven hours and thirty minutes. This 136 is under your proposition; and that is from the time he is re- quired to report for duty until he is relieved at the end of the run, seven hours and thirty minutes. He stops en route for one hour to do work — or, he stops en route switching — where the schedule provides for the switching as an arbitrary for loading stock or anything of that sort? Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: The crew would accumulate an equivalent of an hour and a half in those odd jobs. Would you — how would you pay that hour and a half? You see he is seven hours and 30 minutes on the road. You add that hour and a half to the seven hours and 30 minutes, makes nine hours. Would that be what you would do or would you pay them straight through in ac- cordance with what the schedule called? Mr. Garretson : If the schedule calls for the payment of ar- bitraries, they will, where such are paid. Our schedules provide that it will be paid regardless of time consumed on trip. That is the ordinary language describing it. It is very accurate. In that case the time that he would consume in doing that switching at those points would be paid by itself and added to the allowance for one day or 100 miles, based on this; when, if he had given you either 100 miles in one hour, or eight hours going one mile, he is giving you the equivalent of f4 which he is paid. I am using your rate. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson: And if he was called on in addition to either one of those two things, to give the Company an hour and a half of switching service — ^you cited an hour and a half didn't you? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : He would be entitled to an hour and half's time for that in addition to the pay for the 100 miles. The Chairman : Yes, I understand that, Mr. Garretson, but how would you pay at one and a half, just in accordance with the schedule, if the schedule called for that payment? If the arbitrary is at overtime rate, or at pro rata rate, you wouldn't add that hour and a half to his eight hours and make it nine and a half, would you? Mr. Garretson : You mean, pay it as an arbitrary and then add it in the extension of overtime? The Chairman : No, no. What I mean — I don't think you get 137 me — would you consider that as subject to time and a half because he has been paid for nine hours and a half ? Mr. Garretson : If the schedule provided for the payment of that time at the overtime rate, I would hold that the schedule would maintain, if it made the allowance without naming that, it would be straight time in my opinion. Mr. Walber: Or take it where the rule provides that such hours shall be added to the hours of the run. Mr. Garretson: I don't just catch your meaning, Mr. Walber. Mr. Sheppard : Extend overtime. Mr. Walber: Switching or doing other work for one hour and 30 minutes en route causing overtime, adding one hour and one-half to the seven hours and 30 minutes, would give you nine hours? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Walber : Would you, therefore, under your proposition, have to pay for the one hour excess over the eight at time and a half, or would you have to pay the complete hour and a half at time and a half? Mr. Garretson : If it was simply added to the time consumed on run, and could be absorbed by fast running, so that there would be no overtime, in a case of that kind, if it did run into overtime, you would pay it at the time and a half rate every time. It would be that work that caused the creation of the overtime, and should be paid for at the overtime rate. On the other hand, if you run him fast enough so that he absorbed it, you would get it out of him for nothing. Mr. Walber : I understand there is another case, too, Mr. Garretson, where in addition to adding the hour and a half to it, in the case cited, they were in addition paying that separately and distinct from the time on the road ; they would add the one and one-half hour to a minimum day of eight hours. Mr. Garretson : Frankly, I don't know. Mr. Walber : Kot as an arbitrary. But the rule says it would be added to tlie time of the run with a minimum of 100 miles. Mr. Garretson : I don't recall a schedule with a proviso like that. There are many schedules that provide this: That such things will be paid for as an arbitrary where 100 miles or more is 138 run ; that where less than 100 miles is paid for as 100 miles, ther will not be paid for unless they run into overtime. Xow. is it one of those cases you are trying to cite? Mr. Walber : Xo. Mr. Stone: What schedule is it? Mr. Garretson : I don't know where that obtains. If it is an arbitrary, it has no bearing on the trip, nor it isn't properly added. It is settled by itself, regardless of the time consumed on trip. If you used him for two hours doing intermediate switching or ter- minal switching or initial switching, any of the three forms of it, and he run 100 miles in nine hours, then you would pay him the time for initial, for intermediate, or for terminal. You would pay him 100 miles for the eight hours of his running and one hour for the ninth hour that he used in switching. That would be the amount of that. Mr. Walber : Well, each rule has its own peculiarities. It is the general principle. Mr. Crowley : I am trying to get clear on that question that Mr. Walber jiist asked you. Assuming that on a road where the schedule provided that trains would be allowed, say, two hours for intermediate switching, between terminals and on the run, how would you settle ? Would that crew be paid two hours intermediate switching as an arbitrary, eight hours for the run, and one hour overtime? Mr. Garretson : There are instances in a few agreements R-here probably they woxild. There are very many agreements, the »reater part of them that pay arbitraries have a proviso against paying time twice. Where there is any clause in the schedule that provides against that, that couldn't happen. There are places where it could. You bear in mind now in the answers I am giving here, Mr. Crowley, "some of the chickens is comin' home." The companies have fought the payment of arbitraries, whereas now, where they are not paid as arbitraries but where they run into overtime, they are absolutely going to cause time and a half, where many of the arbitraries ^ill go on the flat rate. Mr. Crowley : In this case that I heard you and Mr. Walber discussing I was not clear how that two hours' intermediate switching would be paid. Mr. Garretson : On the greater parts of the agreements, that time paid as an arbitrary would be dediictible from the total of 139 the trip. Now, this would not be true in regard to the initial, you bear in mind, because road time commences after the expiration of initial time. It is the starting point on most of the schedules. Also road time quits when terminal delay commences at arrival. There is a sharply drawn mark there, but in intermediate time, where it is paid, there is only — by the way, if the question was put on the cumulative basis — the most of them don't pay it on the cumulative basis — a few do — if an hour is used a large part of them -ft-ill deduct that from the total time, but there are a few that do not. There it would be paid for twice. Mr. Crowley: I see. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson, under Article I, the second paragraph of Article I, that short turn around paragraph, of the Eastern conductors and trainmen, the last phrase of that, will not be started out of terminals under this rule after having been on duty ten consecutive hours — is it your idea that that would be changed under your proposition to eight hours? Mr. Garretson : Without taking any time to analyze, my general belief is that it would, because the ten consecutive hours describes the day and it seems to me that that was its intention. I won't answer you positively on that, Mr. Lee, until I have con- ferred with the other men here. But, offhand, I believe it will affect it in the other — or in the same way that "M" did. Bear in mind, I had none of the benefits of having been able to discuss with my associates this in its entirety. The Chairman: I would like to know a little something now about trip rates. Those are pretty prevalent in the East. Mr. Garretson : And especially in some parts of the East. The Chairman: Very true. We don't know how bad they are. Well, Philadelphia and Beading have quite a number. They are quite prevalent in the East. Mr. Garretson : There is no doubt of that although I think there are some roads almost absolutely free. The Chairman : Oh, yes, the Erie is entirely free and some others. For instance, take the conductors from the freight serv- ice, on a run of 114 miles, with overtime after 14 hours, trip rates |5.65. You see that is the case where the hours exceed the miles under the present schedule. 140 Mr. Sheppard : The only standard feature in that is the over- time rate. The Chairman : Forty cents, yes. Mr. Sheppard : Mileage, hours and trip rate are all other- wise. The Chairman : That is an actual run. Now, if the run is made in 8 hours, you still get it. What would we get under your proposition if the run is made in eight hours? Mr. Stone : What do they get now if the run is made in. eight hours? The Chairman : Five dollars and sixty-five cents. Mr. Garretson: If it is made in 8 hours, 114 miles? The Chairman : One hundred and fourteen miles. Mr. Garretson : There the overtime limit would be 9 hours, and never mind the fraction. The Chairman : Here are the figures. Mr. Garretson : Yes, but what I was getting at is the hour overtime would commence. You bear in mind you have got some- thing over a 9-hour limit there before overtime commences. The Chairman: A little bit over a 9-hour limit? Mr. Garretson : Therefore, overtime rate would not apply on the run at all if performed within 8 hours or inside the limit. What you would get would be 114 miles at the going rate. The Chairman : Four cents? Mr. Garretson : Four cents, which would be |4.64. The Chairman: Fifty-six. Mr. Garretson: Fifty-six. Five dollars and fifty-six cents. That is what the present rate would pay on that and what you have performed — not the present rate, the proposed rate — and you now pay about? The Chairman : Five sixty-five. Mr. Garretson : Could you see Article IV getting very busy on that run? The Chairman : What I want to find out is how this would apply to that. Would you take the |5.65 for the little over nine hours, apply the |5.65 to that — to that run? Mr. Garretson: On that run? The Chairman : On the I2V2 mile speed basis. Mr. Garretson : You bear in mind, put that run on the I2I/2 mile speed basis and run it in eight hours, and if there was any — we will assume for a minute that there was no question of change 141 of rates of pay, that the $5.65 was the going rate, there would be no change whatever in the way of paying them. The Chairman : The 1 5.65 is not the going rate. Mr. Garretson: I know it is not, but assume that for a moment then your question is answered in the fact that the run would be exactly the same under this. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And under your present method ; but there is one of those built up rates that you probably can't determine. What would form the actual basis outside of the conditions sur- rounding that one peculiar run? The Chairman : Overtime doesn't liegin until after 14 hours and that is why it is paid |5.65. . Mr. Garretson : Or the amount equivalent to it because it necessarily requires 14 hours. The Chairman : Not necessarily. There are times probably when that run runs 14 hours. Mr. Garretson: Well, I said in a large part of the year. There would be a case where the application of the mileage rate would pay your present mileage rate for 114 miles, and pay over- time after nine hours and a few minutes. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: The habit of figuring is a lot, and when you have figured in ten — The Chairman : Ten ! Seven is a good deal easier. Ten is usually easier to figure than twelve fifty. The locomotive engi- neers have five hours in passenger service with us. Mr. Garretson: If you run into your 14 hours, six hours overtime, at time and a half, you see, would quickly blot out the difference between the mileage rate and what you are paying. If you were able to control the overtime, you would have half that amount of money, pretty near. I mean, if you are able to run it on a nine-hour basis, half the time and 14 for the other half, it would bring it — the real daily rate — halfway between eight sixteen and five sixty-five. No, not five sixty-five — four fifty-six. The Chairman: Four fifty-six, then. You wouldn't claim, under your proposition, that the five sixty-five would have to be paid for the nine .hours and a few minutes? Mr. Garretson : Not except in the event that the men chose it as a rate under Article IV. The Chairman : Well, then, would you understand that they 142 had the right to choose the five sixty-five with the nine hours and a few minutes or would they hold to the 14 hours overtime? Mr. Garretson: There is what I was careful to call your attention to, that in this there was no coupling of rates or al- lowances and conditions. He can take the good rates and the good conditions and reject the bad rates and take the good con- ditions. The Chairman: Then he would have a right, under this thing, to take the five sixty -five and the nine hour and a few min- utes overtime? Mr. Garretson: He would under the intent of the holding clause. Mr. Stone: Your five sixty-five rate is simply a rate built up on the mileage and overtime allowance of 14 hours ; that is all it is. The Chairman: That's all very true, Mr. Stone, but if he runs that in ten hours he gets the five sixty-five just the same. Mr. Stone : The chances are that when that particular rate was established that they contemplated getting the full 14 hours out of the man, but they won't admit it. The Chairman: But that rate is held even if we can't get it today. Mr. Garretson : Now, by the way, before you go to the next one, I will answer you specifically on that ten being in the second paragraph of "I." It would substitute eight for ten. The Chairman : Yes. Do you want to know about that So.fj.o rate? Mr. Stone : Xo, I have got it figured out. The Chairman : I will just read it off for the record and then you can look at it all. Take a run of ninety-two miles, and again overtime after 14 hours, trip rate, -S.i5.16, overtime rate 40 cents. Mr. Stone: Got cheated, didn't he? The Chairman: On which? Mr. Stone : On the rate. That should be -S5.60 if you work 12 hours ; you know the four cent rate. Mr. Walber : He retained his old higher rate because it was better than the award. Mr. Stone : But the fact remains that the -40 cents overtime rate for 14 hours would be S.j.60 in.stead of -S-5.16. Mr. Sheppard : He was gambling on working 14 hours? 143 The Chairman : He held his rare and condition Ttith it. Mr. Stone : He conldn"t accept it then. They were coupled. Mr. Garretson : That is where \re are going against coupling now. The L'hairnian : Suppose that run was made in nine hours, whar would l;>e jjaid. Oil miles? Mr. Garretson : Ninety-two miles in nine hours. The fact is he'd be paid one hour's OTerrime on a nine-hour trip or on 92 miles. be<;;inse it is based on one hundred. The rate in that case would tie simply for 100 miles. $1.0n: overtime one hour, which is To cents. There you have got the rate. The Chairman : Yes. but he would have the right, as I under- stand, to that -S5.16 rate for eight hours. Mr. Garretson : He would. The Chairman : Then what would his — Mr. Garretson: Then his rate would be -*5.16 plus 75? The Chairman: Xo. wait a minute, is that right? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : Fire dollars and sixteen cents plus 75. or would that S5.16 be divided by S to get a new hourly rate. Mr. Garretson : We are using the basic mileage rate in de- termining all those things, the going mileage rate. The Chairman : The 50 cents an hour? Mr. Garretson : Here, if we followed any other rule, if we took the pro rata rate of those runs, lite yours, that have been built up, on these various retentions, and tmtnown causes, there wouldn't be any wiping out of any of those inequalities, but grad- ually these others submerge them. Here to illustrate: Lots of those inequalities were lite this and the rising of the stand- ard submerged them? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: They were effaced probably, and I should judge you and the Eeading have more of those things existing than any other lines. The Chairman : There are more of those rates with peculiari- ties above the standard. Mr. Garretson: You have more peculiarities than any of the others. The Chairman : We have a lot of them there. Mr. Garretson : I tnow you have. 144 Mr. Stone : Most of them, though, are in passenger service. The Chairman: Xo, there are a good many in freight, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garretson: Oh, we hare a lot in freight yet. Stone makes the point that the stenographer can't get my diagrams. I grant it. unless he had a camera. The Chairman: We have seen the diagram before, so we all know what it means. We have seen that submerging. Well, there is nothing else. Then, Mr. Garretson, on that statement you have just made of the overtime rate on this f4 rate, whether or not this §4, rate exists today, you would expect that the overtime rate would be 75 cents no matter what that other rate was. Mr. Garretson : While I haven't talked this over, my under- standing is that there is no purpose of creating a series of overtime rates; that wherever this settlement might be applied it will es- tablish a uniform overtime rate for its application. Mr. Kouns: Based on what? Mr. Garretson : Based on the going mileage. The Chairman: Xow, I think I understand this, Mr. Gar- retson. but just to make it clear to my colleague (Mr. Crowley) here, for the first eight hours he would get §5.16? Mr. Garretson : He would. The Chairman : And for every hour after that he would get 75 cents. Mr. Garretson : He would. The Chairman : That is, if he should run, if he should take 14 hours to make the run, he would get six hours overtime at 75 cents, 84.50, making a total of 89.66. Mr. Garretson : Oh, that is just what it would work out if your requirements made you employ him fourteen hours. The Chairman ; Yes, instead of the 85.16 — Mr. Grarretson : Instead of the 85.16. Xow do you notice that that is included in the statement I made a little while ago about arbitraries? Any endeavor of this or that company to get away from a condition on a run, where they build up a going rate for that run, founded wholly on the conditions of that run now, is recoiling on them in, I won't hesitate to say, an unfair way in certain instances. Every law or every rule has always done an injustice in some segregated instance. It is so about every rule 145 that there is in these books. I am speaking of the books that ob- tain between us. The Chairman : The schedules. Mr. Garretson : The rule that will work an equity to 100 men will work an inequity to the 101st. The Chairman : He has to take the bitter with his sweet. Mr. Garretson: He has to take his medicine. The others take theirs by proxy and that is the way they are getting their sal- vation. Mr. Stone : The general average do. The Chairman : We will adjourn until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING. NEW YORK JUNE 5. 1916 No. 4 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kottns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A.'T. & S. F. Ry. L.W.BA1BW1N, H. W. McMasteb, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. ^^^^'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. N. D. Mahbb, E. H. CoAPMAN, Vice-Pres., N. &jW. Ry. Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. j^^^ Rvss^j.1., S. E. Cotter, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. A. M. Schoyer, „__,_, Resident Vice-Pres., Penna.LinesWest P. E. Crowley, Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. W. L. Sbddon, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. A. J. Stone, Vice-Pres.," Erie Railroad. C. H. EwiNG, G S waid, Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. Vice-Pres. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset E. W. Grice, Central Lines. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. J. W. Higgins. A. S. Greig, C- P- Nbill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J.IG. Walber. G. H. Emerson, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. Representing the Organizations A. B. Garretson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of R. T.) Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppard, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. 147 New York, N. Y., June 5, 1916. Met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 :00 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the chair. The Chairman : I have a message from the Chicago, Keck Island Pacific people, that the National Conference Committee is authorized to include hostlers employed on Rock Island Lines. That same statement applies to the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway Company. The Kansas City, Mexico & Orient, they ex- clude hostlers. He says the organizations were so advised under date of April 25. The St. Jo Terminal Railway are represented by the National Conference Committee, that they also exclude hostlers. Mr. Garretson : The St. Jo Terminal wasn't on your list. Mr. Dodge : I raised the question, Mr. Lee. Mr. Shea : Are you through with that subject, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : Just for the present, yes. There are some things that we haven't got entirely straightened out on these ques- tions that were raised the other day. Mr. Shea : I have another subject that I wish to take up for clearer explanation when you get to it. The Chairman : All right, we will do it right now. Mr. Shea : Now, if you will refer to Page 22 in the minutes of the meeting of the first day. You state, in referring to the ac- tion of the people on the Santa Fe Railroad, "The authority of the National Committee is as follows : To deal with the employees of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, covered by their schedules dated December 29, 1910; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, covered by the schedule dated December 1, 1910 ; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's schedule dated July 15, 1911." Now, so far as the firemen are concerned, Mr. Lee, that schedule dated July 15, 1911, is obsolete and we have a more recent schedule which became ef- fective May 11, 1915, and it includes or embraces many things that are not covered in the other schedule. I think this same thing applies to the engineers. Mr. Stone : Yes, that applies to the engineers also. The Chairman: That schedule says: "In effect May 11, 1915." Have you any idea just when that was put out — what I am getting at is this — Mr. Shea : I think the Committee completed their negotia- 148 tions in the revision of that schedule which was brought about through the application of the Western award some time the latter part of the year 1915, if I am not mistaken. I think Mr. Kouns probably can give us the exact date on that. Mr. Kouns : Well, I can't, just here. The corrections made by the award were not printed. Mr. Shea : Oh, yes, they — Mr. Kouns: For the reason that there were two or three questions that the men wanted to send back to the arbitrators. Mr. Shea : Well, I think, Mr. Kouns, the award is included in that schedule. The Chairman : Well, I take it this is not Mr. Kouns' por- tion of the railroad. This is Mr. Wells' portion of the railroad. Mr. Kouns : That is Coast Lines. Mr. Shea : There is one for the other. Mr. Kouns: There is one, but we didn't print it for the reason that there were two questions that the men wanted to send back to the arbitrators and we could not print the schedule until it was known what the decision on those two questions would be, but we put it all into effect so far as the — Mr. Shea: Well, I think the original draft in typewritten form has been signed, has it not, Mr. Kouns, by the different offlcers? Mr. Kouns : No, but we put it into effect on the Santa Fe proper? Mr. Shea : I may not be — Mr. Kouns: We can check that. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Shea, you read the authorization, as I understand it, of the Conference Committee from the Eastern lines of the Santa Fe. We want to get the regord proper there. As I remember it, you read the Brotherhood of Locomotive En- gineers' schedule dated Dec. 1, 1910. That should be Dec. 1, 1912. That is just a clerical change. The Coast Lines did not specify the schedules. Mr. Shea: Well— The Chairman : Just a minute now. Perhaps I can — Mr. Shea: If you will go to the bottom of page 22, Mr. Lee, I think we were referring to the Santa Fe proper — Mr. Garretson : The Western territory of the Santa Fe as far as Dodge City. 149 Mr. Kouns: No, Newton. Mr. Garretson: Newton west to El Paso and Denver are Western lines, proper, and from there east are Eastern lines, and the Coast Line is an entirely different proposition. Mr. Shea : Yes, but I understand the Eastern lines and the Western lines of the Santa Fe proper are all embraced in one schedule. Mr. Garretson : They are for us and the trainmen, I know. The Chairman : But the Coast Lines have a different sched- ule? Mr. Kouns : They have a different schedule. Mr. Shea : Yes, that is, the Coast Lines. The Chairman: The Coast Lines did not specify any par- ticular schedules. Mr. Shea: (Calls to Mr. Kaiser in audience.) Mr. Kaiser: Here. Mr. Shea : What were the conclusions of your negotiations with regard to a schedule? Mr. Kaiser : Concerning the hostlers question and the ques- tion of maintaining the amount of differentials were appealed to the Vice-President, the schedule has not been signed ; otherwise it is in effect. The Chairman : That covers all the points you want to raise just now, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Well, no, there is one other question. On page 37, referring to the Peoria Railroad Terminal Company, you will note, Mr. Lee, you stated that, using your exact words, "We will pass that over." The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea: Have you received any further information on that? The Chairman : We have a wire, Mr. Shea, from them, that they expect to come into this movement, but we are waiting for the confirmatory letter. Mr. Shea : All right. The Chairman : That is on the way, that letter. Mr. Stone: Before taking up the regular proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what arrangements you think are best to correct these minutes so as to have them right. The Chairman: Why, we have talked that over ourselves, 150 Mr. Stone, and I understand that there has been some discussion with some of you gentlemen. I don't know just who it was. Mr. Walber can perhaps outline that better than I can. I am not familiar with the exact details. Mr. Walber : Well, Mr. Lee, before we came here this morn- ing I brought up that suggestion to Mr. Stone and Mr. Sheppard, and I suggested to them that we would make better time, and per- haps do the work more expeditiously and accurately, if we ar- ranged to meet every afternoon at my office, at 2 o'clock, and go over the previous day's proceedings, while they are fresh in our minds, for the purpose of getting the corrected proofs in the hands of the printers at the earliest date possible. Now, we are prepared to meet them this afternoon if they are prepared to start in. I would like very much to see them do that, because it is important that we correct some of these transpositions that occur ; there are errors in expression, which are natural for people not in the rail- road service to misunderstand, and then, besides, there are a num- ber of inaccuracies that ought to be corrected. Mr. Garretson : Well, the best you could do, then, would be to correct the previous day's proceedings. Mr. Walber : Yes, we have three days to correct now. Mr. Garretson : Because you would have the copy of that day to work from. In other words, today, assuming that you had been doing this, you would correct Saturday's proceedings. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : Tomorrow you will correct today's proceed- ings, because they don't reach us until 8 o'clock at best. They have always arrived when I was out at dinner, I know, and I usually get back about 8 :20 or 8 :15. Mr. Walber : Well, we could, if it is convenient for Mr. Shep- pard and whoever you designate for your side, to meet this after- noon, we would undertake to correct Thursday's, Friday's and Saturday's minutes, and then, tomorrow, we could take up today's minutes. Mr. Garretson : Yes, that is the way we will have to do. Mr. Walber : And do that job each day. Mr. Garretson : Will that suit you? Mr. Stone : All right, Mr. Shea. Mr. Garretson : Messrs. Shea and Sheppard will act for us. 151 Mr. Sheppard : We will go to Mr. Walber's office, I under- stand. Mr. Garretson : Now, about 2 o'clock — if you work until 1 :30, that will "virtually mean right following. Mr. Walber : Eight after lunch. Mr. Garretson : Eight after lunch. The Chairman : Anything else that you want? Mr. Garretson : No, I have nothing further to raise. The Chairman : We were talking last Saturday about some of these trip rate runs. There are two or three more of them that I would like to get straightened out in our minds. Take a run of 112 miles, overtime after 18 hours, at 40 cents. Mr. Stone: How long? Mr. Garretson: What was that? Mr. Chairman : Overtime after 18 hours. Mr. Stone : How did you get it under the law? The Chairman : We don't run it, Mr. Stone, but that is the rate, those are the hours. It has been in there for some time, and we have never been able to get it removed, and that is what the rate is based on — those hours. I think I am correct in that. Mr. Walber : Correct. It is an old rate. It is a hang-over from about two or three revisions of the schedule. The Chairman : We don't get the 18 hours, that is true, but we pay the money for 18 hours. Mr. Shea : I would like to ask, if the objection so far as the removing the 18 hours, is due to the employees? The Chairman: Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson : When you want to reduce the time, you want to reduce the rate. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: The employees wanted to work the eighteen hours? The Chairman: No, they didn't want to work the eighteen hours, Mr. Shea, biit they wanted the rate that the eighteen hours produced. Mr. Shea: I understand. Mr. Sheppard : Mr. Chairman, is not that rate or that trip specified? Is that not a combination of two single days, where if they make it by two crews or in two pieces they get twenty hours' pay? 152 Tlie Chairman : You are thinking of another rate, Mr. Shep- pard; there is in the schedule a twenty -hour overtime limit rate, but that is not this one. Mr. Sheppard : Well, is not this particular run made by two sets of men, and for which they receive not less than two mini- mum days' time. This i« not a regular daily condition as I un- derstand it. The Chairman: That is a run that exists in the schedule today, and I am under the impression it is made. Mr. Walber: If you please, Mr. Lee, it is one of those P. & L. E. runs, an extension run, at the upper end of the line, near the Lake Shore yard or some such extension run, where they apply the specified rate, when that extended service is per- formed ; and when it is performed they will get this eighteen hours' rate, and in order that there might be no claim for overtime, the hours corresponding to the rate were set out in the schedule. Mr. Garretson : Have you any data on how often that is done? Mr. Walber : They never do make overtime on the runs ; of course they could not be out longer than 16 hours under any cir- cumstances. So the 18-hour overtime limit is just a figure in the schedule. But they still get the equivalent of 18 hours' pay, no matter whether they are out on it 14 hours, 13 hours or 15 hours, but they do the work prescribed by the rate. Mr. Garretson : Have you any later data on how often that run has been performed? Mr. Walber : Yes, it is a run in ordinary operation on the P. & L. E. Railroad. I have in my office a statement showing the number of trips made on that rate, covering quite a period. It is not an abnormal run, it is a run made in the ordinary operation. Mr. Sheppard : I remember it very distinctly. Mr. Stone : I helped make it, so I know all about it. That was in the days before they had had the tonnage craze on the P. & L. E. That is a hang-over of the old rate when they used to have two divisions. The Chairman : That run made in 11 hours now, would get .f7.20. That |7.20 is 40 cents times the 18 hours. If it is made in 11 hours at the present time, they would get |7.20. If made in 15 hours they would get |7.20, and so forth. 153 Mr. Stone: Have you any record where they are making. it with the present tonnage in 11 hours? Mr. Walber : I would not pretend to say what hours they are making on it now. If necessary, I have the figures in the office — Mr. Stone : So have I got it over in the office, all laid away, if it is necessary. Mr. Walber : Maybe we have got them on the same forms. Mr. Stone: If you copied ours, you have. (Laughter.) We are two weeks ahead of you. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson, how would that man be paid for 14 hours, for instance? Mr. Garretson : Well, for 14 hours on 112 miles — • The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : 2^'ow, following the same line of interpreta- tion that we followed, it would do to that exactly what it did to your five sixteen — Mr. Stone: Five sixty-five. Mr. Garretson : To your five sixty-five run of Saturday. You would put the overtime on at the 12i/^ mile speed, which would be nine hours. The Chairman: That is, the man would get |7.20 for the nine hours? Mr. Garretson : For the nine hours on 112 miles. The Chairman: Yes, and what would his overtime rate be? Mr. Garretson : There in the payment of overtime, you'd go right back, I suppose. Overtime rate now is built up on the 18 hours divisor. Mr. Sheppard : I think it is standard. The Chairman : Forty is standard. Mr. Garretson : It stays standard just the same. The Chairman: Stays standard — that is, the new overtime rate would be what? Mr. Garretson: The overtime rate would be the regular going pro rata rate and — Mr. Coapman: Sixty cents. Mr. Stone : You are talking of the conductor now. The Chairman: Conductor, yes, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garretson : Whatever is the pro rata rate on any road would have one-half added.' That is, time and a half. Mr. Sheppard : This pro rata is less than the standard. 154 The Chairman: Forty cents? Mr. Sheppard : It is |7.20 for the two days. Mr. Garretson : There is an overtime rate for that run. Mr. Sheppard : Overtime is standard but the mileage is less than standard milfeage and the rate is less than standard; |3.90 for conductors, if I remember. Mr. Garretson: What, P. & L. E.? Mr. Sheppard: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Fiske, what is your mileage rate for con- ductors? Mr. Fiske : Forty cents per — Mr. Garretson : But the per hundred miles. Mr. Fiske: Per hundred miles or less. Mr. Garretson: Four dollars, you mean? Mr. Fiske: Sir? Mr. Garretson: Do you mean $4.00 per hundred? Mr. Fiske: Four dollars per hundred, Brother Garretson; we have no mileage basis on the P. & L. E. Mr. Garretson : But your trip rates are based on the |4 rate? Mr. Fiske : Yes, sir. Mr. Sheppard : We can't let him get away with this, can we, Mr. Walber? Mr. Garretson : Trip rates are based on |3.90. Mr. Sheppard : That is your single division rate, |3.90, isn't it? Mr. Fiske : That is our single division, our double division rate is |7.20. Mr. Sheppard : Two of the old days. Mr. Fiske : Two old days. Mr. Sheppard : That's it, not 18 hours at all. The Chairman : Well, it's a peculiar proposition. Mr. Sheppard : That 18 hours' time at 40 cents makes $7.20. You so have it. The Chairman : It is one of those peculiar coincidences, I suppose. Then, Mr. Garretson, you would hold that on that run of 112 miles, that the overtime would start after the nine hours? Mr. Garretson : Undoubtedly. The Chairman : That he would get |7.20 for the first 112 miles and, instead of getting 40 cents an hour overtime as he does at present, he would get 75 cents an hour overtime? Mr. Garretson : No. 155 The Chairman : That is a conductor at the |4.00 rate, I am talking about. Mr. Stone: What is the run you are talking about? The Chairman : That is a 112-mile run. Mr. Stone: From where? Mr. Garretson : You are talking about overtime rate of seventy-five, aren't you? Mr. Walber: Increased pro rata, twelve and a half miles against ten. The Chairman : I said at the present time, the overtime rate was 40 cents on that road. Mr. Sheppard : We have got them in our schedule, Mr. Stone. Mr. Walber: These specifications are different for the con- ductors than they are for the engineers, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garretson: You have a conundrum. Well, we have the inter-division runs the same as you have between McKees Eocks and Dickerson's Eun between McKees Eocks and Glassport. But they are on the fourteen-hour overtime basis. Mr. Sheppard : Well, this is between Dickerson's Eun and New Castle. Mr. Garretson : Between Dickerson's Eun and New Castle. Mr. Sheppard: You see, they run through McKees Eocks. Mr. Garretson : Fiske, have you a schedule? Mr. Fiske: Sir? Mr. Garretson: Have you a schedule in your pocket? Mr. Fiske : No, I haven't. Brother Garretson, I have one in my room. I will go and get it. The Chairman: Never mind. Mr. Stone : Never mind. Mr. Dodge : Schuyler, have you one? Mr. Schuyler: No. Mr. Garretson : I want to see that schedule. The Chairman : You do ? AVe will put that run aside for the present, and take it up later when we get the schedule. Mr. Sheppard : Why, Mr. Chairman, I can explain all there is in it. It was to preserve that old rate in case they ran over two divisions instead of one. So there should be no reduction on actual mileage. That is all there is involved, the actual mileage ; at 4 cents it would be less than seven-twenty. The Chairman: Exactly so. 156 Mr. Sheppard : If it was the sum of the two runs put in one, if two crews made it, that would be two times three-ninety. Mr. Walber: My recollection is that the through run, Mr. Stone, from Dickerson's Eun to Sharon and other yards in the Mahoning Valley, applies particularly to their coke runs and engines from or returning to the Pittsburg district, with different mileage, 112, 113 and 115. Mr. Stone : That is, those fast freight runs, they talk about over there, only handle 4,000 tons on a fast freight. Mr. Walber: Yes, well, I think they ought to get more on that railroad. Mr. Stone : Well, they are getting six with the new Santa Fe type. The Chairman : This is on the Pennsylvania, if you want to look it up, Mr. Stone. A run of 60 miles overtime after 12 hours, 51 cents, and trip rate of |6.12. Mr. Stone: 12 hours? The Chairman : Fifty-one cents an hour. Mr. Stone: |6.12? The Chairman: $6.12 check. If that run is made at the present time in 9 hours, the man will get the $6.12. If it is made in 13 hours, he gets 1 hour overtime, or $6.63. When would the overtime on that run start under your proposition? Mr. Stone : After eight hours. The Chairman: And the $6.12 rate would be held? Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman: For the first eight hours? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman: What would his pro rata rate be? Mr. Stone: On whatever the basic freight rate is on that road at time and a half, for that class of engine. The Chairman : Well, in the East for the engineers we don't have — yes, I beg your pardon, we do. Mr. Stone : Sure you do. The Chairman: Yes, under certain classes, but take this particular one now. For instance, I want to get this in mind if I can. Would you divide the $6.12 by the eight hours to get the new rate, or would it be the standard rate? 157 Mr. Stone : The standard basic rate, whatever it may be for that class of engine? The Chairman: That is, you would take the rate for ten hours and reduce it, and call that the eight-hour rate? Mr. Stone : Sure. The Chairman : And divide the present rate for ten hours by eight, giving you the new. Mr. Stone : Basic rate. The Chairman : Basic rate. Mr. Stone : And then time and a half. The Chairman: Then add time and a half on that. For instance, that is a local freight— 15.10, local freight day, ten hours — 14.85 plus 25 cents. Mr. Stone: About 95 cents an hour overtime rate, I think would be about right. The Chairman : Yes, 95 cents, 96 cents depending on the fractions. That is in place of the present overtime rate of 51 cents an hour. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman : And after eight hours, on this run, the first eight hours would be |6.12, and then if he is on that run 13 hours, that would be five hours overtime, at 95 cents, that would be 14.65. (They figure it out.) Mr. Stone: Yes. And ten minutes after the agreement was signed up, you would abolish the run and put on two crews. The Chairman: Put on two crews? Mr. Stone : Yes. The Chairman: Why, we would have to pay more for two crews than we would for the one crew; that is, instead of |6.63, that would cost |10.75. Mr. Shea : What did you say the mileage was on that run? The Chairman: Sixty miles. Mr. Shea: And consumed how many hours? The Chairman: We were figuring on the run taking 13 hours. Mr. Stone : The Company would at once find it good busi- ness and more economical to abolish the run and establish a new run with two crews. The Chairman : I am not so sure about that, Mr. Stone. I 158 think that it would probably cost more with two crews than it would with one crew at the overtime rate. Mr. Shea : Is that the general rule in the East, Mr. Lee, that crews consume 12 or 13 hours making 60 miles? The Chairman: On some of our local freights, Mr. Shea, they will run ten hours on one day^ and perhaps the next day they will run 12 or 13 hours. It varies according to the day of the week or to the amount of freight. That rate has been in there for some little time and it is paid at 51 cents times the 12 hours. If he gets through in nine hours he gets the |6.12 just the same. Mr. Stone: And if you are working the man that many hours the chances are he works about four days a week and lays off the other three to rest. The Chairman: I haven't any figures, Mr. Stone, to show whether he does or not. Let's take your proposition then for a minute, Mr. vStone. Suppose you did put two crews on there at |5.10 for eight hours ; that would be |10.20 for the two crews — two engineers. ilr. Stone : Yes, but you are getting 16 hours' work as against 13 for the |10.87 now. The Chairman: You say you will cover the same trip and the same run with two crews. Mr. Stone : You are figuring on using the one crew 13 hours for 110.87? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : It makes a big showing for the engineers. You can put on two crews and get 8 hours each out of the crews. The Chairman : Yes, but if the work isn't there, what is the use of putting them on? Mr. Stone: Yes, the work must be there if you are going to put them on 13 hours and perhaps more. The Chairman: Yes, but if the work isn't there you can't add it to them. Mr. Garretson : Moreover, you will relieve some other crew in a majority of instances by putting on two crews, and you get your compensation in that direction. The Chairman: I don't know about that. Mr. Garretson: What your gain is, is exactly the proposi- tion you were against when you first paid overtime. Mr. Shea: One of the primary objects of this movement is 159 to reduce the hours of labor of train crews, so that in addition to giving a good day's -work to the Comi>any they will have a little time of their own to spend with their families. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: And not requii"e men to be on the road 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and up to sixteen hours. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : Xow, you will appreciate the fact, Mr. Lee, that when a crew is required to be on duty, on the road 13 hours, it will necessitate them getting up at least two hours before they are due to leave, which would make the 13 hours 15 hours, and then it usually takes anywhere from an hour and a half to two hours after they are finally released until they reach their home and wash up and get something to eat. Therefore, on that prin- ciple, if you require crews to remain on duty 13 hours they would be away from their homes approximately 17 hours in a 24-hour period. The Chairman: Y"es. Mr. Shea: Xow, about how manj^ days or how many such trips a month could a crew make under those circumstances? Xow, Mr. Lee, in order to be fair to the men and fair to the com- pany — The Chairman: Why, I couldn't say off the bat, Mr. Shea, but I do know this: that the men make a good many of those trips in a month. Just what they are I don't know. It shows up in what thej get in the pay car at the end of the month. Mr. Shea: l"es. Mr. Garretson: That is where the confusion of wage and earnings comes in. Mr. Shea: Yes, but in every instance if they draw a good month's pay you will find, by examining the train sheets, that they either made big mileage or consumed a good many hours in making the trip. The Chairman: That would not necessarily follow in the case that we are speaking of here, Mr. Shea. Whether they con- sume the twelve hours or not in this thing, they get the six dollars and one cent. Mr. Shea : Yes, I understand, so far as the compensation is concerned. The Chairman: Yes. 160 Mr. Stone : This is simply another of those cases where the Company has had the benefit for years of long hours out of the crew and they evidently dope their schedule upon that line. Now, because we propose to shorten the day, it comes back home again. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : The chickens are coming home to roost, in this particular case on this particular trip. The Chairman: Well, on this particular trip, Mr. Stone, these men have been getting a pretty fair wage, it seems to me. Mr. Stone : And the Company has been given a mighty good day out of it. That is the other side of it. Mr. Garretson : Well, isn't this fairly true in every instance that unless the Company was using the men up to the time allow- ance, a majority of the days they wouldn't have given any such a rate of pay for the trip? The Chairman : Originally, Mr. Garretson, it may have been true that the men were working on that basis. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: But this thing has been handed down through three or four movements, you understand. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman: And those hours have been held whether the men made them or not. Mr. Garretson: Provided the train is run? The Chairman : Provided the train is run. Mr. Garretson: Naturally the Company don't run them except when they have to, if the rate of pay for the run is out of joint AN-ith the business they are able to get for it. The Chairman: Well, I wouldn't altogether say that there are certain runs that have to be run. Mr. Garretson : There are a few runs that have to be run. The Chairman: With an unreasonable amount; or whether the man gives an unreasonable number of hours? Mr. Garretson; There are a few runs? The Chairman : A good many. Mr. Garretson: A few on each road? The Chairman: Well, a good many on some roads. Mr. Garretson : On some? The Chairman : And those runs must be run whether the business is there for the complete full number of hours or not. 161 For instance, you take some of our branch roads, yon have got to run a local over those every day. Some of them have one in each direction. Now, there may have been a time when that run was a pretty busy run. Today, that business may have been diverted some place else — new lines or something of that sort — came into it and the run is a light run today. I have in mind some of those — I don't like to seem egotistical on the thing, but there are some runs that I have in mind and I am familiar with myself, that are very much lighter today than they were when these rates and time bases were fixed. And yet we are still paying for those — 12 hours. Mr. Garretson : Oh ! I suppose the run probably has equal- ized itself during the time of its existence, if there has been any falling off. As a rule, falling off arises from one of two things, in a coal region if a dug-out has taken place, at a competitive point, or what may become a competitive point, by deflection of business. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : We grant you that, but there are very few instances, in my own experience, and it has covered some territory, where, if falling off of business stood up for any great period, that there wasn't a falling off of one or two things : the number of the times it was run or of the rate paid for it, if that rate was out of line with the general going rate on the line. The Chairman : Well, your experience, then, Mr. Gar- retson, has been different from mine. Mr. Garretson : It might. The Chairman : Because I have found and I judge from the conversation that we have had here, a rate, once fixed for a cer- tain service, that rate never comes down as long as that service is performed. Mr. Garretson : As long as that service is performed, no. The Chairman : Regardless of the number of hours it takes to perform the service. Mr. Garretson : I have seen this : on the independent prop- erties — and I am not talking now about concerted moves. The Chairman : I see. Mr. Garretson: On independent properties, I think, it is safe to say that in six cases out of ten, where that condition has grown up, there has been a modification of the rate if there was any apparent decrease in the number of hours required, assum- 162 ing for a moment, that it had been built up — the rate had been built up or padded or whatever name you want to apply to it — on the basis of excess of requirements made from that. The men themselves do these things on the majority of properties. It is only where it may have fallen off as a daily proposition until one day out of three, or out of four, or out of five, the company isn't able to get it. Then the men hang on to it, naturally. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Because they do it a larger number of days than they don't do it. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That will explain the hanging on to it, but regularly it has come way below that standard. You nearly always find modification of it by the Committees themselves dealing with the managements. The Chairman : Well, I don't. I haven't run across that yet. Mr. Garretson: We have it. I have gone farther afield than you have. Mr. Stone: You will find numerous cases, especially in branch service and so on, when the business becomes light so that the freight is only run a certain number of days per week. The Chairman: I understand there are some cases of this sort, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone: Lots of them. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: I don't know that that happens very often in the East. However, it does through some thinly and sparsely settled territories, where you can get away with, say, running a local every other day in one direction, down one day and back the next, for instance. That also, though, is complicated by one feature, as far as the wage is concerned, to this extent: your local guarantee, the conductors and trainmen in the East, as I understand, if you ran your train only every other day and had another separate crew on, you would have to pay the full month. Mr. Garretson: That is due to the fact that in your terri- tory that class of run you have described is very unusual, while in other territories it isn't as common as it used to be. There are not nearly so many as there used to be. There was a time when it was either common or general. 163 The Chairman: In a thinly, sparsely settled country, I think you would run across that. Mr. Garretson : Half the roads you represent in the Western temtory at one time were in sparsely settled regions. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: The region has grown up to them in a majority of instances. There are places, undoubtedly, today, that they are still run, but the number is limited compared with what it was originally. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : For instance, I think Mr. Emerson's sched- ule at one time did not have less than ten runs of that character in it. You have not got one left today, have you? Mr. Emerson : Well, we have quite a few runs under guar- antee. Mr. Stone : Yes, they have it. Mr. Garretson : Yes, where you run two or three days a week. Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Emerson : Well, yes, we have. Mr. Garretson : Or where you run one day and back the next? Mr. Emerson: Yes. Mr. Garretson : You must have a lot of them. The Chairman : To go back to that P. & L. E. proper, I have the schedule here. There are quite a number of these runs, I no- tice, on the 18-hour. (Hands book to Mr. Garretson.) Mr. Garretson: There are 20-hour allowances on those double runs, all of them across two divisions. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: They are seven twenty; they are not 20 times 40. Thirty-six cents an hour. Xow, there are some that took short trips. Well, we haven't any intention whatever, when the sum of two short trips is paid, of revising that phase of the agreement. The Chairman : But the overtime would begin on the num- ber of hours — the 12% is divided into the mileage of the trip ? Mr. Garretson: I don't know what this mileage is, the total? The Chairman: The 101? Mr. Garretson: Well, it is over 100. 164 The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : If that is the basis — The Chairman: Then on a 112i/^-mile trip that overtime would begin after nine hours? Mr. Garretson: It would. The Chairman: But the first nine hours would produce a rate of |7.20? Mr. Garretson: It would. Mr. Higgins : I want to get this clear in my own mind. If I got that correctly, Mr. Garretson, that would be 80 cents an hour, straight time. Mr. Garretson: For the first eight hours? Mr. Higgins: For the first eight hours. Mr. Garretson: It don't matter what that will run to. Mr. Higgins: Get me straight. Whatever you are paying for the trip, assuming the trip to be 100 miles even, because that is the best for purposes of illustration, no matter what it may be, it will maintain the rate for eight hours, or 100 miles at whatever rate might have been fixed heretofore, regardless of what the time allowance might have been. Now, following that to a conclusion, applying it to this trip you are speaking of, 112 miles, for which he has received f 7.20, for 9 hours' work, what is it? Mr. Garretson : Nine hours where overtime commences on 112 miles. Mr. Higgins : Yes, that would be 80 cents an hour. Now, M'hat would he receive for overtime after the 9 hours, per hour? Mr. Garretson : He would receive — Schuyler ! Mr. Schuyler : That |7.20-rate, bear in mind, is a two-day rate. Mr. Garretson : It is the sum of the two short trips? Mr. Schuyler : The sum of the two short trips. It used, at one time, to be called a coke run. Now it is not a coke run, they stop at all the yards along the system and pick up. They did make some pretty good runs out there at one time. We used to only run one division. They used to keep continuing over both divisions and they allowed us the rate that they applied over each division. Mr. Garretson : The same for one man as if two run it? Mr. Schuyler: That is two days' run, |7.20. 165 Mr. Garretson: The standard overtime rate on the line is now forty cents, which is a tenth. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: It will become an eighth of four dollars, which brings it right to the fifty cent rate with the 50 per cent, added, which is the 7.) cent rate. In other words, a rate of pay like that obtained. The man will get a rate of pay for the first hours at eighty cents an hour, and for the succeeding hours he'd only get seventy-five. Mr. Higgins: That is the point I had in mind, he draws less for overtime than he does for the straight time. Mr. Garretson : Even with the punitive feature attached to it, on runs of that character. The Chairman : Well, Mr. Garretson, you say that rate was built up on the basis of two days' time. Well, then, why shouldn't you apply this thing on the basis of two eight-hour days' time? Mr. Garretson: What is that? The Chairman : Why shouldn't you apply that on the basis of two eight-hour days' time and make it overtime after sixteen hours? Mr. Garretson : Probably because the men don't want it, and didn't want it originally, although they say at one time they made some prettj' good runs out of it. The men don't want to run across two divisions. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : The movement is to shorten the day instead of lengthen it, and they will discourage the coupling up of runs for that very reason, runs that have for years stood separate and by themselves. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : There was a time when McKees Eocks was the head of navigation for everything on the P. & L. E. The ex- tension was below. They built independent runs. Then came the step to combine them together. Whatever was the underlying purpose, I don't pretend to say, probably expediting the business. The Chairman: Very likely. Mr. Garretson: But men dislike to run two ways out of a terminal, to start with, and that calls for that. There was an extension of rights, north and south, to make it possible, or if the 166 districts wei'e kept separate from each other, men would go on to each other's territory in both directions. Yon know what that would bring. Mr. Sheppard : They started to run through. It didn't make any difference, they got just as much for one man as they did for two, that is why they didn't object. Whether one man went through or two crews, they paid the same. Now it is less. The Chairman: How is that, Mr. Sheppard? Mr. Sheppard: When the original arrangement for going through was made, one crew got two crews' pay. Now then, when they go through they get 20 cents less. The Chairman : How do you make that out? Mr. Sheppard : Before it was |7.20, twice |3.60, which was the old day. It didn't matter whether one went through or two, it called for just the same? The Chairman: |7.20? Mr. Sheppard: $7.20. But in consideration of fast ser- vice, as they were led to believe, they accepted the old rate with the old hours, because 20 hours and 18 hours was no bugbear. Because 16 was the maximum, the only time they could get 20 or 18 was due to wreck or something of that kind, you under- stand, so therefore those hours didn't signify anything. Mr. Garretson: The two days in the double run were not raised when the going rate was raised from |3.60? The Chairman : Where did you get the idea, then, that they get less money? Mr. Sheppard: Twice |3.90— |7.80. Mr. Garretson: The individual day in this run was not raised when the individual day's single trips were raised. The Chairman: Yes, but the rate is based on two single days, say of ten hours, then you want to change that basis now? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : Wipe it out and say that this rate shall be the amount to be paid for nine hours or eight hours, or whatever it is, according to length of the run. Mr. Garretson: For a trip? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: For a trip that the eight hours, or the twelve miles and a half of speed, is the basis for any run that 167 exists whether it is a double run or a single run, or whatever it is. That will act in itself as a deterrent against the existence or creation of such runs. Mr. Sheppard : When the runs were first put in they rarely used anything like ten hours. Mr. Stone : That would be another case where as soon as an agreement was signed they would stop running crews off their own division. The Chairman : They might or might not. Mr. Stone : Well, I have a sneaking idea of what they would do, judged by past experience. The Chairman: If the roads ever got soaked the way you people propose to soak them, they might do that. Mr. Garretson: They will try to get that much out of the soak. Mr. Stone: Don't lose sight of the fact that the men for years have had those long runs, and turn about is fair play. The companies should be soaked with that rate for awhile. The Chairman : Here is another run of engineers', a run of 116 miles, overtime after sixteen hours at forty-eight and a half cents, trip rate, seven dollars and seventy-six cents. Mr. Stone: What road is that? The Chairman: The Pennsylvania; |4.85 rate. Mr. Shea : Overtime after nine hours and 20 minutes. Mr. Garretson : Yes, that is it, it is 20 minutes though. Mr. Shea: Yes. Mr. Stone: What did you say that rate was? The Chairman: Seven dollars and 76 cents. Mr. Stone : That is the freak rate. That isn't built up on anything, is it? The Chairman : Well, built up on 481/2 cents times 16 hours. Mr. Stone : No, sir, or else that isn't figured right. The Chairman : Seven dollars and 76 cents. Now, if that run is made at the present time in ten hours, you'd still get the 17.76. Made in 15 hours he'd get the |7.76. Mr. Stone : If he made it in five hours he'd get the |7.76. The Chairman : Absolutely so. When would overtime begin on that run under your proposition? Mr. Garretson : Nine hours and 20 minutes. Mr. Stone : After nine hours and 16 minutes, plus. 168 Mr. Garretson: It is between 15 and 20. Fifteen plus, or 20 minutes, I think. Stone's figure is probably exact. Mr. Garretson : It is almost impossible to figure a fractional mile unless you go into decimals. Mr. Shea: Well, on the 12i/'2 mile an hour basis, I think it would run one mile for each four minutes and 48 seconds. The Chairman : That is a hard proposition. Mr. Stone : Nine hours and 16 minutes, plus. The Chairman : That is close enoiigh. Mr. Garretson: Close enough for all practical purposes. Because, if you are going into the fine details of it, you have got to use practically mills. The Chairman : Yes, Mr. Stone's answer to that is close enough for me ; nine hours and 16 minutes, plus. The Chairman: The first nine hours and 16 minutes he would get the |7.76? Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. And after that he would go on a lower rate because the basic overtime rate, as I recall it, speaking from memory now, I think it is forty-eight and a half — and that would be seventy-two and three-quarters. Mr. Garretson: Seventy-two and three-quarters. The Chairman: The |4.85 then would be the new pro rata rate? Or would you divide the |4.85 by 8 to get the new pro rata rate? Mr. Stone: I didn't raise the question. The Chairman: That is what I want to get straightened out. Mr. Garretson : Four and a half. Mr. Shea: What is the basic rate? The Chairman : |4.85— 10 hours. Mr. Stone : That is the 95 rate. The Chairman: Mnety-five cents? Mr. Stone : Ninety-five cents overtime rate. That is cutting from ten to eight. Mr. Garretson: It is 91 minus. The Chairman: It is 91 minus. That 95 was on the 51 cents. Mr. Stone: We will call it 91 cents so as to let it go and make it an easy figure. The Chairman: And every hour that he was on the road 169 above the nine hours and 16 miimtes plus, he would get the 91 cents an hour. Mr. Stone: That would be another case where they would probably split the run in two and put on two crews. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone : And get nine hours and 16 minutes out of each crew. Mr. Garretson : That is what you have got to do on those two-day runs to get their full allowance of time. The Chairman : Now, wait a minute. Now, wait till we get this straight. I don't think Mr. Stone meant exactly what he said : "That you put on two crews and get 116 miles out of each." Mr. Stone : Not 116 miles. You would get 16 hours out of the two. The Chairman : And you can get 16 hours out of this fellow. Mr. Stone : And it might be you would get him so close to the 16 hours. Mr. Shea : Well, you would get more than 16 hours because overtime would not accrue until after 9 hours and 16 minutes. The Chairman : That is, if you ran the whole 116 miles. Why would you want to put on two crews, Mr. Shea, to run over the same territory that this one fellow does? Mr. Shea : I understood you to ask how many hours you would get out of this, if two creAvs were assigned. If two crews were assigned and ran independent trips, you would get 18 hours and 40 minutes. The Chairman : You wouldn't put them both over the same territory. Mr. Shea : Well, I understood you to say, "Supposing they would assign two crews on that run." The Chairman : Yes, well if you did that, then you would pay just twice as much as you would if you had the one crew. Mr. Shea : Absolutely. The Chairman : Yes. All right. Mr. Garretson: That rate isn't built out of the sum of two short runs like the other one. The Chairman : No, no. That is a hold-over. Mr. Stone : That is what probably happened. The Chairman: We haven't been able to do that very often. 170 Mr. Stone : Something is wrong then. I will take a lesson from what happened to ns in the West. The Chairman : I don't know anything about that. I haven't got into that yet. I suppose I will get into that before I get through. Take the work train service rule. It is pretty common, I think, more particularly in the Western schedules, where they pay miles to the work, hours at the work, and then miles home again. Mr. Garretson : Temporary work trains that is. The Chairman : Yes. For instance, take a crew that runs out 50 miles in four hours, is at the work six hours, and comes back its 50 miles in four hours; that is, he is on duty 14 hours. Now this is where I am "up in the air," I am frank to say, just how are you going to figure this fellow out — where his overtime begins? Mr. Garretson : Now give me those sub-divisions. The Chairman : Fifty miles in four hours. Here it is, right there. He runs out 50 miles in four hours; works six hours; comes back the 50 miles in four hours. Mr. Stone: How is he paid at the present time on his schedule? The Chairman : Why, he is paid 100 miles, and 6 hours. Mr. Shea: You would substitute eight for ten. Mr. Garretson: There is even another subdivision there, I think, in some of the schedules, if I remember right. If they work over five hours I think they are paid a minimum day's pay. In all but one or two instances, aren't they, Mr. Higgins? Mr. Higgins: I don't recall. Mr. Garretson : I thought there was one or two of that kind. Bear in mind I am trying to reach all the complications on this basis on the average M^ork train, temijorary work train rule, that is, a freight man picked up and used for that purpose would be paid on the basis of 50 miles going, 50 miles returning, which is a straight hundred mile allowance. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: And he would be paid six hours for the service performed, and it couldn't be absorbed by fast running. The Chairman: Yes. 171 Mr. Garretsou : Time would be taken at arrival and the time at departure, and he would be paid for the hours that he worked. The Chairman : Well, where would the overtime begin on that, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : I grant you, if it puzzles you, I have got a right to be puzzled for a minute. The Chairman : I grant you, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: How is that? The Chairman : I grant you that. Mr. Garretson: I haven't gone against that contingency. Mr. Sheppard : Overtime is measured after ten miles an hour now. The Chairman: How is overtime measured on that? Mr. Higgins : You get miles or hours, whichever is the greater, to the work and from the work. Mr. Garretson : There isn't anj doubt of that at all, but that don't solve the problem of when overtime begins. Mr. Higgins : No. Mr. Garretson : I think on the average schedule there would be no overtime whatever, there, except the time allowance for the G hours. In other words, he would be paid 16 hours or 160 miles, whichever you desire to phrase it. The Chairman : I think the different schedules might phrase it differently. Mr. Garretson : There is an occasional one that might pay it differently, but I am speaking of the general. That is the way you pay it, Mr. Kouns, is it not? Mr. Kouns : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And I believe that is usual for our people on almost all the Western Lines. You bear in mind that is the rule that is far more prevalent in the West than anywhere else, on account of the fact that in other territories you use far more monthly work trainmen than you do temporary men. There are some of these big roads that will hardly have a work train proper on, unless growing out of some new or washout condition. It is nearly all done with temporary men. You have seen the time, Mr. Higgins, when, on your whole system, you didn't have more than one or two at the outside. Haven't you? 172 Mr. Higgins : Two or three, I have seen times when we were down to that. Mr. Garretson : Well, there yon see what the average prac- tice is, on a system of that many thousand miles. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : This is the one that work is mostly done under, and I believe it is almost universal that that would have been paid on the 160-mile basis and there had been no overtime, since none is needed at all. The Chairman : Well, now, under this new proposition, how would it work? Mr. Garretson : I am of the opinion that under this rule that would pay. Mr. Stone : I am listening to you. Mr. Garretson : See if you agree with me, using eight hours for the 100 miles. I am of the opinion that straight overtime as overtime, won't accriie at all on the run you have named, be- cause there is the eight-hour allowance for the doing of the 100 miles. Mr. Sheppard: This is only for the purpose of computing the miles or hours whichever is the greater, but it is thrown in the total, and it is all figured at ten miles an hour now. If it all comes to one sum total in the future, it would be figured at 12% miles. The Chairman : You say, "if it comes in the future" ? Mr. Garretson : Why, it will raise the hourly rate ex- actly on the same basis that it would raise overtime, but then the question comes on the application of the penalty overtime, you see? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : There is no question about raising the rate per hour, by the divisor of eight instead of ten? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Sheppard : Here is 160 miles paid for 14 hours' service, isn't it? Now, bear in mind that there are 14 hours for which they are paid 160 miles, because miles exceed hours. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Sheppard : But it is all measured at ten miles an hour. The Chairman : At the present time. 173 Mr. Sheppard : At the present time. Now, the measure will be just as before, that is, it is all one job. As you raise each piece to this, in the whole, and thereby 160 miles as against twelve and one-half miles an hour. Mr. Walber : You mean, then, that the rule will be super- seded, and miles and hours throAvn together will be calculated in the future? Mr. Sheppard : I mean that you will calculate in the future just as now, instead of measuring at ten miles an hour you will measure at twelve and one-half miles an hour. Mr. Walber: Well, miles for the running, separate from hours at work? Mr. Sheppard: Oh, yes, sure. Mr. Walber : You are going to calculate the two together or — Mr. Sheppard: Whichever is the greater, miles or time? You just put twelve and one-half miles in that rule instead of ten miles. Wherever you measure by ten miles an hour, now, you would measure by twelve and one-half miles in the future. Mr. Walber : Yes, but you only measure by miles which are run. The rules are clear that we will get hours while at work, not ten miles per hour at work, but they will get hours while at work, and miles or hours to and from work. Mr. Sheppard: Yes. Mr. Walber : So the rule has either got to be maintained the way it is now, or else the miles and hours to be thrown together and be paid for at twelve and one-half miles an hour for both services now, one or the other. Mr. Garretson : I don't follow you that way. The only dif- ference between the rule then and now would be that it gives the hours that they actually work. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: The hours they actually work are now a tenth of the daily wage. They will then be an eighth of the daily wage, each one of those hours. In other words, eight hours' work out here would give them exactly the same that ten did before. Now, the question comes solely on the payment of overtime. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Where the fifty per cent, punitive is added, the interpretation of the rule would be exactly the same as it 174 was before — differs in no respect — but wherever they have now paid the hours for overtime is where six hours is used on these fifty miles. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Then overtime comes in now and then, it will come in at the time and time and a half rate, but these hours are in my opinion standard hours; they only change from the tenth to the eighth. That would become the factor for determina- tion. Mr. Stone : A great many of our schedules specify particu- larly that each hour of work will be paid for at ten miles. In work-train service paid actual miles to and from work, the num- ber of hours worked will be paid for at the rate of ten miles per hour. Now, in some of our wrecking service, it says "will be paid actual miles to and from the wreck, with a minimum of one day, and for actual time at the wreck at overtime rates." There you get another distinction. And again, in our ballast train service, where they are hauling ballast, you are paid the freight rate, if the mileage runs over one hundred. Mr. Garretson : And in some ballast trains you are paid for the time in loading, and so it simply goes in as overtime. Isn't that correct? Mr. Stone : That is correct. Mr. Garretson: And there are work trains that are simply paid by the day, no matter what mileage they make, these tem- porary work trains. The Chairman: Oh, yes. Well, now, Mr. Garretson, I un- derstand then, that this time at their work will be kept separate from the running time? Mr. Garretson : It always has been where that rule is in ef- fect. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And it always will be. The Chairman : That is the intention. Mr. Garretson: If that is the intention there is no inten- tion to modify the rule at all ; it only becomes a difference in the rate that is paid where the service is performed. Where they are on the hourly basis no change is made in the rate per mile for these propositions. Nor is there any modification of agreements 175 in any way only such as become necessary by the insertion of those changes. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : But where the allowance is by the hour or by so many miles for an hour, it would be modified by this : That the new factor in arriving — the quotient of eight instead of ten, will make an hour's pay now higher than it was before. I am not speaking now of the punitive feature at all. The Chairman: I understand. Mr. Garretson : Only of the eight-hour feature. With that difference the rule would be applied exactly the same. Then comes the second question — that I will admit I haven't got straight in my own head now. The Chairman: That is when the time and a half begins? Mr. Garretson : That is it. The Chairman : That is what I haven't got. The Chairman : Well, you are not prepared to say just when? Mr. Garretson : No. On that overtime, I reserve that, for this reason. It seems to me, offhand, that overtime can only come up on this where the speed running to and from, runs into hours in excess of miles, then overtime would accrue, you see. On any mileage proposition this is a pure hour proposition. The Chairman : After eight,, the time and a half would be given at the work. Mr. Garretson : Oh ! yes, there isn't any doubt of that. The time at the work, whenever it passed the limitation there of a minimum day, would probably become overtime, but here it would only become overtime when the miles exceeded the hours, because there is no transposition possible in these middle hours. The Chairman : Mr. Stone, you mentioned a while ago that the time at work, this six hours that we have been talking about, some of the rules require payment for the time at the work at the overtime rate. Mr. Stone: That is, in wrecking service. The Chairman : In Avrecking service. Mr. Stone: Which is classed the same as the work-train service, in many of our schedules. The Chairman : Yes, then you would claim the time and a half under that phraseology of the rule. 176 Mr. Stone : Article 4 would give them the right to hold that. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone: If it was better than any settlement reached here. The Chairman: They could hold that then under Article IV. They could get the overtime rate on account of the wording of the rule? Mr. Stone: I would understand it so, yes, sir. The Chairman : Yes. Well, that is held up for the present, then. Mr. Garretson : Yes, that one phase, yes. The Chairman: We have some cases in the schedule that require miles in excess of 100, also hours in excess of ten. I think that is peculiar largely to New England. For instance, if you have a 120 miles run in 12 hours, you would be paid 120 miles, two hours overtime. That is my understanding of that rule. I think I am correct on that. Mr. Garretson : That is 75 miles local freight rule. Mr. Stone: That is the New Haven? Mr. Shea : That is the New Haven System. The Chairman: I don't know whether it is peculiar to the New Haven or whether the other railroads in New England have it or not, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : I think that is the basis of computation. The Chairman : Take the engineer, for instance ; at 5 cents he would get for 120 miles — I take 120 miles because that is easy to figure — he would get |6.00. He gets two hours overtime at 50 cents, at the present time. That is fl.OO. He gets |7.00. How would that man be paid under this rule, Mr. Stone? Mr. Sheppard : That is 20 extra miles. The Chairman : 120 miles at 5 cents. Mr. Sheppard : Oh ! I beg your pardon. Mr. Stone : He would get overtime after not quite 10 hours, just about 9 hours and 48 minutes — and I suppose under the Ar- ticle, he would keep his double payment that he had for hours and miles; miles beyond 100, and hours beyond the 9 hours and 48 minutes. That is my understanding, as I would apply it. The Chairman: He would get overtime after 9 hours and 48 minutes? 177 Mr. Stone : Something like that. That isn't quite correct, but it is close enough. The Chairman : Yes, I don't want to hold you down to the seconds or anything of that sort, but I just want to get an idea of what this thing means. He would get 120 miles at 5 cents, his present mileage rate, and then overtime after 9 hours and 48 minutes? Mr. Stone: We would practically only change the time 12 minutes from what it is now. The Chairman : The overtime after 9 hours and 48 minutes would be at time and a half, I take it. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. Mr. Walber : By that principle, then, 140 miles, what would be the overtime? Do you get me, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : Beg pardon? Mr. Walber : I say, applying that principle to a 140-mile run, when would the time and one-half apply? Mr. Stone : If they had the same rules that you are speaking of now, that overtime after 10 hours, hours beyond 10, or miles beyond 100, it would apply just the same, but you don't have any of those runs, 140 miles, and you only have very few of them in this. It is peculiar to one particular road and it is probably being fought over more than any other one thing that ever was written in a schedule. Mr. Walber : I expect that both parties would be ahead if it was out of the schedule. Mr. Stone : Well, probably both parties would be ahead if you threw it away. Mr. Walber : But, what I wanted to get at in the one case, it happens in this 120-mile example, the changed overtime limit, based on 12% miles per hour, brings it below 10. You can see, Mr. Stone, then, the only point in there is what becomes of that 10-hour limit. That is all there is to the whole question. Mr. Stone : Ten-hour limitation down to 9 hours and 48 minutes. Mr. Higgins : On a 140-mile run? Mr. Stone : If you had the same rule applying to a 140-mile run, yes. The rule doesn't make any distinction, it simply says miles in excess of 100 or hours in excess of 10. 178 Mr. Higgins : How did you disturb the lO-hour rule in the first case, then, if it didn't make any difference? Mr. Stone : Say that again. Mr. Higgins: How did you disturb the time in the first case cited, from ten hours to nine hours and forty-eight minutes? Mr. Stone: We are giving ourselves the benefit of the rate because it is a little lower. Mr. Higgins: Yes, but why not give the other fellow the benefit when it came higher? Why doesn't that rule work both ways, in other words? Mr. Stone : Well, there are some rules that don't work both ways as we have discovered long ago. The Chairman : How did you arrive at that nine hours and forty-eight minutes, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: Dividing' one hundred and twenty miles by twelve and one-half. The Chairman : Why don't you divide the one hundred and forty miles by twelve and one^half ? Mr. Stone : I think it would be perfectly right to do it, to be honest about it. The Chairman : Well, would that be what you expect under this proposition? Mr. Stone,: I would expect, under that proposition, to have the settlement try and cut the whole thing out if they could, or cut it below 100 miles, because they have cut all the runs below 100 miles or to 100 miles at least. That is something the men would have to decide for themselves whether they would hold to the old rule or take whatever settlement might be applied. The Chairman : That would come in under Article 4. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson: On the application of this to the 140 mile proposition, if it existed, overtime would commence after eleven hours and twelve minutes. The Chairman: Yes, but the men could hold their old present rule. Mr. Garretson : Oh, there isn't doubt of the right to choose. The Chairman : Well, would the old present rule, ten hours, become eight hours? It is after ten at the present time. Mr. Garretson : I will let Stone answer that, I haven't seen the rule. 179 Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind, I am not adding to this com- plication at all. , Mr. Stone : My opinion is, subject to conferring with the Chairman in the matter, that it does not change the rule at all. It would still be ten. The Chairman : After ten hours it would still stand. Mr. Stone: I would understand so, if they kept that pe- culiar phraseology that they have there. Mr. Walber : That is what I told them for calculating the cost, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : I live down close to Missouri. The Chairman : Do you want to say anything further about that after conferring with the Chairman, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : Yes, I will take that up later and advise you. It is one of those peculiar rules that have been in existence for years ; you will find some of them on both sides. Mr. Walber: We will find them afterwards. Mr. Stone: I would not be at all surprised. The Chairman : Here are one or two questions that I think perhaps will interest Mr. Dodge as much as any other. Yard questions. Mr. Dodge : All right. The Chairman : A yard engine which is regularly assigned — and I want to get this clear in my mind — regularly assigned for 12 hours daily — that is, a 12-hour engine, you understand. The conductor at present receives — well, take the same as we have been, for convenience — the 40-cent conductors, because that is easy to figure on with all these figures. Mr. Garretson : That's right. The Chairman : It is an existing rate and it is a convenient figure to use, and while we are using 40 cents, it means that it applies to the other members of the crew in like manner with that rate, but 40 cents is easy to divide, subtract, add and multi- ply. Twelve-hour engine in the yard at the present time — at 40 cents, you'd get |4.80. Under this proposition, what would his hourly rate come to, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: My idea would be this: He'd get |4 for the eight hours. Then for the other four hours he would get time and a half, which would be 60 cents an hour, or |2.40 added to the $4, which would make |6.40 for the day's work. ISO The Chairman : I don't get that. Mr. Shea: First, is that yard on a ten-hour dav basis? The Chairman: Xo. I say this is regularlr assigned for tTvelve hours daily. This engine — ^that is a thing, Mr. Shea, that may happen in a yard where they have got ten-honr engines and eleven-hour engines, and twelye-hour engines. In a large yard, you "vrill have the whole thing. Mr. Garretson : But it is a ten-hour yard, if the twelve-hour assignment is made. Mr. Dodge : All yards are ten hours or less, althoiigh there may be an assignment that covers longer than ten. Mr. Shea: Well, first. Mr. Lee. let us have an understand- ing. The Chairman : Yes, I want it perfectly clear, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Xow. supposing that crew only worked ten hours — ^would they be paid twelve hours under your question? The Chairman : That is what I understand. Mr. Shea. This is a daily assignment of a twelve-hour engine. Mr. Shea : Well, they may be required to work 12 hours be- cause of the business, but assuming that they did not work 12 hours. woTild they receive 12 hours' pay? The Chairman : Yes, yes. Mr. Stone : That is what they do on the Pennsylvania. The Chairman: That is one of the cases where the crew is assigned, and it is advertised as a 12-hour engine. In that case you speak of, Mr. Shea, those cases happen on many of the roads. I understand, now. in Chicago, for instance, they have certain assignments in the yard; there is a 12-hour engine and the same yard may have an 11-hour engine and other engines may be in there for 10 hours. Mr. Dodge : Yes. generally, those assignments are bulle- tined and they are paid in — The Chairman : That is it. Mr. Garretson : I think Mr. Dodge got his figures wrong and got his overtime rate — The Chairman : We will start on that again, then. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : To get it straightened out, if there is some question about it — Mr. Garretson : I think there is on the 40-cent rate. 181 The Chairman : On the 40-cent rate, this man would get f4.80 at the present time. Mr. Dodge : That is, he'd get |4 for the 8 hours. The Chairman : Now, wait a minute at the present time, he gets 14.80 for 12 hours. Mr. Dodge: Yes. The Chairman: Now, what would he get if he worked 12 hours under your proposition? Mr. Dodge : Well, my idea is this : That he would get |4.00 for eight hours' work ; then there are four hours that he has worked excess, which would be time and a half. Mr. Garretson: Well, now, use your new divisor of eight hours into your |4.00 to get your hourly rate for putting your punitive rate on top of. That is what you overlooked before. Mr. Dodge : Yes, well then the overtime rate would be more. Mr. Garretson: Would be 75 cents? Mr. Dodge : Yes, yes. At 50 cents an hour. Mr. Stone : The run you have in question there, Mr. Lee — is that one of the Pennsylvania runs you are speaking of now? The Chairman : Well, no, this is a run that is not peculiar to any particular line, Mr. Stone, it happens around Chicago a good deal. I understand there are certain assignments around there that they require working more than ten hours. Mr. Stone : But all around Chicago, in all the schedules that I know of, they have a minimum day of ten hours regardless of the number of hours they are on the work. Mr. Dodge : This is ten hours or less for a day. If you only work five hours you get your ten hours' pay at the present. The Chairman: Correct. But here is what I am trying to develop. Provided that in yards having a minimum day of over ten hours, the present day's pay, as in effect January 1, 1916, will be continued with the eight-hour day. Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir. The Chairman: And it was explained here, the other day, as I understood it, covering engines that were on an assigned run of 12 hours, or an assigned run of 11 hours, which run ex- isted on Jan. 1, 1916. Those engines are what it is intended that this shall apply to. Mr. Dodge: The regular work they do at 10 or less would be 8 or less for a day. 182 The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Dodge : Eight hours or less for a day instead of 10 hours a day. The Chairman : That is correct. Mr. Stone : And it was also explained that that applied to those particular runs, that whether they worked that number of hours or not, that they would be paid that rate? The Chairman : That is what I am talking about. Mr. Dodge : And the overtime rate would be 50 cents an hour against 40 now. The Chairman: Yes. Mr.. Dodge: If they worked 4 hours, why the overtime rate per hour would be 75 cents, and four times 75 cents would be 13.00 ; so he'd get |7.00 for his 12 hours' work. The Chairman : That is true, as I understand it, for the — Mr. Dodge : For the 12-hour day — for the — The Chairman: For the 10-hour man working 12 hours? Mr. Dodge: Yes. The Chairman : But these assignments, I can't get at these assignments. Mr. Dodge: Now, my understanding is this. Now, this is my personal opinion. The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Dodge : Because I don't want to embarrass Mr. Lee, whom I am representing, in any way. Now, my personal under- standing is that all yards that are on a ten hour basis go to eight hours per day, at the same rate for the night man — four dollars. The overtime rate would be fifty cents an hour. So if the crew worked over eight hours they would be paid seventy-five cents an hour for every hour they worked over eight. The Chairman: That is true. Well, now, that is perfectly clear to my mind what is intended by the first sentences of Article II (a). Mr. Dodge : I don't expect there are many switching assign- ments of twelve hours a day. The Chairman: There are quite a good number, I under- stand, Mr. Dodge. Now, it is the third sentence of Article II (a), that I am trying to get at, in view of what was said the other day. I am trying to get it straightened out in my own mind. "Provided that in yards having a minimum day of more than ten hours, the 183 present day's pay as in effect Jan. 1, 1916, will be continued with the eight-hour day." Now, that was intended, as I understood here in the discus- sion the other day, to mean that engines on a twelve-hour assign- ment or engines on an eleven-hour assignment, that existed on January 1, 1916, would get twelve hours' pay or eleven hours' pay, as the case might be, for eight hours? Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir. The Chairman : Is that — • Mr. Stone : Let me get you straight on that. Now, you have only got part of it. The Chairman: All right, what is the rest of it? Mr. Stone : He has specified particularly that engines on 11 and 12-hour assignments, where the rate was fixed, and where they were paid that, whether they work that number of hours or not, there is quite a distinction between the two. The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Stone : Now, take, for example, on the Pennsylvania ; you have a number of places where you have worked men 11 and 12 hours, but you have always exercised the right to cut the man out at 10 hours and pay him a minimum day at switching service. The Chairman : That is true. Mr. Stone : And we have throughout the country a number of schedules where there are 11 and 12-hour days yet in yard serv- ice. Those will come to the 8-hour day undoubtedly, and hold the rate that they are now paid for 11 and 12 hours. The Chairman : Well, those are the cases, Mr. Stone, that I am trying to get at. What I am trying to get through my mind — I may be a little dumb this morning — but what I am trying to get through my mind is this proposition that was mentioned the other day. Mr. Stone : Well, I am the one that mentioned it. The Chairman : Engines on 11 and 12-hour assignments, I think those are pretty close to the words, aren't they? Mr. Stone : Yes, and that assignment specifies, particu- larly, certain engines, or a certain run is put up and will pay so much. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone: And regardless of how soon they get through that work, they may get through in eight hours or nine hours, 184 they are paid this rate, which is figured from the basic rate, per- haps, and paid for 11 or 12 hours. As I said in those particular cases they would still retain that rate and work eight hours. The Chairman : Yes, that is, we are talking about the same thing. Mr. Stone: But that doesn't apply to any crew that may happen to work 11 or 12 hours where their schedule establishes a minimum basic day of ten? The Chairman : No, I understand that, too. Mr. Garretson: Isn't it a fact that all the yards that are left, that have the 11 or 12 hour basic day, are country yards out- lying? Have any of the big central yards got a 12-hour day? Mr. Walber : Mr. Stone, if you have your Bessemer & Lake Erie schedule there? Mr. Dodge: There may be a few roads, but the great ma- jority of yards are on the ten-hour basis. You may find some yards of a railroad that are outside of the big terminals that are on a longer day. Mr. Garretson : That is what I mean. The big terminals — I was under the impression there wasn't one in existence. Mr. Dodge : I think you will find a few. Mr. Garretson: But is the ten-hour day basic in that yard, in that terminal? Mr. Dodge: You take the Chicago switching district, it is ten hours or less for a day. (Mr. Lee shows schedule to Messrs. Stone and Garretson.) Mr. Stone: It is the difference in the wording. The fact remains he only Avorks ten hours, and if he works any part of the dinner hour he is paid extra, isn't he? Mr. Walber: Yes, but it is the Bessemer & Lake Erie Eailroad that I want to get clear on. Would they be committed in this case in arriving at their daily rate to multiply forty-one by eleven, or |4.51 for eleven hours, and would |4.51 become the eight-hour rate? Mr. Stone: You say the Bessemer & Lake Erie, yes. Yes, on this schedule. Mr. Walber : Notwithstanding they pay the same hourly rate as the Eastern engineers' award? Mr. Stone : They don't pay the same hourly rate. (Mr. Walber shows Mr. Lee schedule.) 185 Mr. Stone: What is the date of that schedule? Mr. Walber : It is November 1, 1915. Mr. Stone : That is a later one, but they specified distinctly that no overtime is paid until after eleven hours, it is an eleven- hour day. Mr. Shea : Isn't it a fact on that schedule that their time is computed continuously? Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Shea: No deductions made for meal hour? Mr. Stone : Here is the way the article reads : "Except as otherwise provided, eleven hours or less, including the dinner hour, will constitute one day." Mr. Shea: That is, the time is computed continuously. There is no deduction made for meal hour ; therefore, they work right straight through for eleven hours at that rate per hour — forty-one cents for eleven hours, or a total of .|4.51 for eleven hours? Mr. Walber : But you understand, Mr. Shea, an engineer can't work without a conductor and brakeman. The conductor and brakeman have their meal hour regulation in there. Mr. Shea: Well, now, suppose if the train crew worked right through as they do in many instances? Mr. Walber : But they do not under their rules, and they are penalized if they did. Mr. Shea : Yes, the penalty is optional with the company. Mr. Walber : Yes, but you have the fact, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : Well, this is a similar case. Too many instances in the past where yard crews were on the twelve-hour basis and paid continuous time for twelve hours. I believe that was the old Pennsylvania system. The Chairman: There was one time, back, I think about 1906 or 1907, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: But arrangements were made to give them a certain number of minutes to eat at noon, or at midnight, but notwithstanding that there were no deductions made. It was con- tinuous time right straight through. The Chairman : If the service permitted they were allowed time. Mr. Walber : You understand they have a meal-hour regula- tion for the engineers the same as the others. Yard Service Rule 186 48 : "Enginemen will be allowed one hour for meals and for neces- sary work on engines, commencing between 11.30 and 12 o'clock, noon or midnight. If not relieved until after 12 o'clock, 30 min- utes only will be allowed." And that is their meal-hour rule for engineers. Mr. Stone: And during that meal-hour of 30 minutes or whatever it may be, he is supposed to take coal, and take on water, get the fire clean and be ready to move again. And they realize that he has to do certain work and they pay him for it. The time is computed continuously. Mr. Higgins : Do you gentlemen expect to find these assign- ments in the contract — as a part of the contract? — the assign- ments that you refer to here of an 11 or 12-hour day? Mr. Stone : You will probably find some of them on the bul- letin board. The bulletin states : "Paying so much — " Mr. Higgins : That is the point I am coming to. Could the yardmaster, in putting a premium on a certain job, involve the railroad and fix a different rate of pay for that particular engine, in the application of your proposition? Mr. Stone : If he had a right to bulletin the run as paying so much, I would understand that he was representing the com- pany, and he had a right to fix it. Mr. Higgins : They don't bulletin it, always ; they have a private agreement with a certain man that, "You will get so many hours for that job," — some coal dock or some job of that kind. In order to get some man on, the yardmaster agrees to make a definite allowance. Now, does that involve the company in the application of your proposition to the extent of paying a special rate for that particular engine or for the job? Mr. Stone : Speaking for the engineers. If the yardmaster had a right to fix that rate and pay it to some certain particular man for years that certain rate is still established and the company would continue to pay it. Mr. Dodge: He is the mouthpiece of the company. He is an official. Mr. Higgins : Then, you don't expect to find these provisions in your contracts — written into the contracts? Mr. Garretson : I don't expect to find them in mine. Mr. Dodge : Well, perhaps as a general proposition, you may not. 187 Mr. Higgins : Then we are safe in assuming that any en- gine, on January 1, 1916, that worked 12 hours on a regular as- signment, or 11 hours on a regular assignment, will carry a rate obtained by dividing the amount earned that day divided by eight. Mr. Dodge: Mr. Higgins — Mr. Higgins: Is that correct? Mr. Dodge : Mr. Higgins, it is my opinion that no switching crew would work 11 hours for less than 40 cents an hour, which would be |4.40 for 11 hours. It is my opinion that no yardmaster or trainmaster would ask a crew to work for less. Now, if he got |4.40 for 11 hours, according to the rule, he would get |4.40 for eight hours, because that was his compensation on January 1. Mr. Higgins : All right. Mr. Dodge : And the 11-hour day or the 11-hour assignment has been discontinued and we are on an 8-hour assignment. Mr. Garretson : Moreover, there is one phase of Mr. Hig- gins' question I want to draw his attention to. For a lot of years we have been discouraging the right of private contract. We deal for the class — this class or that one — and we set up that the individual company and the individual man should not modify that. If they have modified it, why, we will be perfectly willing to let the company hold the bag for the modification. It will dis- courage the practice. I think you will admit that. Mr. Higgins : I know, but where that, in a measure, holds good on branch lines, and today you have a lower rate, you bring that rate up by reason of this movement to a higher rate per day or per hour than you do on the main line. Now, why, again, if it works with respect to the lighter lines, should it not work in the opposite direction with respect to these particular cases we are speaking of now in the yards? Mr. Garretson : No, the application of that general prin- ciple to certain branch line runs is exactly in line with our whole attitude through a whole series of years. That, regardless of what the revenue might be from the run, if the company required a man's service for so many hours, it was their business to pay him. Now, they will probably do the best they can to change some conditions on branch runs. For, if they take twice as much time from a man on the branch run through the company's neces- sities, they will have to pay the tariff. 188 Mr. Higgins : But they don't ; they don't take half as much time on many branch line runs. Mr. Garretson. Don't they? I know that on many they take twice as much. Mr. Higgins : Well, they are exceptions, I should say. Mr. Garretson: Oh, well, I should say they were the rule, and the others were the exceptions. Mr. Higgins : Where you take from two to four hours in the morning, and two hours to four in the evening. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Higgins : You are not taking most of the time. Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes you are, for you are depriving him of the opportunity to use it for himself, or for any other purpose, because in the majority of cases he is away from home ; because it is absolutely impossible for him to utilize it. Mr. Higgins: Is it not a fact that in most cases he starts from, and returns to home on branch lines? Mr. Garretson : He starts from home in the morning, often before daylight. For instance, I met a man the other day. He wanted to lay off a day because he wanted to see a child he had, two years old, in daylight. He told me the child had never seen his face because he left before, and came home after the bedtime hours of that child. Now, there is one of the extremes, I grant you, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins : It must be very extreme, indeed. Mr. Garretson: But there are a number of such existing that run outside of the gamut. But the hours that the man is de- prived of are from the time he goes on duty until he comes home, for he can't utilize the dead time between. Mr. Higgins : The time, if it is service of course, is the time he puts in from the initial terminal to his objective terminal with, if you please, the time relieved at the turning point on the turn around run on a branch line. Mr. Garretson: In other words, the time that is required of him, that he is deprived of as a money -making factor, or selling it to anybody else, is from the time he goes on duty in the morning until he gets back to that point on the final trip. As a general proposition that is what he is deprived of. No matter if the actual time engaged in work is only there — I am making this comparative. Mr. Stone: I also want to correct you, that is not an ex- 189 ception, but a large majority of our men who work on the so- called "preferred jobs" in yards, never see their family except on Sundays if they have a day shift, or except when they lay off, that is, see them awake. It is not the exception, it is in the majority of cases. They get up and leave home in the morning before the family is awake, and they return after they are asleep at night. Mr. Higgins : I thought one of the arguments for starting a crew in the morning on day pay was that the entire family might eat together in the morning. It would save, if you please, getting breakfast for the school children at one hour, and the father's at another hour. That is why you are paying the night rate in the yards. Mr. Stone: No, you are mistaken. If that was true you'd get your children up for school and they'd eat breakfast about 4 :30 or 5 :00 o'clock in the morning in a great majority of these cases. Mr. Higgins : I can't go along with you on that, Mr. Stone, at all. Mr. Stone : I didn't expect you would. The Chairman: A man starting to work at 4:30 in the morning? Mr. Stone: Lots of them report at 6:00 o'clock and leave their homes anywhere between 4:30 and 5:00 o'clock. Lots of them. The picture isn't overdrawn at all. Mr. Higgins : If they go to work before 6 :00 o'clock, what rate do they take? Mr. Stone : There is no distinction for the engine crew, whether they go to work at midnight or 1:00 o'clock or 2:00 o'clock. Mr. Higgins : There is for the big end of the crew, the ground crew, three men, and they get the night rate. There isn't any- thing in calling a man out of bed in the morning and paying him a night rate on a day job, you know. Mr. Stone : Oh, there isn't enough difference to make it very much of an object to the company. And the night rate was given, as I understand it, because of the increased danger of the service at night. Hotfooting it around a yard after dark. The Chairman : These are pretty bum jobs, aren't they, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: They are a necessary evil. 190 Mr. Higgins : Now, the fact is, that if you start an engineer to work at any time outside of 6 :00 A.M., or 6 :30 A.M. to 8 :00 A.M., in the West, you pay the night rate. Mr. Stone: To the yard crew? Mr. Higgins : To all the crew. Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Higgins : Well, one of the arguments used was that if you started the day man to work after 9 :00 o'clock in the morning the children were in school at that time and they had to have their breakfast earlier and the father would necessarily get up later and have to have another breakfast. That was the argu- ment against starting a man between 9 :00 o'clock and 12 :00 o'clock in the morning. Now, you can't start a man in the yard, foreman and helper, except for the night rate, outside of 6 :30 A.M. to 8 :00 A.M. Mr. Stone: But the fact remains that you can start theiji and you do start them, whenever the requirements of the business require a crew. Mr. Higgins: Oh, yes. Mr. Stone : And it doesn't matter whether it is 1 :00 o'clock or 2:00 o'clock or 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you start him. Mr. Higgins: Isn't that, Mr. Stone, an absolute necessity of the railroad business? Mr. Stone : Sometimes a necessity and more often it is the Company's convenience. Mr. Higgins : Is the business not going on 24 hours a day every day in the year? Mr. Stone: No. Mr. Higgins : Therefore, don't it follow that we must all be ready at any hour of the day to meet the requirements of that business? It differs in that respect from any other business in the world, that I know of. So we can't plead that that is a new condition. That condition has existed as long as railroads have existed. Mr. Stone : That is absolutely true. We have been pleading all these years and now we want you to pay for it. Mr. Higgins: But you have considered it, my dear fellow, all these years in making the rates and it is an old thing. I heard it 25 years ago in talking rates. Mr. Stone: Twenty-five years ago you were talking on the other side of the table. 191 Mr. Higgins : Excuse me, 25 years ago I was a trainmaster over here in Cairo. Mr. Garretson: You got him just a little too early, that is all. Mr. Stone: I know when he left this side of the table and went to the other. It is about 26 or 27 years ago. Mr. Higgins : Of course, I am a very well preserved young man. Mr. Stone: There are others. Mr. Crowley : Mr. Chairman, I want to get clear on this 12- hour yard job that you and Mr. Dodge were talking about. It is stated here that there are certain yards that the men are work- ing on what is known as 12-hour shifts, and they are paid $4.80, the yard rate. Now, as I understand it, if such a run exists and it was put up on the bulletin board and bid in as a 12-hour posi- tion, this $4.80 rate will follow the 8-hour service. Mr. Dodge : Yes, that would be the rate for 8 hours. Mr. Crowley: Yes, and then he'd get |4.80 for the 8 hours and 4 hours overtime at time and a half, and the new overtime rate would be based on |4.80, divided by 8. Mr. Stone : No, sir. Mr. Dodge : No, it would be |4.00 divided by 8, which would be 50 cents, and a half added would be 75 cents. Mr. Crowley : Then the new overtime rate would be 75 cents. Mr. Dodge : |7.80. Mr. Crowley: |7.80 for what is now paid |4.80. If that assignment existed on January 1, 1916, that is the understanding. Mr. Dodge : That is the way I draw it. The Chairman : In that case you'd determine your pro rata rate and your overtime rate by the basic standard rates for say, 33, 35, 38 and 40-cent rates. Those would become — what you'd pay for 10 hours would become the pay for 8 hours. Mr. Dodge: That is, time and a half? The Chairman : Now, wait a minute. That would become the rate for 8 hours. The |4.00 for 10 hours a day would become the rate for 8 hours. Mr. Dodge : Yes, sir. • The Chairman : And all your overtime would be based on time and a half, one-eighth of |4.00, or 75 cents. 192 Mr. Dodge : Yes, sir, that is the way I understand it. The Chairman : You won't take a pro rata rate of the |4.80 for 8 hours, because you are paying |4.80 for the first 8 hours in the case just cited. Mr. Dodge : Well, now, Mr. Lee, to be honest with you, I couldn't answer that now. I wouldn't want to say yes or no, because I might be wrong, you know. The Chairman : You want to take that under consideration for awhile? Mr. Dodge : Yes. The Chairman : Very well. Mr. Dodge : I don't wish to make a statement, unless I am correct. The Chairman : Absolutely correct, Mr. Dodge, very cor- rect, very proper and I can absolutely realize that. Some of these things that occurred to us, haven't occurred to you gentlemen before. Mr. Garretson : We want to follow it through. The Chairman : Exactly so, it is a reasonable proposition, no opprobrium can be cast at you if you can't answer right off the bat some of these things that we have been thinking about. I want to state that in all fairness to you gentlemen. We have run up against a good many of these things, people have asked us these questions in calculating these various statements. Mr. Garretson: I am promising myself that I may have a few questions to ask before I get done, that will make somebody hesitate before they answer. The Chairman : I haven't a doubt of it, Mr. Garretson, have- n't a doubt of it. Mr. Garretson: Sure. The Chairman : Because in all of these things one is based on the other. They are bound to be if it was a question on one side, it was a question on the other. Mr. Garretson: Sure. The Chairman : Well, then, you will go over that thing and let us know about that, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: Yes. Ittr. Higgins: Here is one that differs a little, maybe, Mr, Dodge, from those we have been discussing. Pilots and back-up men, working 12 hours or less a day, on a monthly rate, work 193 some of them, 11 consecutive hours, including the meal hour. How will you obtain the daily and hourly rate for them on the overtime rate? Mr. Dodge : I will answer that. You pay |125 a month to some of them? Mr< Higgins : It is the Santa Fe Coast Line, pilots and back-up men. Mr. Dodge: How are they classed, as yardmen? Mr. Higgins : As yardmen, yes. You will find them on the Missouri Pacific also. Mr. Stone : How is the monthly rate fixed? How is it ar- rived at? Mr. Higgins : Well, I couldn't answer that without refer- ring to the schedule, but I take it he can obtain that from the schedule. ■■ |] '*^1^ Mr. Dodge : The chance is it is |120 a month. They multi- plied 30 days by |4.00, that would make the |120. Probably the day's rate multiplied by the number of days in the month. Mr. Higgins : The Puget Sound have a contract provision here — if the man acts as yardmaster, he is paid one hour more per day than the time turned in by the crew. Mr. Dodge : You know, Mr. Higgins, we don't represent offl- cials. The yardmaster is an official. I don't suppose you'd allow us to fix his rate, and put time and a half for overtime because he'd make a good many hours in the day? Mr. Higgins : This man is a foreman who acts as yard- master, some outlying small yard, I take it. Mr. Dodge : Well, that would be a special condition, that you'd have to, I suppose, take up — Mr. Higgins : He would still have the right to contract pri- vately there. Mr. Stone : That is an arbitrary allowance fixed, isn't it, one hour per day? Mr. Higgins : I take it this is in your schedule. Mr. Dodge : Well, I have not worked in the Western coun- try, so I couldn't tell you, Mr. Higgins. The Chairman : Several railroads have agreements covering payment for more than one class of service. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : To be paid pro rata for each class. 194 Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : For instance, take an engineer : He works 6 hours on a |4.25 engine, and 4 hours on a $5.00 engine. That is, 6 hours at |4.25, makes |2.55, and 4 hours on the $5.00 engine, 12.00, which makes a total of |4.55 for 10 hours. On what rate per hour, Mr. Stone, would the overtime be calculated in that case? Mr. Garretson : We have a lot of schedules that provide if a man does two classes of work, he will be paid at the highest rate. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : For all of them. Mr. Sheppard : Some of them pay two days. Mr. Garretson : And we have others that pay the minimum day in each class of service, and I think there are a few cases where there is no combination work for them. Mr. Sheppard: We have a minimum day where we start and plus the other service. The Chairman: Yes, and then vice versa you have agree- ments where it says they will be paid hours for the first class of service and miles or hours, for the first class of service, and a minimum day for the second; vice versa, there are all kinds of these. Mr. Garretson: Oh, there are — The Chairman : I don't know whether it is general. Mr. Stone: I think in the majority of our schedules he would be paid at the higher rate. The Chairman : His overtime would be based on the higher rate. Mr. Stone : I think so. Mr. Walber: No, but where the schedule now existent is silent on that, Mr. Stone — where they do not tell yoa definitely. Mr. Stone : What road have you in mind? Mr. Walber: New York Central. They pay the overtime rate applicable to the class of engine used, when the overtime is made. Say they start out with a small engine and wind up the day with a big engine, they would get paid at the big engine rate; if you reverse it, paid at the small engine, whichever engine they were using at the time the overtime began. Mr. Shea : Well, Mr. Walber, the highest rate applies also. 195 Mr. Walber: They don't have that with the firemen. It is an engineer's rule. Mr. Stone : I would say the higher rate. There is very little difference between the two rates over there anyway. Mr. Walber: Well, you have cases where they might get a Mallet for part of the day. Mr. Stone: Well, if he got a Mallet, he ought to have two days instead of a higher rate, whether it is covered by the schedule or not. Mr. Walber: Well, that is not according to the present rules. That would necessitate a modification of the present rules. Mr. Stone : I suppose they follow the present custom, what- ever it is, in the absence of any fixed rule in the schedule on that particular road. Mr. Walber : Well, I would consider that a definite answer, Mr. Stone, if it has to be the answer. The Chairman : Now, we will take one of your Mallet en- gines you are speaking of, Mr. Stone, pusher service on the D. & H. They are paid 60 miles at five cents a mile, with six-hour overtime limit. What becomes of such an arrangement as that under this proposition? Mr. Stone: What do you mean? The Chairman : Well, is that wiped out or changed in any way? Mr. Stone : I would understand that — The Chairman: We will take a recess for three or four minutes. (Chairman calls meeting to order at conclusion of recess.) Mr. Stone : Now then, we will go after that question again. The Chairman : Mallet engines and pusher service, you say this is a Firemen's Eule? Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman: Yes, they are paid 60 miles at five cents a mile, or f3.00 for a minimum day of six hours. Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman : Does that still stand, Mr. Shea, under this proposition, to your mind? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir, I would say under that that they would retain their |3 rate for six hours, and if required to work longer 196 than six hours they would be paid for time and a lialf at tlie rate of 75 cents per hour — one-sixth of |3. And at time and a half then. The Chairman: The only change in that then would be, to your idea, the change in the overtime rate? Mr. Shea : The change in the overtime rate. The Chairman: Anything after six hours would be paid for at time and half times the fifty-cent rate, or 75 cents an hour? Mr. Shea : Well, it would be one-sixth of |3, 50 cents and 25 cents which would be 75 cents. The Chairman: Yes, every hour — or every minute after 6 hours they would be paid at the rate of 75 cents an hour. Mr. Shea: But I understand, Mr. Chairman, under this rule, with the Delaware and Hudson, that they cannot work a fireman longer than 6 hours on that class of engines because the rule says : "Mallet type, 6 hours or less, 60 miles or less." No fireman will be required to work more than 6 hours or 60 miles, without at least 8 hours' rest." The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: Now, the only way they could work him longer than 6 hours would be, of course, in a case of extreme emergency. The Chairman : I would understand that under that rule. Mr. Shea : But in that case, Mr. Lee, I would say that that is the basic rate, |3.00 for 6 hours, and if required to work longer than 6 hours, he would be paid at the rate of 75 cents per hour. The Chairman : Yes. Now, can I look at that schedule just a moment? ( Schedule referred to handed to the Chairman by Mr. Stone. ) The Chairman : That raises one point in my mind that while we are on that particular subject, I might get cleared up, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : All right. The Chairman : After he has worked the six hours, then he is off for eight hours and goes on duty again, tlK-ii a new day Avould begin. Mr. Shea: Well, I understand under the — The Chairman : In helper service, I am speaking of. Mr. Shea : Well, what rule would that come under? The Chairman: Helper servir-e, I take it, would not come under the yard rule. Mr. Stone : In road serwice he could be called out again after eight hours' rest, but you couldn't use him again for another eight hour period in yard service until after a twenty-four period. 197 The Chairman : But I understand that rule doesn't apply to Mallet engines in yard service, only in helper service. Mr. Shea: Unless there is some rule in the schedule cover- ing that. I would say in yard service if the service is based on a ten-hour or less per daj', and they receive a four-dollar rate by putting them on an eight-hour day, they would carry the $4.00 for eight hours, and if required to work longer than eight hours they would be paid at the rate of seventy-five cents per hour. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : By dividing |4.00 by eight, which would be fifty cents, and one-half of fifty being twenty-five, it would make the overtime rate for firemen on Mallet yard service seventy-five cents. The Chairman : Then that question that I raised wouldn't apply in the helper service for the helper service man worked his six hours and then laid off his nine hours and went to work again, a new day would begin, not time and a half. Mr. Shea: I would say so, in helper service, because we consider helper service road service. The Chairman : Yes, and the time and a half would begin after the six hours. Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman : In the case we are speaking of, we have a number of cases where helper engines are on varying trip bases. They will go up and down so much for a trip up and down the hill —so much a trip up and down the hill; may make two or three of those during the day. Would this, to your mind, preclude the continuance of that practice? Mr. Stone: I understand it would be optional with the men which they would accept. Are you referring now to the helper service on the Pennsylvania? The Chairman: Why, it is true also on some of the other roads, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Yes, they go up and down the hill and are paid overtime after three hours or four hours, as the case may be. I would understand it would be optional with the men whether they continued that or whether they took the new settlement. The Chairman : That would be then a straight eight-hour basis from the time called until relieved? Mr. Stone: On the new settlement. The Chairman : On the new settlement. Mr. Stone: What we quote here. 198 Mr. Walber : A number of those trip rates are proportional to ten-hour days — two and one-half hours, three hours, five hours. Would they have to be made proportional to eight? Mr. Shea: Well, now, Mr. Walber, how is that time com- puted now — continuously? Mr. Walber: On each trip, Mr. Shea, from the time of re- porting for that trip until relieved on that trip — if they have a three-hour trip rate, a two-hour and 30 minute trip rate or a five-hour trip rate. Mr. Shea : Well, supposing now, they made a trip consum- ing three hours and then were delayed three hours before making another trip, and then they made another trip in two hours. How would they be compensated under your rule? Mr. Walber: At present? Mr. Shea: Yes. Mr. Walber : At present for each one of those trips, say he would make several trips, each trip stands by itself, and he would get twice the two-trip rates on one railroad. On another rail- road they have the trip rates with a minimum of one day, if no other service was performed, but he holds the men on subject to call for additional service. On Baltimore and Ohio they have a certain number of trip rates, and the man may work only one trip during the day and he can lay off. He gets that trip-rate, but he is paid strictly on the trip basis. Mr. Shea : Well, with a minimum of 10 hours — Mr. Walber : Not with a minimum of 10 hours — Mr. Shea: If he makes one trip he is entitled to 100 miles? Mr. Walber : No, sir ; he is entitled to the two and a half or three hours or five hours — whatever the trip allowance is. Mr. Shea: Well, I know, but there must be some minimum day feature there. Mr. Walber : There is not, and that is the only minimum applying to those trips. Mr. Shea: I know, but, supposing he only made one trip and consumed two hours and was not put into service again that day, what would his compensation be? Mr. Walber : The allowance for the one trip. Mr. Shea: What brought about that agreement? Wasn't the Baltimore & Ohio R. E. in the Eastern Arbitration Award? Mr. Walber : It was. 199 Mr. Stone : This was brought about by the fact that they swapped them for something else that was just as good. Mr. Walber : No, sir ; I beg your pardon, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone: I beg your pardon also. Mr. Walber : The men were given the privilege of going to the straight ten-hour day or maintaining their trip rates, the men on the division elected to maintain the trip rates. Mr. Stone : Because of the fact that some of the engines they had in service at that time no man on earth could stand to ride on for the number of hours they would require under the ten-hour basis and so they made a trip rate whereby they could make one or two trips and then lay off for the rest of the day. Mr. Walber : I do not know why the men elected to maintain the trip rates ; it was optional with them. Mr. Stone: For example, trip service between Piedmont and Altamont, where you say one-half day, I would understand instead of being five hours, as now, it would be four for a half- day. Mr. Walber : Well, that is what I want to develop and then take your two and a half hour trip. Mr. Stone: I would understand two and a half hour trip at the basis per hour, that would figure for eight hours instead of ten. Mr. Walber : Two and one-half is one-fourth of ten. Then one-fourth of eight would be two hours. Mr. Stone : I would understand they would take the rate that you would get for the eight-hour day at two and one-half hours at the eight-hour day rate. Mr. Walber : A lot of those fellows would be on overtime be- fore they start the trip. Mr. Stone : Well, they'd probably call another crew then ; it would be cheaper. Mr. Walber : Cheaper as far as that man is concerned, but not so far as the compensation to be paid is concerned. Mr. Walber: Who will have the decision as to that, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: Article IV says who will have the decision — "The General Committee representing the employees on each rail- road will determine which is preferable, and advise the officers of their Company." 200 The Chairman: Does that mean the committee of the four organizations will decide on one basis or does it mean that each separate committee will decide on the basis that seems to them proper? Mr. Stone: I would understand that each general commit- tee representing each organization will decide. The Chairman: Separately? Mr. Garretson : It couldn't be otherwise, as long as there are different conditions in the schedules allowed, because the engine- men woiild have a proviso covering something of that kind that is utterly and absolutely different from anything that we'd have. The Chairman : That is where it would cease, then, to be a concerted movement? Mr. Garretson : But in its application it would be individ- ual as applied to the organization. Mr. Walber : Before you leave this trip rate business, there is just one other thing I would like to get clear. Where the trip rate says one-half day, that is definite, but where the trip rate says two hours and thirty minutes overtime limit, how would that be affected? Mr. Stone : It takes two hours and thirty minutes and from the rate it is definitely figured on one-fourth of the daily rate. Well, we propose that the day shall be eight hours, and one-fourth of that would be two hours. You don't expect a man is going to work two hours and thirty minutes for one-fourth of an eight- hour daily rate? Mr. Walber: I just wanted to know how the proposition would apply, that is all. I don't understand that you are now attempting to argue the proprieties or equities of it, we are get- ting your interpretation of the proposition on these conditions which exist, and that is all. Mr. Stone : I understand you. The Chairman: I haven't attempted to argue. I want to find out what it means. Mr. Stone : I would understand that the man would be paid two hours and thirty minutes at the rate per hour divided — that is the daily rate divided by eight to get the hourly rate. Mr. Walber : Would the two hours and thirty minutes stand as the overtime limit, or would two hours become — Mr. Stone: Two hours and 30 minutes — it isn't overtime 201 at all, it is a fixed and definite time of 2 hours and 30 minutes after which overtime begins. Mr. Walber: Well, now that may be another twist to the proposition, it may not be so bad as the other. Mr. Stone : It depends on you to see something in it. Mr. Walber: Well, we have got to look pretty hard to get some consolation out of this. Mr. Stone : Well, I might say at the start that this proposi- tion wasn't put up with the idea of giving you any consolation at all. Mr. Walber : That is perfectly apparent. Mr. Stone : We just put it up to give the men some consola- tion. The Chairman: Article I (d) says: "All overtime is to be computed on minute basis and paid for at time and one-half times the pro rata rate." This minute basis, to what extent, if any, does the minute basis change existing rules — such as terminal delay and other arbitraries now paid after 30 minutes or more — • one hour? Mr. Garretson : The application of the overtime rule would in no sense modify or change existing arbitraries where there are arbitrary allowances for service performed. Wherever overtime is now paid on the basis of 30 minutes or less, or less than 30 minutes, they read both ways. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Although there is a minute difference in their application, or where it provides over 30 minutes, or 30 minutes or over, will be paid for as one hour, it would absolutely cancel that rule and put this in place of it, but where there are allowances, to illustrate, where a man is allowed one hour for preparatory time before leaving, and it is figured as an arbitrary, and road time commences at the end of it, or where it is paid, 30 minutes is the case in some, instead of the hour, and road time commences from it. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Or where, as in one case here, if the man makes one switch in that period he is paid extra for that as an arbitrary, it won't affect them an iota. It would leave them in force and effect. It makes one universal basis of computation for overtime itself, not for arbitraries T\'hich may have been founded 202 upon overtime. You bear in mind here, probably there won't be a better place to call attention to just one phase that we are up against. If the time ever comes when a body like this sits down to re^ase schedules, then all of these things naturally would be modified. But the object of this, as of all prior collective move- ments, at least upon the part of the conductors and trainmen — for I don't attempt to discuss the details of former collective move- ments of the enginemen — is not founded at all upon the basis of a schedule revision except wherein the proposition has specif- ically changed conditions, it leaves all other inequalities standing absolutely as they are, and it is an outgrowth of that very fact, that standardization has not proceeded farther than two or three points. We are up against these inequalities that we are at- tempting to get light on, and want to know how this will apply to them. But it leaves everything of that character absolutely unchanged wherever it is written except where it is specifically modified by a conclusion that may be reached on these. The Chairman : Yes, you don't feel that this is a good time to get some of those things ironed out? Mr. Garretson: Oh, I will say for ourselves, we have no authority to iron them out. Under the plenary power granted to your committee, I don't think it would go any further than we could. The Chairman : Well, our authority is fully equal to yours. Mr. Garretson: Well, if it is only equal — The Chairman : I said fully equal. Mr. Garretson : Yes, I say if it is just fully equal, it wouldn't touch them at all. We have absolutely no other author- ity than to discuss this and the things specifically amended by it. The Chairman: Yes, then, that wouldn't change these ar- bitraries except in such cases as I mentioned, the minute basis itself does not. Mr. Garretson : Has no relation to it. The Chairman: Has no relation to the 30 minutes, or the one hour after which these various arbitraries apply. Mr. Garretson: No, I would say not. The Chairman : Where payment is for incidental work or — these are arbitrary — or for incidental switching, you know, en route — 203 il Mr. Dodge : Doing construction work and talking coal, etc., running for water — The Chairman : Are in addition to a minimum day, but are deductible for overtime — quite a number of the schedules have that. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : When overtime accrues, would actual- time be deducted from the overtime, or would you deduct time and a half? Mr. Garretson: Lord, it strikes me that you have got to have a vision somewhere to see into that question. The Chairman : No, that is all right. What I want to get at is this : Perhaps I can phrase it in a little bit better terms — Mr. Garretson : To do so let me draw your attention to one thing, to deduct time and a half, that is a question of money and not of time. The Chairman: That is all right. Now, wait until I get this application to you. Mr. Garretson: Good. The Chairman: You deduct this time from the overtime before you start the payment of the time and a half; is that the idea? Mr. Garretson: This time stands by itself in nearly all of the schedules regardless of the time consumed in trip. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : In other words, it is paid if there is no over- time. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Butif it comes'in to overtime underthe terms of a large number of schedules, it would not be taken into con- sideration at all except that it would not be added to extend time. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: That is true, I think, in the majority of instances. There may be a few where it is paid as double time; that is, it is not used to extend overtime, but those cases are very scarce, indeed, I think. I doubt if it will exceed three or five where that proviso exists. Where it exists, it will leave it ; where it don't it won't add it. Now, on this deduction of time and a half, you bear in mind the deductions are all made on the basis of time. 204 and time and a half is only used to compute the result on what is classed as overtime, after the deduction is made. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Time and a half describes money, and not time. The Chairman : That is, cold dollars. Mr. Garretson: Sure. Mr. Walber : Mr. Lee, can I get that a little bit clearer for my own mind? The Chairman : Any time. Mr. Walber : Take a hundred-mile run, which does some in- termediate work, for which they are paid an hour — Mr. Garretson : An hour. Mr. Walber : And they are allowed eleven hours. Will you deduct that one hour from the eleven hours and pay for ten hours or will you have to pay for that hour at one hour and thirty min- utes and have thirty minutes paid for on account of that arbitrary en route? Mr. Garretson: That is exactly what I answered. That there were probably from three to live lines in existence where you'd pay eleven hours because the schedule provides to that effect, but in the average schedule where it provides differently the hour would be deducted, and that would bring it down to ten hours. It will depend on the terms of that individual schedule. Mr. Shea : Let me ask a question right there. Now, do you intend that there shall be a spread of 11 hours or only a spread of 10 hours with one hour that they consumed as switching en route? Mr. Walber : The case in question is one of a hundred-mile run out actually 11 hours a day. Mr. Shea : Now, there is a spread of 11 hours? Mr. Walber : Correct, and within those 11 hours is an al- lowance of one hour for switching en route, and the schedule pro- vides that they will be paid one hour therefor. Mr. Garretson : Regardless of the time consumed on run? Mr. Walber: AndtheymayhavebeenonlyworkingSOminutes at that switching, or 45 minutes, but they get the allowance of one hour. Now, wouldn't you deduct the one hour from 11 hours or would you calculate on this proposal three hours overtime at time and a half, deducting one hour at the straight pro rata rate? Mr. Shea : Yes, unless the schedule provisions provided 205 that that would be allowed as an arbitrary in addition to all other time and miles made on the trip. Mr. Garretson : It don't matter an iota whether he switched one minute or 59 minutes for that hour ; that don't enter into the problem at all. If it is an arbitrary allowance and the schedule provides that it will not be paid for twice, that it is deductible, then the dedxiction would take place and it would be 10 hours; that is on the hundred-mile run they'd pay two hours' overtime, one hour arbitrary, and 100 miles. The Chairman : Two hours overtime? Mr. Garretson : Oh, if he used 11 hours completely on the run, paid an hour arbitrary in the meanwhile, with a proviso that it won't extend the overtime, then an hour would be taken off the limit, leave 2 hours overtime and 8 hours for the 100 miles. Mr. Crowley : And one hour for the switching. Mr. Garretson : I took that out first ; I deducted that from the 11 hours and that left 10. Mr. Walber: Well, in that case, the hours you would pay for would be at the pro rata rate and not at 150 per cent, of the pro rata rate. Mr. Garretson: Oh, there you have got intermediate time, an arbitrary that is paid for regardless of whether there is over- time or not, and consequently it goes at an eighth of the daily rate. ]Mr. Walber : You can readily see Adhere we get our views on it; the idea is as we grasp the proposition, that the time and a half basis is claimed because of the longer hours' work, or as a penalty for any excess over 8 hours or for any excess overtime on the run, dividing by 12 and a half miles; we can't see why we should pay that bonus time for an hour within the first 8. That is what we are trying to get at. Mr. Garretson: Oh, if you want an answer to that, all I have got to say is that if they give you either 8 hours or 100 miles, not both, they have given you the equivalent for the money that is paid, and if they switch in between times, on the basis that you are paying them for in the arbitrary, unless you pay them for it, you are taking something away from them in addition to the equivalent of the money. Mr. Walber : The question in my mind is when the total elapsed time may be 8 hours, Mr. Garretson, on a 100-mile run. 206 Mr. Garretson. Sure. Mr. Walber: And yet within those eight hours you may use them for switching for one hour. The actual time by the clock is eight hours? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Walber : On the present basis we would pay on the 100 mile run, and iising 100 miles as ten hours, where it is pro- posed to be 100 miles and eight hours, for comparison. We would pay that man eleven hours? Mr. Garretson: Yes, certainly would. Mr. Walber : And in case the hour of switching be, say, be- tween the fourth and fifth hour on the run, why should that be increased by 50 per cent, over the increased pro rata rate? Mr. Garretson: Who said it would? Mr. Walber : ' That's what we are trying to find out. Mr. Garretson: I said just now it would not. Mr. Higgins : If the schedule provided that it should be paid at overtime rate — The Chairman : Start in again, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins: I was asking for information on Mr. Garret- son's last reply. If the schedule provided that that hour should be paid for at overtime rates, would it be paid at time and a half? Mr. Garretson : No, in my opinion, intermediate time of that character. To illustrate better, we will take it where no overtime accrues. It seems to me that the only answer that I could legiti- mately make — and I will make this absolutely subject to confer- ring with the others — ^is that all the addition to the rate that is paid for that time, is that it is paid on the basis of an eighth in- stead of a tenth. Mr. Stone: I want to add to that: That the schedule — if the schedule rule provided that it should be paid at the overtime rate, we certainly would take the time and a half. Mr. Garretson : We both hold that opinion. Mr. Higgins : Now, let me see if we have got that straight. A hundred-mile run paid in a total spread of eight hours. If he did one hour's intermediate switching and the schedule provided it should be paid at overtime rate, he would draw nine hours and a half. Mr. Garretson : He would. 207 Mr. Higgins: jSTow, if the schedule provided that it should be paid as an arbitrary only when it contributed to the overtime made on the trip, and he completed the trip in eight hours — Mr. Garretson: You are using a phrasing there that don't occur in any schedule, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins : I think I have one schedule in mind where at least — Mr. Garretson : Have you? Well. Mr. Higgins: Well, at least the ruling and the application of the schedule which govern — Mr. Garretson: That is different. Mr. Higgins : Which govern the application makes that pro- vision. Mr. Stone : That is so far a^^^ay that we won't even consider that. A ruling means almost anything. Mr. Higgins : I say we, the Missouri Pacific, operated under rules of that kind for some years. Mr. Stone: I think I can make that plain to you, Mr. Higgins, if you will pardon me for just reading an extract from two of these schedules that are in existence. Take for example, the Santa Fe Coast Line. It says "Shall be paid for at overtime rates." That is intermediate delay in work, "Shall be paid for at overtime rates." There is no question but what that man is going to get time and a half, because that is the overtime rate. Take another, the Canadian Pacific, "Will be paid for all in- termediate time at through freight rates, for time so occupied." That is simply the straight rate per hour. That is the differ- ence between the two. Mr. Garretson: If the allowance is only for an hour and the overtime rate not named, my answer to you is the correct one. If it is named in the form there, then it will take the time and a half. Mr. Higgins : Now, let's take the same man — • Mr. Sheppard (to Mr. Garretson) : Just what you said yes- terday to them. Mr. Higgins : Put him on a 9-hour trip over all, and he has done this one hour of intermediate switching, and that has caused the nine hours, or the hour's overtime. How will you pay him? Mr. Garretson : According to the terms of his agreement. 208 If the agreement does not make it deductible from overtime earned, then he will be paid 9 hours for the run and one hour for the arbitrary — that is, the 9 hours. Mr. Higgins : Yes, and if that one hour was at the pro rata rate he received 9 hours straight time and one hour at the same hourly rate. Mr. Garretson: If he was paid at the through freight rates? Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Garretson : If the schedule so read, then he would re- ceive 9 hours each of equal value. Mr. Higgins : That is right. In other words, he would re- ceive in that case 30 minutes less than he did on the previous trip. Mr. Garretson : Exactly so. Mr. Higgins : Although only 9 hours on the road. Yes, I think I get you. Mr. Garretson : I think a great deal of the confusion that gets into the minds of the secretaries in these negotiations is that when they get confused they don't write to me for an opinion in every case. I can straighten them beautifully. Mr. Higgins : This is our first opportunity in this partic- ular case. Mr. Garretson: Oh, yes; but I was referring to past ones. Mr. Walber : Well, I don't think that we will get much en- lightenment if we happen to write to two of you about it. Mr. Garretson: Well, that is only when the tone of your letter calls it out. The Chairman : What is the effect of these proposals on ten- hoiir departure rules, for instance, such as this Northern Pacific — In freight and mixed service a turn-around run is a run from a terminal to an intermediate point and return to starting terminal ; time to be continuous and not less than one hundred miles to be allowed for each run. Except that this rule will not prevent the calling of crews and the assignment of them to a succession of uhort trips out of a terminal, provided the second or any succeed- ing run shall be started within ten hours from the time crews were required to come on duty for the first trip, when the actual miles run equal or exceed 100, otherwise additional runs will be considered as commencing a new day. I take it that that is very similar to the second clause of Article "I" of the Eastern award. Mr. Garretson: Changed. 209 The Chairman : Change that ten-hour day? Mr. Garretson : Undoubtedly that is based on the duration of the day. Mr. Shea : It is on the ten-hour basis. Mr. Higgins : How would it operate where it is a twelve hour departure rule, such as the Missouri Pacific and the Puget Sound end of the Milwaukee have? Mr. Garretson : I wouldn't like to answer that unless I had the schedule. Mr. Higgins : The rule is identical with the exception that it is 12 hours instead of 10. Mr. Garretson : Mr. Stone tells me that the 12-hour rule as it occurs on the Missouri Pacific, for instance, is a legacy from the 12-hour day period. If that is the case, it would be subject to exactly the same interpretation that this 10-hour is, but this is a comparatively modern rule, this Northern Pacific. Mr. Higgins: Well, the 12-hour rule is for the protection of both the men and companies, based, of course, on the 12-hour day, and precludes the making of two days in one. While the Northern Pacific rule permits the making of two days in a period of 24 hours — two full days. Now, if that was further reduced to 8 hours, it would permit making 3 days within a 24-hour period. Mr. Garretson : Well, that has not been an uncommon per- formance in some instances in the past, and it is absolutely mak- able under Missouri Pacific rule, provided two things don't inter- vene — other crews ahead on arrival at the terminal, or the inter- position of the 16-hour law. And if you run them fast enough you could run them 300 miles in 16 hours. Mr. Higgins : Oh, that is true ; on a mileage basis, you can very readily do that on any schedule. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Higgins : But this is on a turn around run, you under- stand. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Higgins : A man may go out 30 miles, then may be tied up, but he has got to start his return trip before the expiration of 12 hours from the time he starts. Mr. Garretson: Well, that only — Mr. Higgins: Otherwise, he starts a new day. Mr. Garretson : That is onlv another form of the rule that 210 we meet in a different way by making all round trips, or turn arounds, beyond a certain length, continuous. Mr. Higgins: Oh, this is a general rule applying to every turn-around run on the system. Mr. Garretson : With the motive power men? Mr. Higgins : With the motive power men. Mr. Garretson : Yes, I say we meet it in a different way ; we have the continuous turn-around clause. In other words, the turn-around problem on most of our roads doesn't arise — there is only one terminal for a turn-around run and that is the point it starts froiu, intervening time there isn't deducted. And conse- quently a rule of that kind is absolutely superfluous in a large part of our agreements. For a short turn around, we figure time un- til we get back to the initial point. Mr. Higgins : This is the Missouri Pacific rule, which is the road we are discussing? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Higgins: Your men, conductors and brakemen, who lay there between terminals, must resume work also in 12 hours — go on duty? Mr. Garretson: Y^es, I said there were a few cases of it. We seldom have it. Mr. Sheppard: They start a new day when they resume? Mr. Higgins: They start a new day after 12 hours. Now, I was wondering what the effect would be on this 12-hour depart- ure rule of this eight-hour proposition — Mr. Garretson: Well, if that is the object of it, that they start a new day after twelve hours, it don't seem to me a con- sistent ground could be taken other than to say that now the day having come down to eight, and a day having elapsed if they are called after that, a new day should start. Mr. Higgins : This is in turn around service, Mr. Garretson, it is not continuous. Mr. Garretson : It don't matter an iota. Mr. Higgins: I have in mind the run from St. Louis to Riverside, 24 miles as I recall it. Now, he could go down there in three hours. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Higgins : Two hours' time. If he is released there, you hold though he is released, that on the return he must start inside of eight hours or commence a new day. 211 Mr. Garretson: It seems to me right, because he has given you then the amount of the extent of a day. And if you call him after that, it should start on the basis of a new day. You bear in mind those rules had their origin in men going off, and getting marooned at those turn-around points. I put one rule of that kind in, where inside of three months, we had something like 30 cases where men had run up in the neighborhood of 70 hours de- lay down there. There is what it grew out of. Mr. Higgins : When you put in a twelve-hour rule you have protected a man — that guarantees him a day in every 24 hours. Mr. Garretson : Oh, that is possibly true, Mr. Higgins: Yes, now that was all they wanted on the Northern Pacific. They got in a ten-hour departure rule and we know of a regular passenger run where the man gets two days (the engine crew I am speaking of) every day. Mr. Shea : This doesn't apply to passenger service. Mr. Higgins: The turn around rule applies to all service, the same things hold in freight and passenger. And I think it does on the Northern Pacific. Mr. Shea : Well, I don't understand, Mr. Higgins, that if this proposition was adopted, it would affect your passenger ser- vice. Mr. Higgins : I understand ; the rule applies with equal force to both passenger and freight service. Mr. Shea : On your schedule you will have — Mr. Garretson : How is his equity in that payment, as you understand it? The payment of the two days to the other man's one day? Mr. Higgins: There is this running in my mind — that though the turn around run is the short service, and that is what you desire by this movement, it is a great deal more expensive than continuous service, of long hours, because in the case we have just disposed of, a man commences his new day at the end of eight hours, he has only rendered three hours' service ; but had he gone out on a through trip, he might have worked ten, twelve hours straight away for less money because he could only draw time and a half at that rate. Mr. Garretson: I fancy that wherever that works out and you are paying a man two days for each calendar day, the Com- panies themselves are going to correct that. Mr. Higgins : But they could not pay two days in each cal- 212 endar day under a 12-hour departure rule; that is what it's for, to protect both the man and the company. They pay him one day each 24 hours and no more unless it runs into overtime. Mr. Garretson: A short turn-around is best illustrated on branch service. The man leaves here at 12, noon. He goes out here to the turn-around point, and unless he is called by 12, mid- night, you pay him a new trip — a new day, when he starts? Mr. Higgims : That is right. Mr. Garretson : Well, we will say that that is a 4-hour run. You call him here at 12.20, pay him a new day; he comes in here in 4 hours. Now what is to hinder him working again the next day? He's only been on duty 8 hours in a continuous 24-hour period. Where is your bar in your 12-hour rule? He can do that 31 calendar days per month if his physical endurance will let him. Mr. Higgins : Well, but you don't have such runs as that. Mr. Garretson : If you don't, how do you pay this man two days for every day on it? Mr. Higgins : All that he could possibly get under it would be 45 days a month; that is the most he could get under the 12- hour rules of any schedule you can figure. Now, I will leave that statement with you and you can get your sharp-shooters to work on it. But he can't get more than 45 days in any month. Mr. Garretson : Well, if he can't, it is because the Company won't let him. Mr. Higgins : No, because it is not there ; it isn't in the cards. Now, under a ten-hour rule, he could get two days every day in the month and not work hard either. We had a case of it in our Western Arbitration, on the Northern Pacific E. R., and under an eight-hour departure rule, I believe he could get three days, if not within the 24 within a very few minutes over the 24-hour period. Mr. Garretson : It occurs to me that you must be confusing a working period with ten hours or less. Mr. Higgins : You get some of your men to figure that out. Mr. Garretson : Well, I really — Mr. Higgins: Mr. Stone is familiar with it; he's got it on the Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific — Mr. Garretson : Well, it will take more than a pencil to con- vince me. Mr. Stone : With the exception of two roads, there are only 213 two roads that I recall, that have the 12-hour period, the rest are all 10. And It is certainly my understanding that they will come to the 8-hour period in the application of this rule. The Chairman : The 12 as well as the 10. Mr. Stone : Absolutely so. Eegardless of the number of days he can make in a 24-hour period or anything else — I want to figure that out a little bit. The Chairman : I don't get that 45 days myself, but I won't say it is wrong, though. Mr. Stone : I don't either. I won't say anything's wrong. But in figuring, the result you get is largely what you started out to get. Mr. Garretson : Under the 12-hour rule it only takes 16 hours. Assuming that it is a four-hour run, it only takes 16 hours to run two days. The Chairman : Say that again, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Under the 12-hour rule, assuming that this turn around is four hours out, and four hours back, it only takes a maximum of 16 hours and one minute to earn two days. The Chairman : Yes, but that completes that day. Mr. Garretson : That completes that day. Mr. Higgins : Now, you quit figuring ; and you figure the next half from the time he commences the trip again. Mr. Garretson : Yes, here is the trip. Went out at 12 :00 o'clock M, he was there at 12 :00 o'clock midnight. One minute after midnight he was called to come back and at 4 :00 A.M. he was back here in his terminal and he had 8 hours to get out at 12 :00 noon again. The Chairman: Oh, no. Mr. Garretson: Well, show me. The Chairman : Well, he has been on duty sixteen hours, you can't call him under ten. Mr. Higgins : I can call him ten hours from the time he is started any time. That is one of those sixteen hour examples which you cited at first, but I say that is only a stage situation, you know. Mr. Garretson: On sixteen-hour service, wherever the time consumed on the run is four hours or less, the man can earn sixty -two days' pay in a thirty-one day month and not violate the law. "' 214 Mr. Higgins : Oh, and not violate the law. But after he has completed his trip, you understand ; that calculation is true, you can start that man again inside of the twelve hburs. Mr. Garretson : Why sure you can. Mr. Higgins: And then he don't get the second day? Mr. Garretson: Yes, he does. Mr. Higgins : No, he does not, that is why he only gets the forty-five days a month. Mr. Stone: They won't call him before the period is up. Mr. Coapman: How old is Ann? Mr. Garretson : If you don't call him I will admit he can't make it. Mr. Higgins : No, but that is the purpose of the rule. Mr. Garretson: He will go out every calendar day just the same. Mr. Higgins: No, not if he leaves at 12 o'clock one day and 12 the next and that is necessary in order to get it. Mr. Stone: Now, Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. We stand on the eight hours. The Chairman : What do you mean, 1 o'clock? Mr. Stone : No, on this question before the House. The Chairman: We know, on this thing, the 12-hour departure rule, whether it is 12 hours or ten hours, it comes to eight. All right, I have got that down, 12 to eight, as well as ten to eight. Here is a question that is a little bit involved, and if you will listen to it until I get through with it, it will be apparent what I am talking about, perhaps. Mr. Garretson : That is the saving clause — perhaps. The Chairman : That is on Number IV. Do these proposals apply to crews or men handling extra or special passenger trains or acting as pilots on passenger trains, who are now paid on the basis of freight rates and freight overtime? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson : Now, I think you get the significance of the answer. There are a number of schedules which provide for the purpose of protecting men on short runs, that if a man engages in passenger service, up to a certain period, he is paid for the service at freight rates. For instance, Mr. Kouns' schedule used to pro- 215 vide that the man was paid at that rate for so many days, if the assignment was not beyond a certain amount of days. Mr. Sheppard : It is five now, I think, on the D. & E. G. Mr. Garretson : Seven days, I think it is, in your schedule, Mr. Kouns? Mr. Kouns : That is wlj recollection. Mr. Garretson : And if the assignment is longer than seven days, then he takes up passenger pay. Now, you bear in mind the answer unequivocally is for that portion of the service if he is paid at the freight rate — The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Where it provides the extra man will be paid the passenger rate, it would not apply to him from our standpoint, but wherever that runs through the agreements on that road that is the way it would be applied. Mr. Coapman : To freight rates and passenger service? Mr. Garretson : Yes, that would apply. Mr. Coapman : What is your speed basis? Mr. Garretson: Speed basis? As far as that is concerned, you have got a conundrum on this. Mr. Coapman: Does the character of train or the char- acter of pay — Mr. Garretson: The fact is, the overtime that enters into that kind of passenger service is a problem that I have not even considered — have not looked at at all, and I am guessing yet. I will try to answer that for you a little later on. The Chairman : We will adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING. NEW YORK JUNE 6. 1916 No. 5 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kouns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. P. Ry. L. W. Baldwin, H- ^- McMastek, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. ^t^^'^ Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. ^ „ „ N. D. Mahbk, E.H.COAPMAN Viee-Pres., N. & W. Ry. Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. , „ James Russell, S. E. Cotter, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R.^R. Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. a. M. Schoter, P. E. Crowley, ResidentVice-Pres.,Penna. Lines West Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. W. L. Seddon, G. H. Emerson, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. ^- J- S™^!!, Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. C. H. EWING, Q g ^^jjj Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. Vice-P^es. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset E. W. Grice, Central Lines. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & 0. Ry. J. W. Higgins. A. S. Greig, C- P- Neill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J. G. Walber. Representing the Organizations A. B. Garretson, Pres., 0. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engiaeer, B. of L. E. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of R. T.) Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppard, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. 217 New York, N. Y., June 6, 1916. Met pursuant to adjournment at 10 :00 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman : I have some telegrams from the front here this morning. Mr. Dodge : I got one from the trenches. The Chairman: "Authorization of the Illinois Central and the Y. & M. V. include Hostlers." Mr. Shea : One moment. Have you any further advice from the Y. & M. V. as to your authorization to represent firemen? The Chairman: We do not represent firemen on the Y. & M. V. Mr. Shea: Have you taken up that matter further with the officers? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea: Of that road? The Chairman : Yes. It says there is no organization of the Y. & M. V. firemen on our line. Mr. Shea: We don't subscribe to that statement at all. We have quite a number of members, white firemen, on that road, and the reason I mention it at this time is because the Y. & M. V. participated in our Western Arbitration, and so far as the award is concerned, it did apply to the white firemen on that road. The Chairman: I am not familiar with the circumstances of the particular award there. Mr. Shea : Now, won't it be well for you to get some infor- mation on this from either Mr. Park or Mr. Foley? The Chairman : We wired Mr. Foley in the matter. We asked him the direct question as to whether or not his authority to us included firemen. And he comes back and says that it does not include firemen on the Y. and M. V. That is one of those things that you want to include to us when we stop getting these messages. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman : As I take it you want to make a memoran- dum. Mr. Shea : We will cover that in our final letter, which will embrace all of these different inclusions. The Chairman : Yes, all of them, and just give us your rea- 218 sons why you think these various ones should or should not be, and then we can take it up intelligently. You may have reasons that don't occur to us, and we would like to have your reasons before we finally close up the thing. Do you understand? Mr. Shea : All right, we will do that, Mr. Lee. The Chairman : Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix, includes hostlers. Mr. Garretson : That is under the Santa Fe lines in your sheet? The Chairman : No, it is separate. Mr. Garretson : Includes hostlers? The Chairman : Includes hostlers. C. & G. W. excludes hostlers. Mr. Shea : What road is that, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : Chicago and Great Western. Mr. Garretson : Chicago and Great Western. Mr. Shea : Of course you understand, Mr. Lee, that that is another road that participated in our Western Arbitration, in which their schedule now provides a rate of pay and rules of em- ployment for hostlers, and, of course, we shall insist upon repre- senting all employees covered by our present schedule and which also includes the Western Arbitration Award. The Chairman : Fort Worth Belt excludes hostlers. Union Stock Yards Co., Omaha, excludes their hostlers. The Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic includes hostlers. Mr. Shea : Does that Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic in- clude the Mineral Range also? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman (To Mr. Higgins) : How about that? Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Garretson: The authorization here says, yes. Mr. Shea : And that would also apply to the hostlers on the Mineral Range? The Chairman: I understand El Paso & Southwestern ex- cludes hostlers. Mr. Shea: Our ansAver to the Chicago, Great Western will apply with equal force to this line. The Chairman: I would understand, Mr. Shea, that your objection applies to all of them under the Western award. 219 Mr. Shea: Yes. The Chairman : So we won't leave you in any anxiety. It gave you El Paso & Southwestern, didn't it? Mr. Garretson: Yes, sir. Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman: Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal ex- cludes hostlers. Minnesota & International excludes hostlers. St. Jo & Grand Island excludes hostlers. San Pedro, Los An- geles & Salt Lake exclude hostlers. Northwestern Pacific ex- cludes hostlers. N. O. T. & M. and B. S. L. & W., exclude hostlers. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient, exclude hostlers. Mr. Dodge : Now, Mr. Lee, I want to enter a protest against the Switchmen's Union on the Michigan Central, because after a thorough check we find that the trainmen's organization repre- sents a substantial majority of the men. For example, in Toledo there are 38 switchmen employed, 36 of which belong to the Trainmen, and west of Detroit we represent a large majority of the men employed in yard service for that property, and we believe as long as we have a majority, a good substantial ma- jority of the men, that this committee should be authorized by the Michigan Central people; that is, they represent the railroad and we'd represent the men. The Chairman: Would you agree to the converse of that also, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: No, I won't, because our contracts were made on those roads, and we had the majority, perhaps today we might not have a majority and tomorrow we might. The Chairman : Well, won't the same thing apply with that that you are speaking of? Mr. Dodge : No, I don't think so, by the telegram I received. Especially in Toledo we have got 36 out of 38, and then we repre- sent the men employed in the Toledo Terminal. Of course, I know it is owned by various railroads. But all those railroads, except- ing two, and that is the P. M. and the Clover Leaf, are repre- sented at this conference. The Chairman : It seems to me, Mr. Dodge, just offhand — -I haven't talked with the Committees on this proposition at all; if you take the position, that you should represent the men on a certain property, or in a certain yard, because you have the ma- 220 jority, it seems to me that the converse might apply also, when the Switchmen's Union has the majority, that they should repre- sent the men. I understand this is regardless of the contract. Mr. Dodge: Several years ago Mr. L'Hommedieu stated to our Committee on the Michigan Central, "Do you want the con- tract for yards?" and we said, "No," (because we didn't have a majority of the men). "All right, if you want the contract and have got the majority of the men, why we will give it to you." The Chairman : It seems to me that is a matter — Mr. Dodge: Well, I just wanted to have it written in the minutes. The Chairman : If you want to take it up with the roads- Mr. Dodge : I wish you would, especially the Michigan Cen- tral. The Chairman: It is a matter that the road itself would have to decide so far as we are concerned, Mr. Dodge. Mr. Dodge: All right, I wish you would. I would be very much pleased to have you do so. Mr. Garretson: There is one other point I want to ask a question in regard to. There is a class that isn't named here, that is covered in one of these authorizations at least. I want to ask in regard to another one; Mr. Crowley, you remember on the Lake Shore, there is a class of men, out of Chicago I think is where they exist. They are ticket collectors or assistant conductors. They are covered by the authorization from that line the same as they were before. Mr. Crowley : Oh, yes, if they are in the schedule now, and they are. Mr. Garretson : Well, they are. The Chairman : We don't have those on freight trains, do we? Mr. Garretson : No, but I only wanted to cover the ques- tion of authorization in case it should arise, for those men are named in the schedule, and you bear in mind they are not my men in that particular case. You remember you contract with the trainmen for them. Mr. Crowley : Yes. Mr. Dodge : On the Burlington they have what is called col- lectors. Of course they are passenger men, and we are not legis- lating for passenger men at this time. 221 Mr. Garretson : Of course they are passenger men, it is trne. I only want to know whether the authorization covered those classes as they are in the schedule. The Chairman : Where do they get into this matter? Mr. Garretson : I don't know. I hadn't it in mind when I asked the question. You remember that question arising. You remember it arose in the New York Central Arbitration. Mr. Crowley : I recall it. Mr. Garretson : I only wanted to see that they weren't over- looked in the event it might touch them. The Chairman : I can't get it into my head where this thing could touch them. Mr. Garretson : I don't think so, but that didn't occur to me at the time this occurred to me. I would go farther into the matter of a man absent — The Chairman : I see. Mr. Garretson : That was a detail that came up later, you remember, in the New York Central, and we had some question over it down there, and it just occurred to me while Mr. Dodge was talking whether those men were or were not included. The Chairman : Well, as a general proposition, Mr. Garret- son, don't the assistant conductors come in your organization, or are they in the trainmen's organization? Mr. Garretson : These are termed ticket collectors, and it is a grade of brakemen's seniority before he comes there. On the other roads down in this territory' that isn't in question at all. There they are assistant conductors and we contract for them. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : New Haven has a very large number of them, but the form of their authorization covered them, because, if you will remember, the wording was rather peculiar there, "employes as now dealt for." Their authorization is for all classes covered in existing agreements. The Chairman : You mean in this? Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes, but then the passenger man isn't under consideration. I don't know how those men are classed, because they are dealt for by the others, but I didn't want them overlooked. Mr. Crowley: But, as I recall it, Mr. Garretson, the Lake Shore nien are paid the same rate that a baggageman is paid. 222 Mr. Garretson: I think they are. Mr. Dodge : On the Burlington they are paid a little higher rate than the baggagemen. Mr. Garretson : I think the Lake Shore rate is exactly bag- gage rate. Mr. Dodge : Some of them get |100 a month. Mr. Stone : One thing I should like to have cleared up, Mr. Lee, before we get into the routine work this morning. I notice, in reading over the minutes, that the authorization for Western roads specified schedules that are anywhere from two to five years old. Do I understand that any settlement reached here will be applied to that schedule, or will it be applied to the schedule with the amendments and the award applied in the Western ter- ritory? Mr. Stone : I want to be perfectly frank about this, if you are trying to put something over here. The Chairman : Now, just a minute, Mr. Stone, we are not trying to put something over. Mr. Stone : Well, the wording is very peculiar. The Chairman : Just a minute. Mr. Stone : Take it for granted that it is the last schedule printed. If that is true, then I understand why some of the schedules have been held up on some technicality and not printed, although the award has been applied. Take, for example, the Santa Fe, the award has been applied and the agreement reached except on two disputed questions, which have been appealed to Mr. Story, the vice-president. Now, what we want to know is, does this authorization and this movement here, as applied, in- clude the award, or is the award shut out? Is the award recog- nized as a part of the present agreement? Or are you trying to go back of the award and give us something that happened three or four years ago? The Chairman : As I understand it, Mr. Stone, where some of these roads have specified certain schedules, they are to all intents and purposes, the existing schedule. Speaking for myself, now, as I understand this — I may be wrong — ^but I am going to give you what my opinion is — that they cover the schedules that are in existence, and I would take it that the award, being applied under those schedules, will come in under this movement. 223 Mr. Stone : I am satisfied from the wording that a number of the roads in the West don't contemplate any such action. The Chairman : Why do you say that, because they put these dates in? Mr. Stone : Yes, and because — The Chairman : I don't understand that. Mr. Stone : Because they take the position that the award does not have to be signed up, although it is to all intents and purposes a revision or an amendment to this schedule. They don't sign it up ; they say it became effective without being signed up, because it was an award handed down by a Board of Arbitration. And while they recognize it and pay it, they still say it is no part of the schedule, and we want to know whether this award is in- cluded in this movement or not, or whether you are going back of the award and giving us something that happened before the award was applied to those particular roads. The Chairman: My personal understanding is, Mr. Stone, that it would be included, but I will raise that question and get it perfectly clear for you, so that there will be no question about it. You are entitled to that knowledge. Mr. Stone : Absolutely so, and I say to you very frankly, we are going to insist and take the position all the way through, that all the amendments that have been made to those schedules from the dates given, including the application of the award and the disputed questions that are on appeal, will become part of the schedule and so recognized and applied in any settlement made here. The Chairman: Well, I won't differ very greatly with you on that, personally, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garretson: Now, bear in mind, I am not affected in any degree by a thing of that kind, but I know what would be my own attitude toward that question. If there is any purpose what- ever to evade the basic point upon which application of these things will be made, you can readily understand that we are go- ing right to the heart of what this conference is held for. The Chairman : Absolutely. I agree with you, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson: And consequently negotiation in itself be- comes purely tentative until that question is disposed of, for 224 we could not tolerate such a situation. You can readily under- stand that from our side, from the viewpoint of any man. What we base on is named here specifically for us. If your authority does not go to that notch, negotiation is useless. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson: We have got right down to a vital point here. The Chairman: Exactly. Mr. Garretson: This whole thing hinges on that. Now, I appreciate your expression of personal opinion that it is so, but you can readily understand that the expression of personal opin- ion won't get anywhere when we try to apply it to something. The Chairman : That is very true, Mr. Garretson ; that is why I asked Mr. Stone if there was any question in his mind. That question has not arisen in my mind at all. Mr. Garretson: And it hadn't in mine. The Chairman : But if there is any question, he is entitled to get straightened out on it. I propose to straighten him out; so we can say yes or no. Mr. Garretson : Undoubtedly, he is. The Chairman: That is what you Avant, is it? Mr. Stone : We certainly do. Mr. Garretson : Right there would come_ the "No" that would be final. The Chairman : Yes, it would be final. Mr. Garretson : And ))eai' in mliul, I am not saying this in the unfriendly sense at all. AVe could not afford to deal with you— The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : Unless your authorization went to the point of basing on these things that are laAvful, there may be a question as to the legality of our schedules. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : There can't be any question as to the legal- ity of the award handed down under the rules. The Chairman : None Avhatever, Mr. Garretson : It is in force and effect from the day of its application, although we may disagree over some details. The Chairman: Absolutely, that is what I say, that is a question that had never arisen in my mind but what we were dealing with the current schedules and the things that go along with them. Mr. Garretson: They should be incorporated, if they have not been. The Chairman : Yes. Are there any later schedules in ex- istence than these, Mr. Stone, that you have in mind, that are not mentioned? Mr. Stone: There perhaps are some schedules in existence, and there are perhaps some later schedules in existence, and there are a number of amendments or additions to the appendix. I think a couple of them are written, or addenda. Mr. Garretson: Interpretations? Mr. Stone: Interpretations on them, and back of all that stands the fact that on a number of roads and especially the Harriman lines, it is impossible to get the award applied. It hasn't been applied yet on the Southern Pacific or the Oregon Short Line. The Chairman : You can readily understand, Mr. Stone, that these things take quite a while, where you have a multiplic- ity of schedules. Mr. Stone: Certainly. The Chairman : It takes time to get them straightened out. I don't understand that there is any question of attempting to evade the award in any way, nor is there any attempt, as I un- derstand it, to shut out any portion of that award. Mr. Stone : Well, you take, perhaps, a kinder view of it than I would, after struggling for 14 or 15 months to apply an award the time limit of which has expired. We are confronted with another question that is being circulated around in a quiet way, in view of the fact it wasn't applied before May 11, 1916, when it expired, that it no longer exists. The Chairman : I would consider that rot. Mr. Stone : Well, I consider it worse than that. I consider it rotten. The Chairman : I would even go that far with you. Mr. Garretson : One more syllable. The Chairman: I don't think there is anything in that at all, Mr. Stone, I can't conceive of anything of that sort, or of 226 any road taking any sucli position. Now this question that you bring up had never occurred to me. I was under the impression we were going right along under the current schedule. Mr. Stone: You can readily — The Chairman : And you are entitled if you raise the ques- tion, if there is a question in your mind, you are entitled to an answer and if there is any schedule in existence that you have in mind that is not covered by these authorities that we have given you, if you will let me know, we will find out why it wasn't put in here. Mr. Stone : And regardless of whether there is a later schedule or not, we will take the position naturally on every one of the roads that was a party to the Western Arbitration and which are represented by this National Committee, that the award and everything else comes right down to the present time in your authority to represent them here. The Chairman : Why, that is a perfectly reasonable proposi- tion. We will straighten you out on this if there is any question in your mind; we will give you positive answer on that; we will wire today if there is any question. Mr. Garretson : Well, evidently there is, you see. The Chairman: The question does exist and it must be cleared up. It doesn't exist in my mind. Mr. Stone : I would also call your attention to the fact that the wording for the Western association is entirely different from any of the rest. It is the only one that specified the date of the schedule at all. The Chairman : Yes, well, I suppose that was brought about by the idea that they didn't want any extension of schedules, but now that brings up your other point, of course, and that has to be ironed out. Mr. Stone: All right. Mr. Garretson : In that connection just let me explain one thing further. You will remember when we started out with the Atchison and Santa Fe, and following that I turned to a number of the chairmen in the house to ask if that was the schedule in date — the one that is now effective. In almost every instance in those schedules, at least, it is common, there are inserts, pasted in the book, arrived at by the same terms, at a far later day than the date of the schedule. To us, and to the companies, in dealing 227 with those later addenda or interpretations on clauses thereof, that may have been mutually arrived at, are of equal force and effect with the schedule itself, and a part thereof. And we shall, without any question whatever, consider each and every one of those as part of the schedule, although the date m'ay be five years before the dating of those additions. Mr. Sheppard: The subsequent settlements are all in the back in full. Mr. Garretson: We have schedules yet in effect that have not been reprinted probably since the last increase was put in one or the other territories, I don't think that is true in the Eastern territory, but we have schedules in the Western terri- tory that followed the increase of 1910 for a number of years with nothing but a slip pasted in them of later date, making effective the ten per cent, increase that was granted at that time, and it is just as much a part of the schedule as the schedule itself. The Chairman: Absolutely, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : But I want to make it clear that that was our attitude toward those additions. Mr. Shea: You will recall, yesterday morning, Mr. Lee, I brought up the question of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, and referred to your authorization which applied to the schedules away back in 1910, 1911 and 1912, which schedules are obsolete because our Committee have negotiated an entirely new schedule, but the only question as to the draft being printed is two disputed points on the application of the award, which have been appealed to Vice-President Story and which I have handled, myself. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: Personally, Avith Mr. Story. Now, surely what- ever settlement we reach here in these negotiations, would apply to the schedule under which the men are now being paid, not only on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, but on every other road where the Western Arbitration award is involved, and we could not agree to any other terms. Mr. Stone : All right. The question is up to you. The Chairman : I don't suppose, Mr. Stone, you have had a chance to talk over with the New Haven man about that miles and hours overtime after ten hours, did you? Mr. Stone : I think the answer would be that they would 228 either hold their present rule, or accept a settlement. That would be my opinion. The Chairman : Hold on to the ten hours ; they wouldn't re- duce that ten hours to eight hours? Mr. Stone : I don't understand so, no, sir. The Chairman: Or go to the straight eight-hour basis? Mr. Stone : With time and a half for overtime. But, I understand, it would be optional with the Committees which they accepted, if the settlement was arrived at. The Chairman : They couldn't carry with that then, as I understood you, the time and a half basis for overtime, could they? Mr. Stone : I will say to you frankly, in all friendliness, I don't think they should. If they are going to keep to the double time of both miles and hours. The Chairman : Well, could they, if we settled on the basis that you propose here, in the present Article W, under the word- ing of that, take time and a half for overtime after 10 hours? Mr. Stone : I think they could. The Chairman : Would your proposals wipe out all ex- cepted runs whether on branch or main line, and put them all on the lOO-mile basis, 8 hours or less, 100 miles or less, with time and a half for overtime? Mr. Garretson : I am of the opinion that it would. The Chairman : Yes, wipe them all out. Mr. Garretson : It would. Mr. Shea : That is, Mr. Lee, it would, I presume, if the settlement was more favorable to the men than their present basis. Mr. Garretson : Well, I answered without any reference to Paragraph IV whatever. Always keep in mind that the option rests with the men affected. The Chairman : For instance, you have a branch road run where the rate is now f 3.83 — that is a low rate, you see. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : Overtime after twelve hours. Would your proposal disturb this rate? Mr. Garretson : I am of the opinion that it wouldn't affect the rate — this doesn't affect rates. The Chairman : Doesn't? 229 Mr. Garretson : No. Straight time rates are not affected by this in any way whatever. It changes the basis of computa- tion. It changes the length of the day and changes the rate of the overtime, but straight time isn't changed by these proposi- tions. The Chairman: A |4 conductor will then get 40 cents an hour? Mr. Garretson : No, he would use an eight for a factor and get 50. The Chairman: Well, then, doesn't the rate change from 40 to 50 cents an hour? Mr. Garretson : The daily rate doesn't change. The hourly rate does. The Chairman : I see. Mr. Garretson : It is the daily rate you see. The daily rate doesn't change. There isn't a thing in here that changes the daily rate in any way whatever, or the mileage rate. The Chairman : Yes, well, this man that is getting |3.83, his rate won't change any? Mr. Garretson : Where he is paid on a daily basis, he takes his f3.83 rate for the changed hours, and while that changes his hourly rate, it has no effect whatever on his day's pay. The Chairman: That is for the day without overtime? Mr. Garretson : Certainly, I am using the day purely in the sense of no overtime. The minute it goes into overtime it changes the overtime rate by the use of the new factor in arriv- ing at the hourly rate; and, further, with the addition of the punitive feature. You notice I accept that term absolutely and without reservation. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone: Now, here, Mr. Chairman — The Chairman: Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone: Here you have one of those particular runs where it is the other way. Yesterday you were dealing with some runs where the rate was higher. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : Here you have a run where the rate is lower, and his overtime rate would be on the basic rate of whatever the class of service is on that road, undoubtedly; which, I take it, would be 75 cents an hour. 230 Mr. Garretson: That might work out if he is paid over- time, now, on the going rate on the road. The Chairman : No, he doesn't get overtime until after 12 hours. Mr. Garretson: That is one of the excepted runs? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Well, originally only one road had them under that title. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : That list, you bear in mind, this is finishing what has been a gradual process for fifteen years. There were originally more than 50 excepted lines on that property. It is whittled down, while I don't know how many are left — five or eight. Mr. Higgins: Don't look at me, this isn't on the Missouri Pacific. Mr. Garretson: Not guilty, then somebody borrowed the name from them. Mr. Corn, how many excepted runs are left on the Missouri Pacific? Mr. Corn : Oh, about 40. Mr. Garretson : Still adding to them, I have taken at least 25 off myself at various times. Mr. Higgins : This run is not on the Missouri Pacific now. Mr. Garretson : Good enough, for once you are not guilty. The Chairman : There are thirty excepted runs on this road that I am speaking of — the Coast Line. Mr. Garretson : Well, the name was borrowed from the orig- inal Missouri Pacific schedule. The Chairman : It is called branch line service, perhaps that is what misled you. Mr. Garretson : Well, the term "excepted run" has been bor- rowed on a few railroads, but it existed in that schedule from — well, my memory is not far enough to go back for everything — God knows. The Chairman : Perhaps the word "accepted" was used. Mr. Garretson: Well, the word "excepted" was originally intended on that line to except them from the standard conditions that maintained on the line elsewhere both in pay and hours. The Chairman : That is purely branch line service that I am speaking of. 231 Mr. Garretson: Well, that is a different proposition that every schedule used to have. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : There are a few roads that have no differ- entiation whatever between main line and branch service. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : There is one of them represented here. Mr. Shea : On that rim you refer to, Mr. Lee, what is their daily mileage? The Chairman : I haven't got it here, Mr. Shea, but as I remember the schedule didn't show miles in it. Mr. Garretson: Can you name the run? We can get the mileage in half a minute. Mr. Garretson: That would be in a southern line, that is, twenty-seven cents below the going rate. Four dollars and ten cents is the going rate there. The Chairman: Three dollars and eighty-three cents. Mr. Garretson: Three dollars and eighty -three cents. The Chairman : On the Bishopville branch ; it doesn't give the mileage, Mr. Shea. Mr. Garretson : Brooks, what is the mileage on the Bishop- ville branch? Mr. Brooks : The way that's run, about 102 miles. Mr. Shea: What is the overtime rate when overtime does accrue? Mr. Sheppard : Twelve hours, flat. Mr. Garretson : Overtime paid on the branch is the same as it is on the main line? Mr. Brooks: Yes. Mr. Garretson : I don't understand you. How is that? Mr. Brooks: No, there is a difference on the branch. Mr. Garretson: In the overtime rate? Mr. Brooks: Yes. Mr. Garretson : There is a difference. The Chairman : Yes, there is a difference. Mr. Garretson : This will put it on a standard overtime rate. The Chairman: That will put it on the standard overtime rate. Mr. Garretson : It would make the rate per hour based on the divisibility of the rate by eight, but the overtime would take the standard rate, whatever it is on the property. 232 The Chairman : I think you gave us an answer on this yester- day or the day before, but it is a short one and we will make it perfectly clear. There is some question in our minds. Take a road having a rule allowing a succession of short turn-arounds on continuous time like the second paragraph of Article "I" of the conductors' and trainmen's rule. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman: Would your proposals wipe out such rules and require payment of a minimum day for each turn-around, or would the rule stand changing the day from ten to eight? Mr. Garretson : That isn't the question that was asked the other day. Mr. Sheppard : It was about starting a second trip. Mr. Garretson : Oh, I got the wrong book, the colors confuse me to a certain extent. The question you asked the other day was on the last paragraph of "I," but I don't think it was phrased that way. That was in regard to how much time might elapse before they could send a man out. That was what was answered. I doubt very much if it would have any effect whatever on the right of the company under a rule of that character, to assign the man to a series of trips for the day, as he is assigned now, subject to the limitation of the change in the extent of the day. You bear in mind that that rule — now we come right back to the answer I gave you the other day — would change the 10-hour provision there to the 8-hour, because this was based on the existing day at the time that it was handed down, and it would be modified by the insertion of 8, instead of ten. In other words, it would pre- serve your right, subject to exactly the same restriction that your other service is subjected to. The Chairman: Yes, and it won't affect such rules as that excepting in the change. Mr. Garretson: I think not. The Chairman: Excepting in the changing of the hours, the departure hours. Mr. Garretson: Nothing, except that it would define the period during which such assignment would be made in conform- ance with the new method. The Chairman: Yes. Taking Article IV, I think you told me yesterday or day before, that the various committees would be the ones to decide, not the committees as a whole. 233 Mr. Garretson: Oh, no. The Chairman: The individual committee on the individ- ual road. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Is that right? Mr. Garretson: Yes, sir. And I added then, as I do now, that with different clauses in the varying schedules no other way of choice was possible as long as those rules were not specifically amended by the action taken here. For instance, the engineer will have an independent schedule on a line, with provisos in it, different from ours. They don't both choose — they couldn't choose together and both get their choice. The Chairman : Yes. That is, they couldn't choose jointly? Mr. Garretson : I mean that, and each have their preference. That is probably a better word than choice. It might readily arise on one of these extreme cases cited. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That the allowance to the men of one class is out of proportion to the allowance for another class, and then you can see they couldn't exercise their preference jointly, or their option jointly, and still each get that which was of the great- est benefit to them. The Chairman: I see. Mr. Garretson: They are not far enough along the lines of pure brotherly love that one of them consents to sacrifice some- thing that he desires to enable the other man to get that which is close to his pocketbook, or heart, whichever you prefer to put it. The Chairman : They will stay together up to a certain point, and then separate and pick here and there. Mr. Garretson: Then they will exercise individual prefer- ence. I am using individual in the sense of organization. Mr. Sheppard: Then they will get together again. The principle of individual option was recognized by one of the il- lustrious Arbitrators for the railroads in the conductors and train- men's award. Mr. Walber: In the remarks as made by one of the Arbi- trators in the Conductors' and Trainmen's case, I don't want to accept the full compliment he handed out. If I had had any intimation that my generosity would be construed as a recog- 234 nition of a principle, whicli might be stretched to the extent that it was afterwards, I might not have been so generous. Mr. Sheppard : I will testify to that plea of not guilty. The Chairman: Well, under this Article IV, could the in- dividuals pick out what they wanted? Mr. Garretson: They vqice it through their committees. The Chairman: That is, the individual flagmen, individual brakemen, on the run can decide what he wants through the Com- mittee? Mr. Garretson: While I haven't conferred with my asso- ciates, I hold the personal opinion that the Committee would be the expression, that when you come right down to it I have no doubt you are against a difficulty on your own line in the ex- pression of individual rights and you have got it somewhat on a sliding scale in some instances of that kind. The Chairman: There are other roads besides ours. Mr. Garretson : Well, I know, but I am citing yours, because I know something of that. It seems to me that it can only best be done through the Committee as the mouthpiece of the man. The Chairman: Yes, but that does not quite get the point that I had in mind, Mr. Garretson. The Committee might decide for the one man here and another man right alongside of him differently; is that permissible? Mr. Garretson : I don't think there is a question here. Un- less they did that you'd limit the power under Article IV. The thing is exactly like the exercise of seniority. A man Avill exer- cise his seniority to get a rim that is to him desirable; the other men will say he's made a monkey of himself. You are perfectly familiar with things like that. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: What to many men is not desirable is to him the thing that he prefers, and that is intended, I think, to do precisely that for him. I think the present method is that the men in a pool or set of runs take their choice. The Chairman : Yes, pool, set of runs or assignments. Mr. Garretson: This distinctly provides that the Commit- tee is the mouthpiece. The Chairman: Exactly so, granted that all these things come up through the Committee. 235 Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : Well, now, does that Committee decide for the class as a whole and that decision stand no matter who it hurts, or do they decide for each individual man? Mr. Garretson : There you have gone a little farther along than I have. The Chairman : Well, that is what I am asking you. Mr. Garretson: Yes, I would prefer, before giving you a definite answer to that subdivision of the question — The Chairman: Yes? Mr. Garretson: I would prefer to confer with the other gentlemen in regard to their intent in drawing it. While the general committee was the deciding power, whether or not their expression is to be fixed for the life of the understanding that may be arrived at, and not subject to change on individual de- sire. I am not clear on it. The Chairman : Well, this will put it cc^cretely, and I will let you have this one, Mr. Garretson. Could one conductor on a run take one basis and another man on the same run take an- other? Mr. Garretson: I will answer that without hesitation. They could because different committees are their mouthpiece. Mr. Sheppard: No two conductors — Mr. Garretson : I understood you to say conductor and another man on his crew. The Chairman: No. Mr. Garretson : Oh, take one basis and the other man on the same run. Well, the other man is the other conductor on the same run? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : That was what misled me. I thought you was referring to a crew. I would hold this answer being subject to later modification on that. I would hold that the committees would decide for the men in a group, and the two members of the same group would have to be bound by the same conclusion. There, you notice, I am making a composite of the old conditions where pools decide for themselves, or groups, according as they may be termed. The Chairman : Well, you would put it, then, practically on 236 the same basis as the Eastern conductors, different sets of runs or assignments? Mr. Garretson: I would, but with the Committee as their mouthpiece. The Chairman : Well, then, you will confirm that definitely, will you, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Yes, I will say, unless I change it — The Chairman: Unless you change it, that stands? Mr. Garretson: That stands. The Chairman : All right. Now, I want to run through one or two points here. I think perhaps we have covered them, but we will just get them cleaned up. Take the initial and final terminal rules, in freight service, say, of the Western conductors. There are many varying methods of payment. For instance, we have got a long string where they are paid overtime rates; another where they are paid miles; another one overtime at ten miles per hour at rate paid for class of service and for varying time de- lays. Some of thefn have no clause. Take the case of the man on a road who gets his initial and final terminal delay, paid ait over- time rates. Under this proposition he would be paid time and a half? Mr. Garretson: Undoubtedly, where it read overtime rate. The Chairman : And paid overtime, ten miles per hour or one mile for six minutes? Mr. Garretson: Oh, where he is paid overtime at ten miles per hour, there the settlement itself would insert the twelve and a half in its stead. The Chairman : Yes. Then you have paid for time delayed? Mr. Garretson : For time delayed? The Chairman: Yes. ' Mr. Garretson : You mean, for instance, intermediate? The Chairman : No, there is no statement in the rule as to how paid for time delay. This is initial and final terminal delay? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Is that final terminal? The Chairman : Final terminal. Mr. Garretson: On arrival? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Can you tell me whether or not that is an arbitrary separated from the time consumed in the run or not? Bear in mind both ways exist. The Chairman : Yes. 237 Mr. Garretson: Where it isn't an arbitrary you see if the speed was fast enough it would absorb anywhere from ten minutes to two hours. Yes. And if it is paid in coni unction with time The Chairman : Mr. Garretson: consumed in run — The Chairman: Mr. Garretson: into overtime. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson : The Chairman: Yes. Then, it isn't a factor at all unless it runs Yes. That is why it is difflcult to answer. Take this as an arbitrary, Mr. Garretson, and it merely said, "paid for time delay." Mr. Garretson : If it was only paid for time delay and the trip didn't — you are taking it as an arbitrary? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : It would in my opinion be paid as straight time where it was an arbitrary, because the overtime feature would occur between it, do you see? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Initial and terminal. As an arbitrary it would stand there by itself. The Chairman : And be paid straight time? Mr. Garretson : And be paid straight time. The Chairman: But if that was an arbitrary, and it said paid for at overtime rate — Mr. Garretson : Wherever the phrase overtime rate is used. Now, bear in mind, I am interpreting to the limit of what this will mean. The Chairman : Oh, yes ; I judge so. Mr. Garretson: Because I don't want to put it before you under any false light. Wherever it reads at overtime rate, over- time rate in the event settlement is reached on this basis, becomes time and a half. Yes. There isn't any doubt of that. Yes, even though it wasn't on overtime, it is. Even though it wasn't on overtime, it is — Yes. I have got to answer on the text. The Chairman: Mr. Garretson: The Chairman : Mr. Garretson: The Chairman: Mr. Garretson: 238 The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Eegardless of what the intent in writing that text might have been? The Chairman : Yes. Well, that straightens that out. This won't take Tery long. For instance, here is loading and unload- ing stock between terminals. Quite a number of the roads have them paid at overtime rates. The same thing would apply. Mr. Garretson : The same thing would apply. The Chairman: And where those roads pay for time held, that would be straight time. Mr. Garretson: There, where they are held like that, you bear in mind, here is what just occurred to me, that hold could run to a stage where it would bring it into overtime. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: You can readily understand that. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: While flat time would be paid up to eight hours as flat time, if it extended the run on account of that hold, out into other time in lieu of it, it would be an indirect time and a half time payment for this time. The Chairman: Yes, if runs on both of these roads got in under eight hours, and they had an hour in between, one hour in here? Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Middle of the run four hours, time held. Mr. Garretson : Straight time. The Chairman : One road would pay straight time and the other road would pay time and a half under the wording of their schedules. Mr. Garretson: That is exactly what will work out under that wording. The Chairman: That answers that question. Now work- train work by crews, not in work-train service. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: We also run across those same — Mr. Garretson: You found those almost universal in the Western territory. The Chairman : In the Western the great majority of them are paid at overtime rates. Mr. Garretson: Well, I don't know what the phrasing is. 239 The Chairman: "Paid at overtime rates"; "Paid at work- train rates"; "Paid ten miles per hour"; "Paid ten miles per hour and paid at overtime rates." Under this proposition, as I understand it, those roads that have in their schedule, "Paid at overtime rates" ; they will pay at time and a half. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : And the fellow is paid ten miles per hour. Mr. Garretson : Will be paid 121/2 miles per hour. The Chairman: Yes. But they won't be paid at time and a half. Mr. Garretson: On a straight time basis. The Chairman: On a straight time basis. Mr. Garretson: Now don't get the idea for a minute that because I am interpreting to you what it means, that I am justify- ing the equity or inequity of the proceedings. The Chairman : No, that is what your proposition means. Mr. Garretson: That is what the proposition means as ap- plied. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: We are just as much — it don't matter whether you call it the victim or the servant of those clauses as they exist, and of the want of uniformity between them, as you are, but when we are saying to you what this means, we are saying just as near as we can, what its application will mean under the language of those present agreements unmodified. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: That is all the object we have in view in interpretation here. The Chairman: The same thing would apply, I take it, in icing and weighing cars, where they are paid at overtime rates or paid one hour for each. There are only one or two roads that pay at overtime rates for icing and weighing cars. That propo- sition would mean that they would get time and a half. Mr. Garretson: Wherever in those allowances the phrase "Overtime rate" is inserted, the changing of the rate of overtime would change the form of payment for that service along with it. The Chairman : If you want the schedule on this thing. Mr. Garretson: I don't know whether we will or not. The Chairman: I don't know either. This is a general proposition, they tell me. Take a branch line that gets overtime 240 after 12 hours and makes two round trips per day, one in passen- ger and one in freight : at present it is paid on 50 per cent, pas- senger and 50 per cent, freight. How would you figure overtime on a proposition of that sort? Mr. Garretson : I will admit I don't know offhand ; that is rather an unusual provision. You bear in mind, I mean on that road. It might be general on that road, and still be an unusual provision. The most of our agreements provide this : That when a man performs two classes of service, he will be paid at the higher rate for all the service, or he will be paid at the rate that obtains in the first service in which he was engaged. Dr. Neill : Two separate runs which provide a separate basis of payment. They provide |4.80, say, for the conductor for the day, overtime after twelve hours, now one round trip in passenger service, and one round trip in freight service. Would your pro- posal disturb anything in the twelve hours except substitute eight for twelve? Mr. Garretson : Overtime basis now is twelve hours. Dr. Neill : Twelve hours by specification in the schedule? Mr. Garretson : What is the rate of overtime there? Dr. Neill : The rate is the standard rate. Mr. Shea: Standard freight or passenger overtime rate? Dr. Neill : Standard freight overtime rate. In other words, Mr. Garretson, these are called excepted runs. Now does your pro- posal change anything in that except take twelve out and insert eight, or does it disturb the entire structure of the rule — the ex- ception? Mr. Garretson : I am of the opinion that it will carry with it the conditions of the run that now surround it, with the excep- tion of changing the hours thereon, because here you have got a specific rule that provides at the present time how the run will be classed. I mean how the allowances are to be figured. In this instance, it happens to be that the overtime accrues and it is paid on the freight basis and rate. I think that it would carry with it those conditions that now surround it so far as I can see. Dr. Neill : In other words, the rule would remain untouched except that where twelve appears eight would appear. Mr. Garretson: Eight will appear and the added rate of overtime would, of course, go therein. Dr. Neill : Take another exception of this kind ; suppose you 241 have a run, provided for a conductor, an excepted run, and pro- vides for the conductor, say $1.20 for each round trip, with the minimum, say, of $4.50 for the day, overtime after 12 hours. Would that change anything except the twelve? Mr. Garretson: I rather fancy it — Dr. Neill : Freight service, this is. Mr. Garretson: Freight service? Dr. Neill: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That occurring in freight service, I am rather of the opinion that it would be changed, that it would abolish the trip rate, establish the day, and establish overtime in accordance with the freight provisions and the freight rates. Dr. Xeill : Well, suppose he made four trips a day, suppose it was six miles each way, a branch run, and he makes four or five or six possible trips a day, suppose each alternate trip is one in freight and one in passenger. Mr. Garretson : There you have got me against a contin- gency that is difficult to meet with an answer for this reason. Go- ing on the basis that this has no bearing whatever on passenger service, and on the other hand that it will apply to every freight line, you can see the difficulty I am against in sifting out a part passenger run, whose price is built up on part passenger rates, but is surrounded with freight conditions. From another run that is all freight — purely and simply, and wherever freight pro- vision would be changed, that were not in consonance with these propositions. It is difficult to answer the two against each other. Dr. Keill : You can see our side, we have dozens and dozens of such cases. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Dr. Neill : These schedules on 15 to 20 different roads — now, we are asking how is this going to affect them. Can you make a suggestion for solving our difficulties? You said the other day, if we would apply to you, you would solve our troubles for us. Mr. Garretson: If I widened it to three of you, I volun- teered too much, that was addressed purely and simply, in my in- tent, to the Eastern Secretary. Dr. Neill : Then you won't help us ? Mr. Garretson : I won't put any bar in the way, but I will enter into no universal obligation. 242 Dr. Neill: Willyou tell us how tofixthis? Mr. Garretson: I will try to do that later, Doctor. Mr. Walber : Get me to ask the question for you. Mr. Garretson: That is the way to do it. I will answer the question that you asked last, Mr. Lee, on a branch line where overtime accrues after 12 hours, in which two round trips are made per day, one on passenger and one on freight, paid on the basis of 50 per cent, passenger and 50 per cent, freight, we would hold that the conditions of that run would remain exactly the same as they are at the present time; subject only to the change in the time, extent of the day and the rate of overtime that would ac- crue from the change from the 10-hour day to the 8-hour day, or the 12, as the case may be. Dr. Neill: How would you get your overtime rates? Mr. Garretson : Get it the same way you get it now if you are taking it from freight, it will come from there. That is a very essence of leaving the rule, Doctor, you are tracing sources exactly the same. Whatever source it comes from, it will take time and a half under freight conditions that exist now-. Dr. Neill: Mr. Garretson, if it were a freight run only? Mr. Garretson: How is that? Dr. Neill : If it were a freight run only, on a branch line, 12 hours overtime, and say he gets f 1.20 a round trip with a mini- mum day of |4.80. Mr. Garretson: Four dollars and eighty cents. Well, I wondered on a run of that character how the minimum would go above the going rate. Your going rate is |4.10. Dr. Neill: There are some that are above. Mr. Garretson: Well, I suppose that being the case they would be modified to the day with the overtime feature. And on the rate it would either go to the freight rate or stay at the rate according to the option of the man. Dr. Neill: The overtime rate would be figured on the nor- mal day, divided by eight? Mr. Garretson: On the normal day, yes. Dr. Neill: Now, if the rate were lower, in that same case, the twelve hour day, say you have |1.20 per round trip, and |3.80 for the minimum day. Mr. Garretson: I answered one exactly like that here a 243 minute ago on the three eighty- three rate. The three eighty-three rate would maintain for the eight hours, while the overtime would take the normal rate of the line with the 50 per cent, addition. Dr. Neill: Thank you. The Chairman: Now, just to get a concrete example on that, Mr. Garretson, if you please. This crew starts out with a passenger train at 7 o'clock in the morning and runs to the out- lying terminal, comes back with a freight; makes a round trip with a freight — Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : — and comes in with a passenger train in the evening at 6 o'clock, those being the only passenger runs on that line. The service requiring a round trip once out in the morning and once in, in the evening. That fellow today gets f 4.80 for that run, with a 12-hour overtime. He makes the run in 11 liours on account of his passenger schedules. Mr. Garretson : That is dependent on his connections. The Chairman : Depending on his connections, yes. He would then get $4.80 for the first 8 hours and 3 hours overtime? Mr. Garretson : He would. The Chairman : So, two and a quarter. That would be $7.05 for that run. Mr. Garretson: For that run? The Chairman : Yes, instead of |4.80. Mr. Garretson: Instead of |4.80. The Chairman : The question is asked whether a mixed train is affected if it is paid at passenger rates. Mr. Garretson: How is that? The Chairman : A mixed train, mixed passenger and freight. Mr. Sheppard : Classed as passenger, run by passenger men? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : There you have got a question that is almost an utter impossibility to give a really intelligent reply to, for this reason : The large majority of roads that are represented here probably class mixed trains as freight trains and pay them as such. The Chairman : I think that is correct, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Because there are territories where that is almost universal. That is why I make the assertion and they have more need of mixed trains than the older territory has. There are others where they are classed purely as passenger. 244 There are others where, if they have a certain number of freight cars in, they pass from the passenger to the freight class. Where a passenger train handling above a certain number of freight cars becomes a freight train; you have that proviso, haveji't you, Mr. Albright? Mr. Albright: I beg your pardon, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Grarretson: Where you handle a certain number of freight cars in a passenger train you pay freight service? Mr. Albright: Yes. Mr. Garretson: For that trip? Mr. Albright : For the distance, rather. Mr. Garretson: Now (I will play Yankee and answer a question by asking one) — could any man put an answer up that will fit those three conditions? I mean, describe them intelli- gently. It's almost an impossibility to do it, because heretofore we have always accepted classification on the line as applying on the line. For instance, I think Mr. Crowley's line makes milk train service — ^you make it passenger, don't you? Mr. Crowley: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Eight across the line on a neighboring line milk trains are freight service, and on a third line, both of which those two lines cross, it is a service by itself and with a rate of its own. If you accept classification, then it is comparatively easy to answer because under the terms of the classification of that schedule, we'd say if it was classed passenger it would not come under this ; if it was classed freight, it would come under it and take all the conditions; and if it was not classed passenger under the term that everything that isn't passenger is not included, then it comes under this. The thing I would like to know is, how to hit it or miss it. The Chairman: Well, Mr. Garretson, I think that you have explained it to my mind. Mr. Garretson : Oh, sure, although I didn't give my adher- ence to the question of classification altogether in this instance. The Chairman : But you have held, as I understand — Mr. Garretson : In the past. The Chairman : In the past that where you find the classi- fication there it remains. Mr. Garretson : We have. Now, bear in mind, I am not 245 authorized to speak for the Engine Department as to their past practice. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : It has been ours. The Chairman : They will speak for themselves — ^but is there any intention in this thing, or is there any reclassification involved in there? Mr. Garretson : You may think I am getting super-techni- cal. I haven't even analyzed that phrase with my associates. In my opinion all service except passenger is affected. You will note that even classification won't make milk train service passenger service. In fact I am drawing the line as between classification and actual service. The custom of classifying it as passenger was probably getting around either adopting an old custom when agreements came in, or it was a compromise measure in those cases where it is classed as passenger, but it isn't passenger serv- ice. If it carries a freight car, it is really mixed train service, and the question arises, was that phrase "all except passenger service," to affect a certain amount of reclassification? I will admit I haven't taken the opinion or the consensus of opinion of my asso- ciates on that. The Chairman: You can't say then at the present time? Mr. Garretson : No, I can't positively say. The Chairman : Whether any reclassification is considered or intended in this. Mr. Garretson: No. Mr. Stone: I have only to refer you back in your memory to the recent arbitration with the engineers in the East where the railroads were represented on the arbitration board, Mr. Williard took the position that there was no such thing as mixed train service, and they wouldn't allow it in the award. He said it was either freight or passenger, one of the two, and there is no mixed train rate handed down; and in applying the rate to the mixed train service, we applied the freight rate. The Chairman : Yes, I know so. And going a little broader than that, Mr. Stone, beyond the mixed train service, the ques- tion is whether or not there was any intention of reclassification of service under these proposals? Mr. Stone : There was the intention of preventing some of 246 the railroads from shifting back and forth and calling it either passenger or freight, whichever happened to be the cheapest. The Chairman : Under what clause does that come? Mr. Stone : We intended to cover everything except passen- ger service in this. Mr. Sheppard : Straight passenger service? The Chairman: Yes, but what I am trying to get at is whether or not there was any intention of reclassifying any of the service under these proposals — whether the question of re- classification can be brought up under these proposals. Mr. Stone : We were trying to nail down for all time some of this mixed train service that won't stay put, that is constantly shifting. The Chairman: Yes, then am I to understand that there was some intention of making reclassification of service under these proposals? Mr. Stone: It was intended to have everything except straight passenger service paid for under this Article I. Mr. Garretson: Eegardless of how it might be classified in either schedule? Mr. Stone : You can classify it all you please, but a mixed train, with eight or ten freight cars and doing local work, cer- tainly isn't passenger service. The Chairman : I am way by the mixed train proposition. I am taking the proposition of Avhether or not it was intended that there should be any reclassification of service for purposes of pay under this proposition. I understand that your proposition is that it includes everything but passenger. Mr. Stone. Yes. The Chairman : Now, take the service of everything but pas- senger, was there any intention of reclassification under this proposition? Mr. Stone: What do you mean by classification, schedule classification or classification on time card? The Chairman: Classification in the schedule of pay for purposes of pay, I mean. Mr. Stone : We haven't been able to get any classification in regard to mixed train service in a number of the schedules at all. The Chairman : Well, I am by the mixed train service. I am taking the broad question, Mr. Stone, whether or not there was any 247 intention to reclassify any of the services for purposes of pay under this schedule — under this presentation. Mr. Stone : I don't know what the intention was in regard to the question you asked, but I do know and remember very dis- tinctly that Article I was intended to cover all classes of service except straight passenger service. The Chairman : That is what I understood, Mr. Stone, but 1 thought perhaps I could get an expression of whether or not it was intended to — whether any reclassification of service could be brought about under this thing in the service except in passenger service. Mr. Stone: I imagine a number of things will be brought about if it becomes effective. The Chairman: ^I see. Mr. Shea : I might say there, while I was not present when this proposition was being prepared and discussed, but I would say from the language of Article I, that it would cover all road service with the exceptions of such service as is known as ex- clusive passenger service. For this reason so that it would pre- vent the railroads from changing the classification of trains in order to change the rates. The Chairman : Or vice versa, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea : Yes, now we have an instance in the West where on a certain road they have been operating a train on a branch as exclusive passenger service for years. The committee accepted Paragraph 2 of the award which applies to short turn-around passenger service and, of course, it would apply to this branch run. Now, in order to defeat the overtime feature of paragraph 2 of Article I, it is claimed that they have attached a freight car to this local passenger train, to put it under the classifi- cation of mixed trains, and pay freight rates, ten hours or less. Now that is a question that is up now on appeal with a certain railroad in the West, and it is to be determined by facts, when the question is being argued. Now you see just how far these things will go, and what we may drift into, unless it is nailed down tight, therefore, I would take the position that Article I would cover all classes of road service with the exceptions of that serv- ice as is now known and is designated as exclusive passenger service. The Chairman : In line with your thought, Mr. Shea, there 248 are a good many of those cases that come up about which you speak; for instance here in the East, we had quite a number of cases that came up in the passenger service shifting from the 20-mile-an- hour rule to the 8 and 12-hour rule of the 1910 understanding. In many instances, the 8 and 12-hour rule produced more com- pensation than the 20-mile rule. It was the 20-mile rule that was changed in the recent arbitration and then we had claims to change those runs from the short turn-around class, 8 and 12 hours, into the 20-mile class, those things being up on both sides, you understand. The Chairman: And we had under this same arbitration claims from the men on different roads — as I remember — ^it hap- pened in the case of one road, which was almost identical, but it meant more money under one rule than the other in one place. But when you came to it, the 20 mile rule meant more money than the eight and 12, and the men wanted and requested that we make two different, separate rulings on it on account of compensation. Well, those things happen. They are things that have to be ironed out. I don't think there is anything serious, as you say. Those are things that have to be determined on the facts as far as we can. Mr. Garretson : But what do you think of hauling an empty box car 30 days a month to make it into a mixed train? The Chairman : I don't know anything about the case that you bring up. Mr. Shea: Well, now, Mr. Lee, we have that now up for decision. The Chairman : Well, that will be determined. Mr. Shea : So as to make it appear that it is really a mixed train, we have had evidence already showing that some days the car is empty, and other days they will load a box of crackers en route. The Chairman : Well, that is a thing that can be very readily determined on facts, yes. Mr. Shea : Noav, mind you, it is claimed that before the award was made this train was operated exclusively as passenger service. The Chairman : Yes, I shouldn't think you would have much trouble getting that straightened out, Mr. Shea. Mr. Garretson : Here is what really enters into this question of classification — now to put it in concrete form, it means as to 249 your purpose to bring the milk trains which Mr. Crowley classes and has classed for years as passenger and paid them as such, under the terms of this award, precisely as the two others that I cited, who are his competitors, will be brought under, or are we going to leave Mr. Crowley's milk trains? And by the way, he is not alone in that classification by any means. The Chairman : ]^o, he is not. Mr. Garretson : I only cited those because Mr. Crowley was here. Are we going to bring trains that are not passenger, al- though classified in present schedules under the terms of this uni- versally? That is the real question. The Chairman : That is one of them, yes. Mr. Garretson : Well, that is the question that is involved. I don't know of any other question that is involved in that, except what you have described as the broad principle of classification. The Chairman: Yes. Well, how would you answer that? (Eecess.) The Chairman : Referring again to the matter we were dis- cussing, just before we left, solid mail trains, for instance, that are now classified as passenger don't carry any passengers on them at all, solid mail trains. Mr. Garretson : Well, you have solid express trains, too. The Chairman : Solid express trains, also. Mr. Garretson : In referring to those, I would say to you that a solid mail train, in my opinion, would be regarded as a purely passenger proposition, be handled as passenger service. There isn't, in solid mail trains, any abuse of the service. In other words, the government won't permit the handling of freight business in connection therewith, if they contract for a solid mail train. I am a little more uncertain in regard to the solid express, as to what may be done with it. But here is what is true of what is done with the milk train classified as passenger, that the men are required to do in many cases a very considerable degree of work that properly belongs to a freight train, and they are re- fused payment therefor in most instances. That is true where they are classified as passenger, and the existence of numerous claims from the men for payment for such service clear outside of the milk train service justifies in a very considerable degree the idea that reclassification to that extent, at least, should be made. Now, under this classification, I don't think that it would 250 be any problem in regard to solid mail trains. Those run, I think, through all the territories — all three. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : The solid express train, I think, is abso- lutely unknown where it is clear of Chicago and St. Louis, isn't it, Mr. Higgins? All solid trains don't exist West of Chicago and St. Louis, do they? Mr. Higgins : Oh, yes, there are quite a few of them. Mr. Garretson : Well, they must be very few. Bear in mind I am not talking about mail. I am talking about express alone. For instance, there are not less than three of the roads that run solid express trains between Chicago and New York. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: I don't know how many more than that, but there are three of you at least do it. The Chairman: Well, the New York Central does and the Pennsylvania does and the Erie does, and I am not sure about the B. & O. Somebody tell him. Mr. Garretson: The B. & O. do. Well, that is four. But if there is a solid express train regularly run west of Chicago and St. Louis, I don't know. Mr. Higgins: Is there a solid train run? Mr. Garretson: Friday, is there a solid express train run over the U. P.? Mr. Friday: Yes. The Chairman : The Lackawanna does in the East and also the Lehigh Valley. Mr. Garretson : Do they connect with the Michigan Central west of Buffalo? The Chairman: They may connect with the Nickel Plate or the Michigan Central. Mr. Garretson: Well, there is probably only one we can trace, and that is a transcontinental train, I suppose. Therefore the express is virtually no conundrum, except right here on this little bunch of properties. The Southeast may run a few? Do you know? Mr. Coapman : Except in season. Mr. Garretson : Well, there you have a kind of service that there is in the West, vegetable specials. 251 Mr. Butler : The Florida East Coast have one. Mr. Garretson: He claims to run it there, but there aren't enough of those to make any great problem. It is nothing like a universal proposition or even a general one. The express, it doesn't seem to me, would not be really much of a factor. This Florida East Coast is paid on a purely freight basis now. Through freight, mixed, water, and express trains are paid on the same rate. I don't know, how do you pay it? The Chairman: Passenger. Mr. Garretson: The same, you know how all the others are. The Chairman: I think they are all passenger in the East, and run by passenger crews. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Stone : Well now we have a peculiar condition with our milk trains. You know, under the award in the East, milk trains, exclusively for milk, are paid freight rates. The Chairman : For the engineers, and I think for the fire- men, also. Mr. Stone: But where you handle a coach and a few pas- sengers in connection with it, it takes passenger rate. Take the New Haven, for example, in the East. They have milk trains with a passenger coach and that is paid the passenger rate, while in the west end of the New York Division they have solid milk trains that are paid at the freight rate although run on passenger schedule. The Chairman: I don't think that is peculiar to the New Haven, Mr. Stone, I think that is a case that happens on a good many of the different roads, where they have what might be called mixed milk and passenger, and it is a proposition that — as a mat- ter of information, Mr. Stone, the New York Central have this rule^ Mr. Shea would be more interested in this, perhaps : "Firemen on combination passenger and milk trains where one-half or more of the train consists of cars for handling milk, are paid for at freight rates." Mr. Garretson : Milk are classed as freight with us, aren't they, Mr. Crowley? Mr. Crowley : For conductors and trainmen. Mr. Garretson : Where milk trains pick up, aren't they paid some other way? 252 Mr. Crowley : We have a special milk train rate for special runs. Mr. Garretson : Now there, I don't think there is a question but that the milk train as a train pure and simple, is a service that is far nearer freight than passenger. There is no tenant com- pany like an express company intervening between the service and the company. The company takes the revenue direct. It handles it itself. It establishes its own rate for that class of service, and it doesn't seem to me that we are on unreasonable grounds to insist that that class of service ought to come under the general freight regulations. The express I haven't touched on that, with either of the other representatives and I don't know what their attitude will be on this proposition. Mr. Shea : Well, this case you cited on the New York Cen- tral — combination of milk and express — I understand — Mr. Crowley : Milk and passenger — The Chairman : Milk and passenger — Mr. Shea : Milk and passenger, I understand takes through freight rates, and through freight rules also, Mr. Crowley? Mr. Crowley: Yes, sir. Mr. Shea : Well, there you have a case which is more advan- tageous to the company than it is to the men, because if they pay the crew in this service passenger rates, under passenger rules, overtime would accrue after five hours at a speed basis of twenty miles per hour, whereas now, having freight rates and rules to apply, overtime does not accrue until after ten hours. The Chairman : The rate, however, Mr. Shea, for the freight is higher than the rate for passenger. Mr. Shea : Yes, it is a little higher ; it depends upon the class of engine. The Chairman: Very largely, yes. Mr. Shea: Now, they may operate a small engine on that run that would carry a small rate, whereas in freight service they may operate a larger class of engine, which would carry a higher rate in passenger service. The Chairman: Yes, and the converse might be true, also. Mr. Shea : So, I assume now, offhand, that the company was anxious to put that class of service on the through freight basis because it was more advantageous to the company. 253 Mr. Crowley : Why, as I recall the award, it named the rate for milk trains, exclusive milk trains, at freight rates. Mr. Shea: Yes. Mr. Crowley : And the question came up of this combination rate, and there was a settlement made with the men. While I did not make this settlement I assume that it was a compromise arrived at. Mr. Shea : Well, I don't suppose — Mr. Crowley : It is safe to say, however, that on most of these so-called combination runs the freight rates are paid because the greater number of cars are milk cars. They are something like Mr. Garretson described; coaches on the rear handle pas- sengers. Mr. Shea : Well, I don't suppose, Mr. Crowley, you would have any difficult task to negotiate with your committee, and apply through passenger rates and rules to that service? Mr. Crowley : Why, I don't think we Avould have any diffi- culty settling it, if it was left to the ^ew York Central. Mr. Shea : Why, I don't think so. I think that is one case where you have the advantage. The Chairman : Don't you think you would meet some ob- jection to putting the passenger rate on that? Mr. Crowley : We decidedly would, but as I say, on the New Y^'ork Central, that is what we'd decide. The Chairman: Were you going to take the solid express trains under advice, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman: Let us know later on this? Mr. Garretson : Y^es. You know that question box reminds me of the Widow's cruse — The Chairman: Never gets empty. Mr. Garretson : Never got empty. The Chairman : Now, this Article IV— you say there, in the last paragraph, the last sentence, nothing in the settlement that may be reached on the above submitted articles is to be construed to deprive employees on any railroad from retaining their present rules and accepting any rates that may be agreed upon, or re- taining their present rates and accepting any rules that may be agreed upon. What particular rules do those refer to, Mr. Gar- retson? 254 Mr. Garretson : Any rules whatever. For instance, the eight-hour day is a rule. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : The rate of pay that obtains is a rate. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: They could take the eight-hour day and apply it at the present rate. I am just using that as the quick- est illustration. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: What is meant? The Chairman : Well, that means ' any rule through the schedule, does it? Mr. Garretson: Whatever is modified by the settlement, of course, applies to nothing except such as are modified by the settlement. Any rule that js modified by the settlement the men on that line may keep. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: If the substitute or the modification by them is considered less desirable than the old one? The Chairman: Then any rule in the schedule that works out for money or anything of that sort. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: That is liable to enter into — Mr. Garretson : In so far as such rules are modified by the adoption of these propositions, it won't open any rule. Bear in mind, there would be no option on a rule that wasn't open — ^that is retained automatically, but any rule that is modified by this, the men could keep the rule and accept whatever else came in the way of rates. Bear in mind, there are no rates in this, ex- cept the overtime rates. There is no other rate involved. The Chairman : There is the hourly rate involved. Mr. Garretson : Hourly rate. That is a part of the 8-hour day. They couldn't take the hourly rate, I should judge, unless it was granted by the acceptance of the 8-hour day. I mean they couldn't keep the 10-hour day and apply the 8 hours as a factor in determining the hourly rate, and thus increase their wages. There would be an option that wouldn't be open. The Chairman: Couldn't they do that? Mr. Garretson : I don't think they could. The Chairman : That is one thing they can't do. 255 Mr. Garretson : That is one thing they can't do. The Chairman : But it does involve a change in the rate if the 8-hour basis is decided upon. Mr. Garretson : It involves a change in the rate per hour of work. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : But it don't involve any change in the daily rate or in the rate per hundred miles. The Chairman : No, but it does involve a whole lot of other rules, as we have brought out here. Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes. The Chairman : That is liable to go into most any rule, you can't tell, can you, where it will be stopped on any individual schedule? Mr. Garretson : No, I cannot. No man can without an inti- mate knowledge of that individual schedule, because here — ^wher- ever it provides for a rate of pay for time (now I am not touching overtime at all), a time allowance for any service performed will be modified by the change from the 8 to the 10-hour day, because, using the 8 as a divisor, it gives an entirely different result for the hourly rate, and it will modify in any instance, to that extent, where there is a time allowance given for the performance of service. And they are given for all conceivable kinds of services. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Coaling engines, running for water, turning engines on turn tables — well, there is intermediate switching of a score of kinds, or of any kind, it will enter into all those. The Chairman : And there is no telling here, I take it, where this thing may go under Article IV. Mr. Garretson: No man could tell exactly what its scope would be unless he would take that schedule down and go through the details thereof and apply it to every one of the terms therof that would naturally be affected thereby, and then he couldn't tell what it meant in cost, only by taking the cost for the period pre- ceding that — an average period. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: And applying it there and there are many of those allowances where there is no real average, because some of them are not paid once a year ; some of them are paid three or four times a week. In the length of a road there are a lot of them 256 paid every day; the average sum involved can't be determined — nothing but the lump sum from a former period of operation. Mr. Stone: And that is not a fair estimate for the reason that it is largely a question of operation and the chances are that if the settlement was arrived at that the plan of operation would be changed. Mr. Garretson: The controllable feature will not enter as largely, possibly, into those allowances as it will in the overtime proposition. Controllability is a big factor in the overtime ; over- time is paid or not paid according to whether or not there is an economic gain in it; that is a foregone conclusion. The Chairman : Oh, no, I don't get you on that at all, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : I do. The Chairman: If you run a train out and get stuck by a washout, or a wreck, or delay unavoidable, do you consider then that — Mr. Garretson : Overtime don't accrue from any such causes as a rule. The bulk of overtime comes from train movement alone. You are just as conversant with that factor as I am. The Chairman : Now, wait a minute. Now, I am trying to get your thought on that thing. You start a train out on a con- gested piece of railroad, and expect it to get through in ten hours. Under the present schedule you have every reason to believe you would get through in ten hours. If you get a broken wheel, you don't get through in ten hours. Mr. Garretson: Oh, no. The Chairman : You get an extra passenger train that you have not expected, and congest the road furthermore. Then, you get overtime? Mr. Garretson : Sure, you do. The Chairman : And you don't intend to get it, and you have got to pay for it. Mr. Garretson : And you are going to go deeper into the question of getting that extra passenger train in there that you weren't looking for. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Because the factor of cost as between the overtime that is going to accrue from this unexpected move- ment is going to lead you to control the movement of the passen- 257 ger train to a greater degree than tlie movement of your freight trains, and there is where the economic question will enter into that form. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: If you will go through your payrolls, as I have no doubt you have done, your overtime don't accrue from the broken wheels, but from this thing expected or unexpected. If the intrusion of certain factors that have hitherto been con- sidered as of more economic moment to the company than the creation of overtime on the part of those trains which were de- layed thereby — if this makes it cost more, then you would gain from the other movement. Yoti are going to control the cheaper movement. The Chairman : Yes, but it is going to be additional cost in any event, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Oh, there is some additional cost, there isn't any doubt of that. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: But it isn't going to be on the basis of the former period of operation. The Chairman : And if you cut your train, say in half, and put two trains on instead of one, as you state — Mr. Garretson: I didn't touch that phase. I am perfectly familiar with the old theory of congesting your track with more units. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : And it is a factor, but you are not going to do anything in the line of cutting the train in two. The Chairman : That was to illustrate. Mr. Garretson: We are going to reduce the tonnage for your pencil artist, that is demonstrated can be moved at a given speed in a given time. You are going to readjust by lowering that tonnage to another given speed. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And there is where your factor of control- lability is largely going to enter. The others are going to come into a pure and simple factor of transportation study, as to mov- ing your current traffic at the expense, if possible, of the lighter movement, in the other direction. The Chairman : Say, we cut the tonnage twenty-five per cent. 258 Mr. Garretson : I don't believe you will cut it twenty-five per cent, to make any difference in speed that is necessary. The Chairman : Cut it fifteen per cent. Mr. Garretson : Whatever you cut, that holds within it a factor of loss. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : In this sense, you move less tons one- mile per train mile run. I am not by any means blind to the factors that enter into it from your side. I don't profess to be a past master of those sciences like the gentlemen on the other side of the table. All I have learned has been either pumped into me or shot into me of late at various times, by the artist on the other side, but I have been able to grasp some of the main factors. The Chairman: Yes. Well, you recognize that this will mean an increase in expense undoubtedly. Mr. Garretson : There isn't any question whatever, or I have no desire to evade the fact, that it does mean an increased ex- pense, but I will just go that far with you and no further. The Chairman : Well, I won't ask you any further. Mr. Garretson : I don't agree with your totals. The Chairman : Well, that might be. We have disagreed be- fore. Mr. Garretson : I have the right to differ on that. The Chairman : We have disagreed on totals before. Mr. Garretson: We have, and by the grace of God we will again. The Chairman: Personally, I go along with you. Mr. Garretson: You want to engage your share of God's grace? The Chairman : Yes, I don't want to lose all my friends. Do you have a list of all your men here? Mr. Garretson : We have prepared such a list, yes. The Chairman : Would there be any objection to letting us have a copy of it just for our record? Have you got yours made up, Mr. Sheppard? Mr. Sheppard : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Have you got yours made up, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : I think so. Mr. Dodge : I have mine. 259 The Chairman : Just for our information. Mr. Garretson : I will enter it on my list — I don't know whether it has been entered or not- — there are four or five lines, smaller properties, that I personally hold proxies for and I will enter those proxies. Mr. Stone : The list will differ from day to day, due to the fact that others have been called home to meet officials and on account of sickness and so on. The Chairman : I don't mean any hard and fast rule from day to day, I mean the general list of everybody who has been here. Mr. Stone : I note your own representation present is con- stantly changing, a few new faces and some of the old ones have gone. The Chairman : Some visitors. Mr. Garretson : Some war-horses who sniffed the battle afar. The Chairman : Can't stay away from it. The Chairman: There is another little conundrum here I would like to go and dig into. A run between Pitcairn and Al- toona, 101 miles ; prior to the last award the run was on trip rate basis, overtime after twelve hours. The conductors on the prefer- ence runs optioned the old rates and conditions, that is, they took the high rate, with the 12-hour overtime, as meaning more money to them than they could get off the road in seven or eight hours. The conductors on the slow freights, separate pools, optioned the awarded rates and conditions. I take it that under your thought this morning — or was that one that was held up — they would make their selections about in the same way. Mr. Garretson : No, I answered that positively, right after- wards. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Hendricks : Mr. Chairman, isn't there an error made in the slow freight pools? These men all take all the rates and con- ditions between East Altoona and Pitcairn. The Chairman: East Altoona and Pitcairn; or East Al- toona and Derry. I will take it on the basis with that reservation, Mr. Hendricks, merely say that over the same territory different classes of men and different classes of pools took different options. 260 Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : We won't nail you on that, Mr. Hendricks. That, as I understand then, would be done in the same way? Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : Pools, sets of runs or assignments, and not the individual man. Mr. Garretson: Oh, the group. The Chairman : The group. The Chairman : Now, Mr. Garretson and gentlemen, I think I have asked you all the things that I want to ask you about and I want to tell you a little about our side. Mr. Garretson: Good. If you hadn't told us, we'd have asked you. The Chairman : Undoubtedly. I will explain it in a general way and then see if there is anything you want to find out about. In the first place, I want to say that this answer of the railroads to the men, and when you remember its attitude the other day, last Saturday, is in no sense a counter proposition. It is a proposition that is contingent on a change of base. There is no attempt or de- sire in this thing to take away anything from the men. It seems to us like this : The present schedules, present rates of pay, and conditions are what might be called the low level, that is, the low- est possible level. This thing can't go below that. It's so with your proposition or with ours. As it distinctly states in here, we have no desire to reduce the earning possibilities of the employees. The high level, the maximum, is your proposition straight. That is the highest this proposition can go. Now, between those two levels, or on one line or the other, this thing is bound to be settled. In between there are certain things in the present schedule that seem to us, perhaps, proper under the present basis, but for any change of basis, there should be some adjustments. There should be some arrangements whereby proper adjustment could be made. And in view of the interpretation you have given us of your proposition particularly, as wherein you say that Arti- cle Four — they can go all through the schedule — wherever any question of rates or hours are affected by this thing, and that the men alone accept those, or reject them. It seems to us in view of that explanation that schedules that in the past have been negotiated between the men and the management, it seems to us no more than right that the management should have something to say in a negotiation of that, if , the base is changed. 261 And I want to make that perfectly clear, that the proposi- tion of the railroads only contemplates going into the schedule where the base is changed. For instance, if these schedules are built up largely on ten miles an hour, 100 miles or less, ten hours or less, certain things in those schedules were proper under that basis. There are probably certain other things in the schedules that would not be proper if that basis changed. It seems to us no more than right on account of those schedules having been built up largely through negotiations, that the railroads should have some voice in saying whether or not a proposition should be chafiged and in what way it should be changed. For instance, take this question of overtime that we have been talking a good deal about — I think you have made your position pretty clear on that — that wherever the word overtime is used in the schedule, that will be paid for at time and a half. I think that is very clearly stated, that that is your position. It seems to us that in many of these schedules the word "overtime" has been used in the same way that pro rata has been used, because there was no difference between overtime and pro rata payment. They were all the same, they are today all the same in train service. And take one road, right along, one road running from A. to B., who happened to have in their schedule, "they will be paid these arbitraries at the overtime rate" ; you jump that arbitrary, the cost of that arbitrary, and the remuneration to the man up in the neighborhood of 87 and a half per cent. Whereas on a fellow ad- joining him, a competitive road, same class of men, same territory, you jump the payment and the remuneration for the man for the same arbitrary, under the same condition, a matter of 25 per cent. It doesn't seem to us that that is a proper form on which a sched- ule should be based. Again, take the particular road that has this — we might also say "abominable" word — at this time, when we are discussing this thing of overtime in their schedule for the payment of an arbitrary, that arbitrary such as switching between terminals, or doubling hills or icing cars or whatever it may be, may be per- formed one hour after the man goes on duty, two hours after the man goes on duty, three hours after the man goes on duty, but par- takes in no way of overtime ; provided the man gets in within the number of hours allotted for the day's work. It partakes in no way at all of an overtime payment ; it in no way contributes to the cutting down of the man's hours. He may run ninety miles in 262 eight hours, basing it on an eight-hour proposition, and he would, if he did this one hour of intermediate switching which the sched- ule calls for at time and a half, calls for overtime payment, he'd be paid nine hours and a half, even if he only ran ninety miles and got in, and his total elapsed time was under eight hours. Now, it seems to us that there those things certainly should be ironed out. That is the purpose of this proposition. It isn't the purpose to take away anything; it is merely for the purpose of permitting the rail- roads to have something to say when these things are ironed out, and is contingent — understand that fully — is contingent on a change of basis, it is not a counter proposition. If the basis is not changed then this is null and void ; if it is changed then we feel that we should have something to say about it. Now, that is the purpose and idea of the whole business. Mr. Garretson : Have you finished that explanation? The Chairman : For instance, I just want to make one ex- ample that has been mentioned here — I think Mr. Dodge is the father of it. Take those schedules where the yard rule calls for a man who goes to work at any other time than between six and eight in the morning, he will get night rates. Consider the fel- low who went to woi'k at eight-thirty and quit at four-thirty. That man is working all daylight, yet he would be paid at night rates under that rule. Now, don't misunderstand me. There probably is some point during the day, whether it is twelve or one, or two, or three o'clock or four o'clock in the afternoon after which a man goes to work, or maybe ten o'clock in the morning when he goes to work. There is some equity in putting in the night rate, but it doesn't seem to me that a man that works all his time in daylight shoiild be entitled to the night rate. I may be wrong, but it is for the discussion of those things that this thing is brought about. The Chairman : Now, Mr. Garretson — Mr. Garretson : I am not going to attempt just at this time to go into a complete analysis of the three propositions. I am call- ing them that for want of a better name. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Or the three suggestions or whatever title you prefer to give to them. But I want to call your attention to what seems to me to be a certain want of consonance between the purpose that you state and the language in which your intent 263 or your notice is couched. You will bear in mind, we draw natu- rally upon the experience of the past in regard to the wording of any proposition we lay it down as a general proposition in regard to the terms of an agreement that exists between the men and the road. The language that is drawn in that schedule — that is in- serted in that schedule, at the time that it is made in its equitable sense, may be described as the effort to put into words what was the intent of the contracting parties. I think that is a fair de- scription of the language of an agreement. The Chairman : I think so. Mr. Garretson : Oh, there isn't any doubt that, in days gone by, both sides have been open to the charge of distorting that language for purposes of their own. I am using the phrase, "pur- poses of their own" without any sting in it only to accomplish the idea that they have in view. The man, for the purpose of adding to his compensation, or rendering his conditions of labor less oner- ous ; the company, for the purpose, because I include in the term company every man of the company who stands on the opposite side of the table from the employee, in its ordinary sense, the com- pany for the purpose of either evading what the contracting officer had in mind, this evasion ordinarily being by a man below him in rank, and possibly not fully cognizant of what the intent and pur- pose was, but whatever those various reasons may be, the language is departed from and out of that experience on both sides grows what might be described as a super-technical emphasis on lan- guage in which any proposition is couched to find what may be the nigger in the wood-pile. When we want to make it exactly de- scriptive, we have got to get into the vernacular. The Chairman : Yes. ilr. Garretson: Now, assuming, taking your declaration that there is not behind it any intent to impair the man's earning ability — now bear in mind, growing out of this experience I attach a very sharply different meaning to wage and earnings. The Chairman: I understand so, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : I do because in the compilation of figures, in application and use, they will produce two utterly different things, one is a man's daily wage and the other is a capacity to earn by the use of hours not included in the working hours of the day, whatever they may be. In the face of your declaration that there is no desire to in any way curtail or take from the earning 264 ability of the man, what I am trying to do now is to reconcile your language used here with that declaration: "(a) Provides first, no double compensation for the same time or service." The Chairman : If you will permit me, Mr. Garretson — Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Go back a little bit further in that state- ment. I want to make that perfectly clear to you. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: We will go back there about, let's see — about the fifth line up there in the solid portion, "And disposition of your proposals, there shall be open for consideration and dis- position those provisions in the schedules or practices thereunder governing compensation in the classes of service affected by your proposals." Now, that is one thing. Mr. Garretson. Or — The Chairman : Or those in conflict with the following prin- ciples as they apply to such classes? Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : You see, there are two features in this thing. I want that perfectly clear. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : One is more or less involved with the other. The A, B and C are portions, specific portions, if you please, that are covered by the first one that I read. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Those provisions in the schedule or prac- tices thereunder, governing compensation, in the class of serv- ice affected by your proposal. Mr. Garretson : Well, that would carry with it, under "A." Bear in mind, regardless of the language that precedes, and the language that precedes is really meant, I think, to be explanatory. The Chairman : The language that precedes. Mr. Garretson : In a considerable degree. The Chairman: The language that precedes covers the ground generally. Mr. Garretson : I mean explanatory of your purposes. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Will A, B and C become the concrete expres- sion of certain things described in general after the word "or" in the next to the last line? 265 The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Now, is any explanation of "A" compatible with the declaration that there is no intent to decrease the earn- ing power or to limit it because it carries with it its natural inference? There must be places, fronryour standpoint, wherein double compensation is now allowed and the cancellation of that double compensation from your standpoint in itself affects the earning ability of the man who is affected thereby or who claims thereunder? The Chairman : Under the present basis, yes. Mr. Garretson: Oh, there you have — The Chairman: But I said before, under the present basis we have no desire to change — Mr. Garretson : No, but if you go to the other basis you do limit the earning ability of the man if you deprive him of one of the sources of money that came to him separate from his inde- pendent daily wage. The Chairman: Well, that is a general statement, Mr. Gar- retson, very general. Mr. Garretson : It is, but it is, nevertheless, a fact that that would be its result. The Chairman : Well, I don't recognize it as such, Mr. Gar- retson. Mr. Garretson : Well, here if a man sells you ten hours for his daily wage, and in addition thereto sold you an arbitrary hour, that from your standpoint would, from now on, be properly de- ductible. You have limited his earning ability to that extent. The Chairman : I have not stated, Mr. Garretson, that that was properly deductible in any case. Mr. Garretson : I may be drawing some things there from your discussion on our proposition because one thing is sure : If you don't believe that compensation is now being doubly paid in many instances, there would be no reason or excuse for the ex- istence of your proposition "A." The Chairman : Just a minute. You don't get the propo- sition yet. Mr. Garretson: No? The Chairman: (Eeading.) "That in connection with and as a part of the consideration and disposition of your proposal, there shall be open for consideration and disposition — " 266 Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: "Those provisions (also open for considera- tion and disposition) in the schedule that are in conflict with these principles." Mr. Garretson : Ohr, I am — The Chairman: "Open for consideration and disposition." Mr. Garretson : I am objecting to this sharply, and to make my position clear I will put it this way : If this conference ended right now. We return to our duty. The blue pencil would go across those three, from your standpoint. The Chairman : You mean if this thing finished you would — Mr. Garretson: Drop it right now. The Chairman : Why, this thing would be torn up. Mr. Garretson : That is what I say. It dies. The Chairman : It dies a death. Mr. Garretson : It dies — ^but we go ahead and arrange to incorporate our propositions in the methods of payment. Then if you — if the man formerly had the opportunity to sell a day and an hour — I am using the phrase "a day" to evade the eight and ten-hour proposition — but a day and an hour, whatever that day may be, for any consideration of these things you take the ground, and insist on the modification of some of those clauses which it seems to you gives double compensation, and you eliminate there- from the opportunity to sell the hour, and only leave him the ability to sell the day. You have thereby limited his earning power, while not touching his wage. The Chairman : Yes, but, Mr. Garretson, what I said before was just this, and I think it very plain if you read it carefully right in there. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : We want the right to consider those things. We are not asking to take them away unless it is proper to take them away. Mr. Garretson : Unless you are able to establish the in- equity. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Well, now, come down to "B," the one thing appealed to me when I looked this over was this : A moment ago in the consideration of another problem that was interpreting 267 what "except Passenger Service" meant, you remember what your attitude was in regard to what you described as the broad prin- ciple of classification. The Chairman: Yes, what was it? I don't remember it. Perhaps you remember it. Mr. Garretson : Why, you said that the real thing that lay in the way was when setting up the broad principle of reclass- ification here when we talked about taking out milk trains, class- ified as passenger and placing them under the provisions of this, which only affects freight. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: And now I would ask what "B" would do to the broad principle of reclassification. The Chairman : Why, Mr. Garretson, it would depend alto- gether on what the basis was that was determined. Mr. Garretson : If the fireman received his freight train pay on certain milk trains on Mr. Crowley's road. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And the conductor and brakemen are paid purely passenger pay on the same class of a run, there must be to make that operative a reclassification of one or the other, different from that now, the classification that now exists under those two agreements. The Chairman: Either one or the other? Mr. Garretson : Either one or the other. The Chairman: Mr. Garretson, that would have to be con- sidered in this whole proposition. Mr. Garretson : The fact would be then, that our putting for- ward of the claim that these articles apply to every man except those engaged in purely passenger service, would in fact, be no more of a reclassification than would take place under this. The Chairman: Why, I could not tell without going into the individual schedule. Mr. Garretson: Well, in other words, each would equally outrage the principle of accepted classifications, the amount of it that invades it cuts no figure as to whether the principle has been invaded or not. If a principle is held inviolate, any invasion of it is equally a sin, it is the penny in the pound again. The Chairman : That might be. 268 Mr. Garretson : I don't exactly follow you — but if you invade classification for the purpose of bringing the firemen and the conductor on a common basis — The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That would be as serious a violation of the broad principle, that we wouldn't reclassify it here, as would our taking the milk trains on the New York Central or some other road out. The Chairman : Oh, I would say as to that, Mr. Garretson, that if we reclassified, there would be just as much right on the other side to reclassify. I won't hold that we had the right to do one thing and you didn't have that right. Mr. Garretson : We would be equally guilty. The Chairman : You might be, or equally praiseworthy. Mr. Garretson: Sure, I am glad to get the praiseworthy touch on that, because I want to earn it. Now, in regard to that phase, bear in mind it is almost impossible to determine whether or not it is in any degree an invasion of the earning power, because it would have its compensation. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson: It might invade the earning power of one class and compensate in the earning power of the other. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : And, therefore, you would strike what was virtually a balance between the two. And neither side could claim that it was an advantage, as a total, without mighty close figur- ing, but under C, there you come to another phase. Now, it prob- ably goes in for more money than B. Are the "two or more dif- ferently paid classes of service performed in the same day or trip, to be paid at rates according to the class of service with not less than a minimum day for the combined service"? There it isn't a question of compensating between individuals or between classes. It is a question of taking away the rules that exist on certain lines, that guarantee a minimum day in one serv- ice, and then added hours in the other. The Chairman : Well, it might or might not, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson : Or it Avill invade the rights of another class of men, where if they perform one class of service they are paid a minimum day. The Chairman : I'^es. 269 Mr. Garretson : And if they are turned into another class of service, they are guaranteed a minimum day in that service also, provided those services are diametrically enough opposed to each other. For instance, a man doing passenger service can't be used in freight service in some localities without being paid a mini- mum day there also. That would be invasion undoubtedly if agreed upon. The Chairman : If agreed upon, yes. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind, take that with that qualifi- cation, with my statement — if agreed upon it would be a curtail- ment of the earning power of those men. The Chairman : And unless it was agreed upon, it won't go into effect. Mr. Garretson : L^nless it was. The Chairman : And it wouldn't be agreed upon by either side unless they were satisfied with it or giving up something else for it. Mr. Garretson : Oh, the declaration of your desire would in no way curtail the earning power of the man, but its acceptance would. The Chairman : That might be, if it was agreed to. Mr. Garretson : This was only the point I wanted to bring out. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : Because, on the general declaration, that there is neither intent nor purpose to curtail the earnings of men, it becomes perfectly apparent, even with that analysis, that, if agreed to, and accepted, those very declarations would curtail the earning power of every man who has, Avithin his schedules, clauses that would, by such agreement, be modified — The Chairman : I think that is correct, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : I tried to make that just as clear as I can, recognizing the necessity of an agreement before it becomes oper- ative. The Chairman : Unless any change of base that might be adopted would compensate him in other directions, then he would not lose out. Mr. Garretson : There, when we go up against you. whether it is increase of wage or whether it is betterment of con- ditions or whether it is release from an onerous condition — The Chairman : Yes. 270 Mr. Garretson : — ^we don't expect to accept something else as compensation and with either added wage, bettered conditions or relief from onerous condition, stand where we were before we presented the proposition. The Chairman : That might be your attitude, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson : By good fortune we have, ordinarily, made some degree of that attitude workable after we got through. The Chairman : I think that is a statement of fact. Mr. Garretson : That is historically true. The Chairman : That you have generally bettered your con- ditions or gotten more money out of all of these movements? Mr. Garretson : Ordinarily, we have come away with at least the tail, if we didn't get the hide. The Chairman : All right. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING. NEW YORK JUNE 7. 1916 No. 6 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railwavs p. B. A£BBiiil-..z Vke-Pras.. O. B. C. 271 New York, N. Y., June 7, 1916. Met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 :00 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman : I would state on opening that we have ad- vice from the Central Eailroad of New Jersey that they are in the movement without reservation. Mr. Garretson : Those lists of those present, Mr. Lee, for our part, we had them ready this morning, but we left in rather a hurry on account of the weather and left them lying there. We will give them to you tomorrow morning. The Chairman : That is perfectly agreeable, Mr. Garretson. Macon, Dublin and Savannah: their authority to us covers engi- neers, white firemen, conductors, white trainmen in road service, white hostlers; in yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors and white switchmen. Charleston and Western Carolina, they have authorized this Committee to represent them as far as engineers, conductors, white trainmen in road service; engineers, white conductors and white switchmen in yard service. Mr. Garretson : That is the C. & W. C, you didn't have it on the list. The Chairman : They are not in the list. Mr. Shea : I understand they included firemen. Dr. Neill : Yes, the C. & W. C. includes engineers and white trainmen, no firemen mentioned in the C. & W. C. Mr. Stone : Well, for the benefit of the record, I am not sure whether there are any white firemen there or not, but if there are any white firemen there we will take the position that we will represent them. The Chairman : In going over the question that was raised by you yesterday, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman: As to it, however, we represented certain roads which had mentioned certain dated schedules. Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman: Going through the record we find that we represent all of those roads as far as their current schedule is con- cerned with the amendments thereto, including the Chicago award, with the exception, there are two roads that do not state that dis- tinctly and we have wired those two roads. There is no question 272 in our mind but what that statement covers those two roads ; but they are a good ways West, and we wanted to make it definite. There isn't any question in our mind about it, but we wanted a definite statement. Mr. Stone : Well, I would like to ask a question there, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone: You say the amendments thereto. Does that include accepted interpretations and rulings thereon? The Chairman : Oh ! I would say that included everything that went with the schedule, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : That goes with the pay of the men? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: Now, are Ave to understand from that, Mr. Lee, that it includes hostlers? The Chairman: Xo, sir, the question that was raised, Mr. Shea, was on the date — your question hasn't been straightened out yet. We are trying to get it straightened out, your question of the hostlers on certain roads. But it covers the question of the dates that Mr. Stone raised the other day. He raised a question whether that date meant that we weren't going to take in the amendments or whether we weren't going to take in the Chicago award. I am answering the question particularly as to the dates, there are cer- tain exceptions that still stand as regards hostlers that we are trying to get ironed out for you. Mr. Shea : Well, the reason I ask was because I understood you to state that your authorization covered all employees covered by existing schedules, including the Chicago, or rather, Western Arbitration award. The Chairman : What I said, Mr. Shea, was, or the idea I meant to convey — Mr. Stone raised the question the other day about certain roads in their authorization to us, specifying certain dates of schedules that were back perhaps two or three years. And he raised the question whether those roads con- fined the authority of this committee absolutely to those schedules and not to any amendments or to the Chicago award. I am re- plying simply on the question of the dates in the schedules. Your question, that you are particularly interested in, we are still try- ing over the wires, which is very unsatisfactory, to get straight- 273 ened out, so that we can positively tell jou right off the bat, yes or no. Is that clear? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Mr. Stone : That is the way we want the answer, right off the bat. The Chairman : That is wha!t we are trying to get for you. Mr. Stone : I wish we had ours the same way. Mr. Shea : Are you through with that subject, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : Yes, just for the present. Mr. Shea : In order that I may keep my record straight, but in the way of explanation, it is possible that the question that I am going to ask has been covered heretofore. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: Now, does your authority cover the hostlers em- ployed on the Colorado & Southern? The Chairman : But, perhaps, Mr. Shea, we could get this straightened out quicker if we just gave you a revised list, showing the present authority of the Committee as to including or ex- cluding hostlers so that you can have something definite that you can work on. Mr. Shea : Yes, I wish you would, because it is quite a diffi- cult task to go all through the records and pick out all of these fine points. The Chairman : I agree with you, and I think it would be well if we gave you a new statement, as far as the hostlers are con- cerned, so that we can get that straightened out and then that will answer those questions that you have in mind. Mr. Shea : I wish you would. The Chairman : Yes. As regards the question you raised on the Long Island Electric service, Mr. Stone, we have a letter from Mr. McCrea stating particularly the lines, they are all passenger lines that he speaks of, that he doesn't want included, but it didn't specifically cover that question that you raised as to whether it covered the switching men in the yard and we have taken it up further with him to find out whether that is or is not in. I take it that it is in. Mr. Stone : I am at a loss to understand why he would give you a list of the passenger runs, because it distinctly specifies that passenger service wasn't included. 274 The Chairman : Yps, as it is so largely passenger, probably the passenger was uppermost in his mind. Mr. Stone : No, he hasn't forgotten about that storage bat- tery car and those single trolley cars that he has to pay the going rate on, that is what is troubling his mind. The Chairman : I would understand that they would be in his mind, because they are all purely passenger. Mr. Garretson : If the lines excepted are all purely passen- ger, the fact is there would be no exception. The Chairman : That is true, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Unless they run milk trains. The Chairman : Well, those are mostly single trolley cars, I take it, on outlying branches somewhere. Mr. Stone: We settled the question of single trolley cars once, you know, with the Eastern Managers' Association, with J our self as Chairman. The Chairman: That is true, Mr. Stone. Why he excepts them in this I don't know, except it is for the same reason that Mr. Garretson the other day wanted to get in the ticket collectors and the — Mr. Garretson: Oh, there was simply — ^you'd describe it as super-caution. The Chairman : That might be, Mr. Garretson, the same as yours was, perhaps. Mr. Garretson : Sure it was. Mr. Shea : Before you get into the regular order, Mr. Chair- man, I want to take up the question of the Buffalo Creek again, because there seems to be some misunderstanding between the committees and the General Manager of that property. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : The chairman was present for a number of days here, or I think, the first, second and third day, and when it was undecided as to whether or not the Buffalo Creek was to be rep- resented by the Conference Committee Managers, we suggested that the Chairman return to Buffalo and take the matter up again with the General Manager, and he did. And this is his reply, addressed to Mr. Stone and myself under date of June 6. This letter is from Chairman Hoffner, representing the engine- men on that line. He says : "My secretary and myself called upon the General Manager, Charles A. Brunn, of the Buffalo 275 Creek E. R. this morning. He said that he had not received any message from the Chairman of the Board of Managers in reference to representing the Bufealo Creek R. R. Co. He also stated that the Erie R. R. and Lehigh Valley R. R. were being represented in the Conference, and the Buffalo Creek R. R. applied to same, and that whatever settlement may be reached by the officers of the organization and R. R. Managers of the Conference Com- mittee will be applied to the Buffalo Creek R. R. Mr. Brunn also stated that Mr. A. J. Stone, Vice-President of the Erie R. R., repre- sented on the Managers' Committee, knows all about representing the Buffalo Creek R. R." Now, the reason I bring this up is, it seems that there is a misunderstanding between the Committee and the Manager, and I think the matter ought to be straightened out as to whether or not that road is going to be included in these negotiations. The Chairman : If you will let me have a copy of that, Mr. Shea, I'd be very glad to see it straightened out. Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. Mr. Stone: In going over your proposition, or rather the proposition submitted by the National Committee, and in apply- ing it to different rules, I must confess I am at sea. I would like to ask a few questions as to how you apply it. The Chairman : I will go as far as I can with it, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Take, for example, the question of initial switch- ing or final switching. For example, the El Paso and South- western has a rule reading as follows : "When engineers are re- quired to do terminal switching or are held at terminal, switching for any cause, they will be paid twelve and one-half miles per hour for such switching or delay. Road and terminal delays will be computed separately." Under that, if a man switched two hours before departure and then ran 100 miles in eight hours, how would paragraph A of your proposition apply? The Chairman: Well, under the present regulations, as I understand, there is no desire to change the basis of pay — the earning possibilities of the man. It says we have no desire to change either the existing rates of pay or the working rules in order to reduce the earning possibilities of the employees, under their existing rules. Now, that is perfectly plain and clear, un- less there is some change of basis, either for overtime or for hours constituting a day. 276 Mr. Stone : All right, we will apply the same rule on a ten- hour road. A crew switches at the terminal three hours before departure, and runs 100 miles in seven hours. How will they be paid under your proposition? Total time on duty is ten hours. The Chairman : With the change of basis? Mr. Garretson : Yes, with the change from ten to eight, be- cause predicated on your statement there has got to be the change. That is why we switched the clause. The Chairman: There must be some change to make any change at all under our proposition, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Well, that is where we are switching from the twelve and a half mile road to the ten-mile road, for the same rule obtains on a large number of ten-mile roads. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone: Well, to bring that out — Mr. Shea: Well, to bring this out more clearly, assuming now, that our proposition was granted — eight-hour day. The Chairman: That is a long assumption, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Computing road overtime at a speed of 12% miles per hour, what would this crew receive in miles and hours as stated by Mr. Stone? The Chairman: Just state your proposition again, Mr. Stone, so I can get it clearly in my head. Mr. Stone: The crew switches three hours at a terminal before departure. The Chairman : With what kind of a rule in their schedule? Mr. Stone: Well, with a rule like this, for example, initial terminal delay; whenever engineers are required to perform any switching service, either before the beginning or after the ending of the trip, they will be paid extra at the rate of ten miles per hour. The Chairman : Well, I could answer that, Mr. Stone, only in this way, just off the bat : that that rule would have to be ne- gotiated under the new schedule. Just what this proposition would mean to that, I can't say off the bat. It has got to be "give and take" on the thing. Mr. Stone : You understand only ten hours elapsed from the time he went on duty until he was off duty. The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Stone: And I want to understand what your para- 277 graph "A," that, "no double compensation for the time or service," means. The Chairman: It means just this, Mr. Stone, that those rules have got to be considered when this proposition is straight- ened out. Just what effect this proposition of ours would have on it I don't know because it says here in this proposition that they have got to be open for discussion and disposition; absolutely open for discussion and disposition. Under certain cases then it might cut it out and under other cases it wouldn't. Mr. Stone : And coupled with that you also make the broad statement as quoted by the Associated Press and all over the land last night, that there is nothing in your proposition, it is not a counter proposition. The Chairman : That is right, it is not a counter proposition. Mr. Stone : And that you don't intend to decrease the earn- ing powers of any man. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Stone : Well, how do you reconcile your statement with your article? The Chairman : Mr. Stone, you didn't read our proposi- tion — that in connection with, and as a part of the consideration and disposition of your proposals, there shall be open for consider- ation and disposition — now just how those will be disposed of, I can't say off the bat, but we want them open. Mr. Garretson: Will you let me ask a question right here? The Chairman : Go ahead. Mr. Garretson : If you are not prepared to say to us what it means when applied to a specific case, how can intelligent con- sideration be given to it? For instance, let me illustrate — The Chairman : Well, you have to take all these things that are in here, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Take the things that you have got in there, just as the things that we have in this. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : We have said to you from our standpoint, the farthest thing that it can mean, in its actual application to specific cases and you have put up probably a hundred of those specific cases. Now when we put up a specific case to you to know what your modification will mean, provided a new basis is es- 278 tablished, if you are not prepared to answer what it means, how can it get intelligent consideration, who can tell, if you can't? The Chairman : Why, Mr. Garretson, it is perfectly simple to my mind. Mr. Garretson : It is perfectly simple to my mind too, if I apply one solution to it. That is, if the whole thing isn't in the air as to what it means and there isn't anybody here able to say what it means. What is the natural and logical sequence? That it can't get intelligent consideration. The Chairman : Yes it can, all we want is that those things shall be open — as I stated very frankly, I think, to you the other day, and as it states in the proposition here, that we don't propose to reduce the earning possibilities of the employees, under their existing rules. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : But if there is a change of basis — now mind you, Garretson — Mr. Garretson : Yes, yes. The Chairman : Now, mind you, if there is a change of base, we don't admit that there is to be a change of base yet — Mr. Garretson: No. The Chairman : But if there is to be a change of base, we want those things opened up so that we can go into them and dis- cuss them, as well as the men going into them and discussing them. Mr. Garretson: But we give you a tentative ground upon which to consider and apply the things that we present. Now, when it comes to your — we'll say, subjunctive proposition, for it is founded on contingency — The Chairman: Absolutely on contingency, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : If the contingency arises that the base is changed — The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Then you take the ground that you are not prepared to say to us how it will be applied in the event of that contingency arising— all you hand us is a "pig in a poke." The Chairman: Oh, I don't take it that way at all, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Well, then, why not say exactly what that will mean to the concrete case, just as we answered yesterday in 279 regard to certain runs, as to what it would mean under these other propositions? In other words, rob this phrase of its offensiveness, lay your cards on the table, as to what you mean. The Chairman : Well, T think they are on the table, Mr. Gar- retson. Mr. Garretson: If they are, they are blank cards then. The Chairman : No, I don't think it is so at all. You have got to have a change of base before this thing can go into effect. Mr. Garretson : And you have got to have a change of base before this can go into effect. The Chairman : Certainly you have. Mr. Garretson : Now, we told you what it means. The Chairman : We don't admit yet that that thing — Mr. Garretson : How is that? The Chairman : We don't admit yet that that thing is going into effect. We haven't heard your arguments yet. Mr. Garretson: You do make the assertion, that if it goes into effect, then these come to life. The Chairman : Then, the schedule is open, to discuss those things where compensation is involved. Mr. Garretson : Well, as sure as you are born, it will never be open until there is a declaration made of what those things mean in their practical application. Now, you made the assertion yesterday, you made it here — The Chairman : Yes, absolutely. Mr. Garretson : That you have no desire to limit the man's earning power, but you made the statement absolutely flat-footed yesterday that in its application it would in certain ways act as a limitation on the earning power of the man. The Chairman : No. Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes. The Chairman : No, wait a minute, now, wait till we get straight on that. Mr. Garretson : Sure. The Chairman : The statement that I made, as I remember it, was that it would not reduce his compensation under the exist- ing conditions. Mr. Garretson : No, but you admitted that it would limit his earning power. In other words, under — The Chairman : Sure. 280 Mr. Garretson : There, you have it, you are right there again. Here you say you don't want to limit his earnings. The Chairman : Don't want to reduce his earnings, I said. Mr. Garretson : Or reduce his earnings. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : If you limit his ability to sell the time that he sold before, you have reduced his earnings. The Chairman: I don't see it in that light, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Sure, if you are taking the position that you are going to offset every increase that may be granted, thereby you play on words, you maintain that position, but the fact re- mains, you do limit the earning power by that very thing. What we want to know is, how much your intention is to limit it by the application of that Article. Mr. Stone : Now, for two days we have been sitting over here and you have been firing those extreme cases that you selected that exist about once in a hundred years, and we have given you a straight answer on every one of them. Now, we come back to you with a little simple question on the application of your own prop- osition and you say you don't know. The Chairman: Oh, I haven't said I didn't know. I have said this : That if there is a change, those things must be con- sidered. Now, if you want specific cases, and under certain as- sumptions, that is another matter. But this proposition here, to my mind, is perfectly simple, that all we want to do is, if there is a change of base, we want something to say. Mr. Stone: It is perfectly simple to our mind what you want to do, but in our proposition you have asked a lot of ques- tions in reference to a few extreme runs, and here you sit down and figure the whole cost from that proposition. Now, you are not willing to give us anything whereby we can figure the cost on your proposition. The Chairman : Wait just a minute now, just a minute. You say I am admitting — I am trying to get my ideas before you as to this proposition. Now, if there are certain specific cases under certain schedules that you feel must be straightened out, as to how our proposition would affect them, I think my own feeling — I have not discussed it with the committee at all — my own feeling is that we may be able to give you something on that. Personally, I don't see that there is any necessity for it, but if you feel that there is something of that sort, I think we can go ahead. 281 Mr. Stone: Well, I want to say very frankly, Mr. Chair- man — The Chairman : Yes, well, take your cases, and I will at- tempt to — I hadn't figured on any particular cases with yon, hadn't drawn up any rule or anything of that sort. Mr. Garretson : Have we figured on your cases ? The Chairman : I don't know whether you had or not. Mr. Garretson : Not on your life. The Chairman : But I will be very glad to take any cases you have and see if we can apply them to this proposition. Mr. Stone : If you, as chairman, who put up this proposi- tion, your ^N'ational Committee that puts up this proposition, can't apply them to our cases, how do you expect the individual manager on the individual road to apply them? The Chairman : Why, Mr. Stone, when there is a change of base decided on — ^if there is, and don't get me wrong — if there is, not admitting that there is to be any change, there is no question but what these things Avill have to be decided. Now, if you want to know how this proposition would apply to certain hypo- thetical cases, why we will have to take them under advisement. Mr. Stone : They are no hypothetical cases. They are rules in schedules that are actually in effect, and there is nothing hypo- thetical about them. The Chairman : Take them on that basis, then, Mr. Stone — Mr. Stone: And they are being paid for every day in the ordinary run of railroading. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Here is what is true, Mr. Lee, for three days you have run a question box here. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Taken us down the line and run the whole gamut — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: — of what the practical application of our three propositions meant to actual cases — The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Garretson: — or to theoretic cases that might be, I assume, the bulk of them were actual in this — that they have been run. The Chairman : Yes. 282 - Mr. Garretson: Some of them run occasionally, many of them run daily, generally or universally. There never has been an iota of hesitation in regard to answering and giving you the outside of what the application could mean — that is the extreme cost on any of those, nor there has not been any refusal of a reply further than was necessary to confer — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: — with my associates growing out of the fact, as I explained at first, that I, who answered a large portion of the questions, was not present when the Articles were framed. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Consequently, some of those I had to confer with my associates before I could reply. But those replies have been given and they have been given in good faith. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : ISTow, here, you remember I said to you the other day, that I expected to vacate the place on the gridiron presently, and then have some questions to ask. The Chairman : I recall that ; I realize that. Mr. Garretson : l^ow, when you are on the gridiron, because you are the mouthpiece of the body here, when you get on the coals, where I have vacated, the first thing we meet with is a fail- ure to give any specific application, whereby we can arrive at just what you wanted to arrive at. The Chairman : I see. Mr. Garretson : Comparative cost. It doesn't matter whether it is subjunctive or whether it is not. This is purely sub- junctive at the present time. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : All the difference is, this is dependent on whether we reach an agreement on that or not. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : jS'ow, they are equally tentative. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : If you are not prepared — and I am saying this in all friendliness. The Chairman : I get you. Mr. Garretson : If you are not prepared to give us that in- formation, we .are not prepared to go forward on a one-sided con- ference. 283 The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : We are going to have as much information, as complete in its nature, as can be reasonably elicited, as you are possessed of, from our side of the table. Now, that is our attitude toward it. Now here, just swap places for a minute. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : If, when you asked what the Article I meant, we would have said, "It means just what it reads," and instead of coming back and giving you the answer on your specific questions, every time you would have been undecided as to the language that exists there, how far would you have gone along with us? The Chairman : Well, now I get your point of view. Mr. Garretson: Yes, and I think you admit it is a reason- able one. The Chairman : I say to you frankly, we haven't gone into the details of these schedules. It will be necessary when any settlement is reached, either here or hereafter, probably hereafter, to go into all these schedules to find out what is intended and where the thing will be applied. Now, if you have some cases that you want to get, to give you an idea of where we stand on the thing, if that is what you are after, why, I will be very glad to take them up. Mr. Garretson : We intend to give you a series of questions, exactly like you gave us. The Chairman : Very well. Mr. Garretson : We are going to see where, from your in- terpretations, those three propositions will affect the present power of the man to sell his time. The Chairman : I see. Mr. Garretson : And we are going to draw our conclusions there, just as you are drawing your conclusions from our answers. The Chairman : Yes, if that is all we are talking about. Mr. Garretson : That is what we are talking about. The Chairman : All right. Mr. Garretson : In other words, it is give and take, and we are going to take as much as jve give in the way of information. The Chairman: Yes, tliat is all right. (Laughter.) Well, now, Mr. Garretson, you understand that this proposition is based entirely on the assumption that there will be a change of base. Now, not granting at all that there will be any change of base. 284 Mr. Garretson : Sure, sure ! The Chairman : We don't grant that for a minute, you know, at the present time. Mr. Garretson: A newspaperman said to me yesterday af- ter listening here, that he thought you were holding out the ol- ive branch, and I said, "For God's sake, I am a dove running around with an olive tree in my mouth all the time, but if you saw any proposition in that, you saw more than I did," and I will say very frankly if he saw any more — I saw you arguing the case and using certain phrases to meet a possible condition. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: That didn't mean anything in the way of an offer, and consequently if you will just go ahead on the basis that we are not charging you with making an offer, a counter- proposition, until you have put it in set terms, that will relieve your mind of any idea that we are interpreting it that way. The Chairman: Well, I didn't want you to get any idea — I didn't think you had any idea. Mr. Garretson : No, I hadn't. I will plead not guilty. The Chairman : Well, if that is the thought, why go ahead, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone: Have you that first case? The Chairman: That is? Mr. Stone : A man — The Chairman: .If I can, I would like to get some rules. Mr. Stone : Oh ! I can give you a dozen rules for that mat- ter, if that is what you want. Take, for example, under Article 3, Section 1, of the Chicago and Great Western Eailway, read- ing as follows: "Whenever engineers are required to perform any switching service, either before the beginning or after the ending of the trip, they will be paid extra at the rate of ten miles per hour." Under this proposition a man switches three hours, before leaving a terminal, he runs 100 miles in 7 hours, total time on duty, 10 hours, how will he be paid under para- graph "A"? The Chairman : He switches how long? Mr. Stone: Three hours. Mr. Garretson : Paid now, thirteen hours. Mr. Stone : He is now paid thirteen hours for it, what will he be paid under your proposition — no double compensation for 285 the same time or service? Take another, or are you going to an- swer that now? The Chairman : Why, I won't answer that right off the bat. I would have to look into that rule a bit and find out what it has got in there. Mr. Stone : Mr. Walber might make a ruling on it. He gen- erally does on these cases, both East, West and South. Mr. Walber : Walber hasn't got a thing to do with this. Mr. Stone : Hasn't he? We generally meet your ruling wher- ever we go ; the first thing we see is a ruling from John G. Walber. Mr. Walber : That's fine. Mr. Garretson : I noticed cases. The Chairman: All over the country. Mr. Stone : Xo question about it. It don't matter whether the railroad belongs to the association or not, they have his ruling anyway. Mr. Walber : Say, tip me off on some of those, anyway, I have got some money coming to us. Mr. Stone : So have we and we are trying to get it. Mr. Walber: Somebody's working us. Mr. Stone : You can find them clear up in Canada, on the Grand Trunk and on the Canadian Pacific, or on the Canadian Northern ; we find it everywhere. It may be over in the trenches, for all I know. Mr. Dodge: They have got 800 brakemen over there. Mr. Garretson : Well, there is some of them I hope to God ^-ill get shot — I mean the rules. The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Stone, I won't answer this just yet. Understand, in these — I want to make it clear, just what I thought — :these various questions have not been raised with the Committee, and the Committee haven't discussed the application of this proposition to any particular schedule or any particular condition. And while only one member of the Com- mittee, the Chairman, would not like to say just what the attitude of the Committee would be on these things, I might have my own ideas, and I have my own ideas about this thing. Mr. Garretson : Well, as the mouthpiece of this Committee. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Bear in mind, we care not who gives the opinion. 286 The Chairman: Exactly so. Mr. Garretson: As long as behind that opinion is the au- thority of this Conference Committee. The Chairman: Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : But, from some source, we want the definite outline upon which we can determine to what degree the earning ability of the man is limited, over what opportunity he has now. The Chairman : I see ; that you are entitled to. Mr. Garretson : I think so. The Chairman : Yes. Therefore, that is why I say I would hesitate to give my personal opinion on these things without con- ferring with the committee on it. Mr. Garretson : We have no desire to limit your opportunity in that direction, Mr. Lee. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : The question is, if you are ready to do it then, and that is all that is involved in it. The Chairman : That is all. Mr. Stone: All right, here is another one — this is Missouri Pacific : "Engineers and firemen, required to do switching at ter- minal or division points ahead of leaving time or after arrival, shall be paid overtime rates per hour for all such work." Mr. Walber : What rule is that, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : It is a part of Article 31, of their present sched- ule. Mr. Garretson : Engineers? Mr. Stone : Engineers' schedule — engineers and firemen. The Chairman: I think perhaps I can answer a portion of that right off the bat. Mr. Stone : Well, wait a minute. I haven't given you the ex- ample yet. He is called to leave at seven o'clock in the morning; he does leave at seven o'clock, and runs a hundred miles. In seven hours he arrives at his final terminal, and switches three hours after arrival — total time on duty from the time he reported for duty, ten hours. What will he be paid for the trip under your proposition? Mr. Garretson : Make a specific statement what he is paid now. Mr. Stone: He would be paid 100 miles and three hours' overtime at the overtime rate, now, under the rule. It doesn't 287 matter, you could take it either way. You could have it before de- parture and after arrival. He is paid either way the same. The Chairman: Either way the same? Mr. Garretson : As long as they are arbitrary, it doesn't mat- ter whether it is initial, intermediate or terminal. The principle won't differ an iota. The Chairman : I think I can answer that right off the bat, but I wouldn't. To my mind the answer to that is perfectly clear, Mr. Stone, as I said before. Mr. Stone: Well, what I want to know is what some of these pencil artists will do with it. The Chairman : That is exactly what we want to do. We want to find out if there is anything involved in there, and you are entitled to know that. As I say, I can answer that right off the bat, but I want to discuss it with the committee. I think I know the attitude of the committee on that particular proposition. Mr. Stone : We have numerous rules under different sched- ules. Here, for example, is another one : initial delay, didn't do any switching. Eock Island schedule reads as follows: "When delayed one full hour before leaving, one hour's time will be al- lowed. When delayed one hour and thirty minutes, two hours' will be allowed, and so on." That is before departure. Mr. Walber. What rule? Mr. Stone : It is Article III. "A man is called to leave at eight o'clock in the morning ; he leaves at 9 :35. He runs 100 miles and arrives at the other terminal 6:25 P.M. What will he be entitled to for the trip under your Article? The Chairman : He is called to leave at 8 A.M., that is, reporting time. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman : He doesn't leave till 9 :35. Mr. Stone : Make that six o'clock instead of 6 :25. Total time from the time he reported until he is released, exactly ten hours. He was paid two hours' terminal delay before he started under the present rule. What would he be paid under your proposition. Paragraph "A." Rock Island again : "Final Terminal delay?" The Chairman : I can answer that, too. I have the answer in my own mind, and I think it is the answer of the Committee, but I want to hold up the group. 288 Mr. Stone: "When delayed 30 minutes after arrival, one hour's time will be allowed. When delayed one hour and 30 minutes, two hours' time will be allowed, and so on." Crew is called to leave at eight o'clock in the morning. They depart at eight o'clock and, running 100 miles, arrive at the terminal at 3 :30. Delayed in the yard two hours and one-half. Being re- leased at six o'clock, total time on duty, ten hours. What would be paid under your proposition? Would be paid three hours' terminal delay now, and 100 miles. The Chairman : Now, paid three hours' terminal delay, and 100 miles. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. Another proposition, switching en route. Illinois Central schedule, the old Article 19, I don't know what it is in the new schedule just printed. I haven't the new one here. It reads the same. "Engineers in through or irregular freight service, required at intermediate points to perform switching not incidental to their own trains, will be paid at overtime rates in addition to their regular trip compensation." The Chairman: Not incidental to their own trains? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. That is one kind of it. I have got another kind. A man leaves a terminal at 8 o'clock, he switches, commercial switching, not incidental to his own train, for two hours, runs over the division 100 miles and arrives at the ter- minal at 6 o'clock in the evening, total time on duty, 10 hours. What will he be paid under your Paragraph "A"? At the pres- ent time he would be paid 100 miles, and 2 hours at the regular overtime rate. The Chairman: The rule reads in that case, "Be paid at overtime rates." Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson: The real question involved is the number of hours. Mr. Stone: It is the number of hours that is involved and not the rate. The Chairman : That is exactly what I understand. Mr. Garretson : In all these cases, it is the number of hours that will be paid for now, and then. The Chairman: That is right. 289 Mr. Garretson : And not the rate at which they will be paid. The Chairman : Well, that is the particular question that you want answered. Mr. Garretson : That is what it really amounts to — comes in to these questions which they were asked on "A" ; that is the real conundrum in most of these questions. The Chairman : I see it is the number of hours. Mr. Garretson : The number of hours that would be allowed now, and then. The Chairman : That to my mind is a very simple answer, Mr. Garretson, but as I say I want to discuss it with the Commit- tee. It is very clear to my mind just what he would be paid un- der our proposition, but not having gone over the various things with the Committee, you see we are in the light of anything that we give up means real money. Mr. Garretson: And we are in the light of our ability to sell time. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : Degrees of possible revenue. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : As well as a natural one under the present scheme. Mr. Stone : Well, we will take the B. & O. "When through freight engineers are required to make up trains at terminals, or intermediate points, or do switching, they will be allowed sched- ule pay per hour for such service — thirty minutes or less not counted." In the example I give there is no overtime, it is 100 miles, no overtime, under ten hours. Mr. Walber : I think there is another angle. Mr. Stone : There is another angle to it, yes, sir ; but it doesn't have any bearing on the case I am going to quote. A man leaving a terminal at 8 :00 o'clock in the morning, does inter- mediate switching for two hours, runs over a 100-mile division and arrives at the other terminal at 6 :00. Total time on duty, 10 hours. The Chairman: Straight hundred miles? Mr. Stone : Straight hundred miles. I am doing that for easy figuring. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Stone: At the present time he would be paid 100 miles, 290 and be paid two hours for intermediate switching. What would hebepaidunder Paragraph A? Loading stock : El Paso & South- western engineers will receive 12% miles per hour, class rates, for bedding, cars, loading or unloading, or waiting for stock be- tween terminals. First 30 minutes to constitute an hour. And hour for hour, thereafter. That road, of course, is on the 12i^- mile-an-hour speed basis at the present time. A man leaves his terminal at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, stops at an intermedi- ate point, and loads or unloads stock for two hours, goes over a 100-mile division and arrives at the other terminal at 4 :00 o'clock, total time on duty, 8 hours. At the present time he would be paid the hundred miles and two hours additional for loading stock. What would he be paid under Paragraph A of your proposition? Weighing cars and icing cars, en route. Missouri Pacific: There are plenty of others, but (to Mr. Higgins) as you happen to be here, I thought you might help them with it. Engineers in through and irregular freight service required to load or unload stock or material, or to ice, or weigh cars, or to replace cars derailed by other trains, will be paid for such work at regular overtime rates. A man leaves a terminal at 8 :00 o'clock, at an intermediate point he puts in, three hours weighing cars and icing cars. He runs 100-mile division and arrives at 6 :00 in the evening. Total time on duty, ten hours. Under the present sched- ule he'd be paid 100 miles for the trip and three hours for the icing and weighing of cars. What would he be paid under your Paragraph A? The Chairman: Paid 100 miles and three hours? Mr. Stone : Yes, sir : Take the same example under the same rule at 8 :00 o'clock in the morning and at several different points, because the time is cumulative; he puts in three hours weighing and icing cars and re-railing cars that have been derailed by other trains, and rxms 100-mile division and arrives at 10 :00 o'clock at night, having been on duty fourteen hours. What would he be paid under your proposition? The Chairman: How much intermediate work? Mr. Stone: Three hours. The Chairman: How is he paid now? Mr. Stone: He would be paid 100 miles and seven hours' overtime. Mr. Garretson: You bear in mind he bulked the delayed time. 291 Mr. Walber: Do I understand, Mr. Stone, under that rule they would get paid for either the hours or the time, whichever is greater? Mr. Stone : I understand so. The Chairman: That is the overtime absorbs the inter- mediate time? Mr. Stone : No, sir, he is paid for at overtime rate, regardless of whether overtime is made on the trip or not. Mr. Schoyer : Then he'd get more than five hours' overtime, wouldn't he? Mr. Stone : Under our proposal, yes, sir. The Chairman: Paid 7 hours, overtime? Mr. Stone : Yes. In this proposal of yours you intend that it shall cover any other service except the class of service men- tioned in ours, or do you propose to apply it to passenger service, also? The Chairman : I think that is perfectly plain, Mr. Stone. "Those provisions in the schedules or practices thereunder govern- ing compensation in the classes of service as affected by your proposals" only so far as your proposals affect the class of service. Mr. Shea : On a road where the basis of a day is one hundred miles or less — to constitute a day's work — a crew on a run of 80 miles from terminal to terminal, made in six hours — The Chairman : 80 miles made in 6 hours? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Upon arrival at destination were re- quired to switch two hours, and for which they would receive two hours' compensation under existing schedule, in addition to a minimum of one hundred miles on trip, or a total of one hundred and twenty miles. How would they be compensated under "A" of the companies' proj)osition? The Chairman : Under this proposition? Mr. Shea : Yes. The Chairman : Now, receive pay for one hundred and twenty miles. Mr. Shea : While we are on that, I'd like to give you an- other. The Chairman : Have you in mind any particular schedule, or just the broad proposition? Mr. Shea: On any road where one hundred miles or less The Chairman : That is on a ten-mile speed basis at present? constitutes a day's work. 292 Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea: Now, another — The Chairman: As I get you, Mr. Shea, there seems to be some doubt in my confreres' mind. You say where they did run 80 miles in six hours, and do switching at destination to the extent of two hours, and now receive pay for 100 miles, plus the two hours — Mr. Shea: Correct. The Chairman : — that would put it into — Mr. Crowley: That is covered by the schedule. Mr. Shea: Yes. The Chairman : They wouldn't get it unless it was covered by the schedule. What are they getting now? There is another one I couldn't answer ofE the bat, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : Now, another one. A crew runs 150 miles in ten hours, but upon arrival at its terminal there is a delay of two hours before final release. How would they be compensated, assuming that overtime was computed at a speed of 121/2 miles per hour? The Chairman : And assume, also, I take it, Mr. Shea, that there is a final terminal delay rule in the schedule? Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman: That is pretty important. Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman: East or West? Mr. Stone : Any road where they pay — Mr. Shea : East or West, on any road where they pay it, and there are a number of them. I will give you another one. The Chairman: Well, we can answer it both ways — either under the East or the West. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. I will give you another one, but from a different angle. The Chairman: What would he get now? Mr. Shea: He would receive 150 miles and 2 hours' final terminal delay, total time on duty, 12 hours. Mr. Walber: Now, that illustrates why I asked you which rule was in effect ; in the East they pay the excess over the hour — now that is under the Eastern award rule. In the West if they are delayed over 30 minutes they are paid including the 30 minutes. 293 Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. Mr. Walber: That is the reason I asked you which rule was involved. Mr. Shea : A crew called to report for duty at 7 :30 A.M., to leave at 8 A.M., but delayed one hour after time set to depart, and made a trip of 150 miles in 8 hours, but upon arrival at final terminal was delayed one hour before final release. Under the schedule provisions this crew would be entitled to one hour initial terminal delay, one hour final terminal delay, in addition to 150 mUes. How would they be compensated under "A" of the com- panies' proposition, assuming that road overtime was computed at a speed of 12^/2 miles per hour? Mr. Shea: Another question, many schedules, both in the East, South and West, have provisions for the payment of a mini- mum of ten miles, if required to double hills en route. In many schedules this is paid as an arbitrary allowance. Under such schedules, assuming that a crew made a run of 100 miles in seven hours but were required to double one hill, for which, under their schedule, they would be entitled to one hour in addition to 100 miles made on the trip. How would they be compensated under "A" of the Companies' proposition? The Chairman : The total elapsed time was seven hours? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Mr. Walber : Now, Mr. Shea, does that rule read that they will be paid ten miles or that they will be paid one hour? Mr. Shea : Ten miles, paid one hour, minimum of ten miles, which is ten miles equivalent to one hour. Dr. Neill : Is 100 miles? Mr. Shea: Exclusive of the doubling — that is the straight distance. That is the straight distance they make on a trip of 100 miles. The Chairman: Paid as an arbitrary? Mr. Shea : In seven hours and receive one hour for doubling hill. Mr. Stone : Well, take work-train service : The Gulf, Colo- rado & Santa Fe has a rule reading as follows: "Engineers in through freight service required to interrupt a trip in such service for the purpose of performing work-train service, not exceeding five hours, will be paid regular overtime rate for the hours so employed. If this time so used in work-train service exceeds five 294 hours it will constitute a separate trip and will be paid as a work-train day." A man leaves a terminal at eight o'clock in the morning, he stopped en route to perform four hours' work-train service and arrives at his final terminal division, which would be 100 miles, at six o'clock. Total time on duty is ten hours. Under the present schedule he would be paid four hours' work- train service and 100 miles for the trip. What would he be paid under your Paragraph "A"? "Unloading material; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe: When through or irregular freight engineers are delayed at any point more than one hour, loading or unloading material, they will be paid for such service at regular overtime rates. Provided, how- ever, that any time allowed for such service will not be paid for as overtime at the expiration of the run." A crew leaves a term- inal at eight o'clock in the morning and are stopped at an inter- mediate point to unload or load material two hours. They arrive at destination, 100 miles division, six o'clock in the evening ; total time on duty, ten hours. They would be paid two hours under the present schedule for the unloading and loading of material and '100 miles for the trip. What would they be paid under paragraph The Chairman : That rule, Mr. Stone, as I understand, if he runs into overtime, is absorbed? Mr. Stone: No, sir, I don't understand it so. The Chairman: You say under present rules he would be paid how? Mr. Stone : He would be paid two hours for loading or un- loading material, and would be paid 100 miles for the trip. I am not putting up any overtime in this one. The Chairman : Well, this would run into overtime. Mr. Stone: Well, that would be a question. You haven't seen any overtime yet. Mr. Stone: "Wrecking service; Southern Pacific, Sunset Central lines. When engineers are required to interrupt a trip to load or unload stock, perform work-train service, load or unload Company's material, or perform wrecking service or to do work incident to either service, they will be paid for such service at over- time rate of 55 cents per hour, irrespective of time on road." A crew leaves at eight o'clock in the morning and at an inter- mediate point does wrecking service for two hours, and arrives at 295 the terminal, 100 miles distant, at four o'clock in the afternoon, total time on duty, eight hours. Under the present schedule, he would be paid two hours at the overtime rate of 55 cents per hour for the wrecking service, and 100 miies for the trip. What would he be paid under paragraph "A" of your proposal? Mr. Shea : On that same road — another question. The same trip they were ordered to leave, and did leave at eight o'clock, delayed two hours en route doing special work, for which they received extra compensation, and arrived at their destination at two o'clock P.M., making a trip of 100 miles, but were delayed at the terminal one hour, for which they are entitled to one hour final terminal delay. How would they be compensated under paragraph "A" of your proposition? The Chairman : How would they be compensated now, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea : They would be paid 100 miles, two hours' switch- ing en route, one hour final terminal delay, or a total of 100 miles and three hours at overtime rates. Mr. Stone : I have got another one for you, an easy one this time. Putting up coal, we do lots of that in the West, and some in the East as well. The Chicago Great Western rule for placing coal at chutes, ten miles per hour, with a minimum of ten miles in addition to trip, will be allowed on through freight trains only? The Chairman: Pardon me, engineers' schedule, is it? Mr. Stone: Yes. A train leaves a terminal at 8 o'clock in the morning, the division is 100 miles ; at two points en route they put up coal at the chutes and arrive at their destination 100 miles distant at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Total time on duty, 8 hours. At the present time they would be paid two hours or 20 miles, for putting up coal, and 100 miles for the trip. What would they be paid under paragraph "A"? Mr. Shea: On that same trip, Mr. Chairman, assuming that they left at 8 o'clock and were delayed en route two hours putting up coal, made 100 miles, and arrived at their destination at 2 o'clock P.M., or a total of 6 hours, but were delayed 35 minutes on account of final terminal delay. Under the present schedule they would be paid 100 miles for the trip, two hours at overtime rates for putting up coal, and 35 minutes final ter- minal delay. How would they be compensated under "A," your proposition? 296 The Chairman : That final terminal delay rule on that road is the minute rule? Mr. Shea: Minute rule; that is, after 30 minutes all time shall be paid. Therefore, if there is a delay of 35 minutes, they will be paid for thirty-five minutes. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone: I have got another one: Eunning for fuel or water. The Boston & Albany have a rule reading as follows: "In computing mileage, engineers will be allowed all miles made by engine after leaving engine-house, including terminal miles, doubling hills, or going for water outside of water limits, or for coal, provided this service is not caused by failure or neglect of engineers." A crew leaves a terminal at 8 o'clock in the morn- ing, and are compelled to run 20 miles for fuel and water — that is the round trip — over and back, 10 miles each way, 20 miles, for fuel and water. The Chairman: That is before they start out, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : No, it is intermediate. They arrive at their ter- minal at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the division is 100 miles long, it would be paid at the present time, 120 miles, or 100 miles for the trip, and two hours or 20 miles for the running for fuel and water. Total time on duty has been eight hours, what would they be paid under Paragraph "A"? The Chairman : Does that rule call for actual miles with a minimum, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : "Will be allowed all miles made by engine after leaving engine-house." He actually made 20 miles, 10 miles going and 10 miles returning to his train, going for fuel and water. The Chairman: He actually ran 120 miles then, is that right? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman : That one, I won't say there was any ques- tion to at all, Mr. Stone, unless there is something in it that I don't see. (Eecess.) 297 Mr. Stone : I want to refer back to that Boston & Albany again, where this running for fuel — The Chairman : That is the one we were discussing just be- fore recess. Mr. Stone : I want to give you another example. He leaves the terminal at 8 :00 o'clock in the morning, and at an intermediate point is compelled to run for coal and water. Actual mileage run is 20 miles. He then resumes the trip and arrives at his terminal, 80 miles distant, at 4 o'clock. Under present schedule he would be paid 100 miles for the trip and 20 miles running for fuel and water. What would he be paid under Paragraph "A" ? Mr. Walber: Have they a separate rule from the one you quoted? Mr. Stone : Ho. I have another example. This is not run- ning for water this time. A crew leaves initial terminal at eight o'clock A.M. Before departure they had one hour's initial terminal switching. They arrive at the final terminal at five o'clock P.M. Actual mileage, 125 miles. Constructive mileage allowance, 150. Under present rules they would receive pay for 150 miles and one hour's terminal overtime. That is Santa Fe Coast line. What would they be paid under Paragraph "A" ? The Chairman : They would receive 150 miles plus one hour's overtime. ' Mr. Stone : Yes, for initial terminal switching. The Chairman : That is for the switching — the one hour over- time? ' Mr. Stone : Yes, it is the engineer's rule. Article XXII, the last paragraph on page 25. The Chairman : That is close enough. Mr. Stone : On the Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Line of the St. Paul, in Article IX, Paragraph "B," we have the follow- ing language: "When engineers in through freight service are stopped at intermediate stations, to do station switching, or are used in work-train or helper service, they shall be paid for such extra service in excess of mileage or hours made. For each six minutes, one mile will be allowed, according to class of engine.'^ Does Article "A" of your proposition contemplate the negotiation of a new rule to supersede this in case the basis of a day's pay is changed? Mr. Stone : Under your paragraph "A" an engine and train 298 crew is held out of service for an investigation and another crew is sent out on the run. At the investigation they are found blame- less. Does paragraph "A" apply to a question of that kind, and would you refuse to pay both crews? The Chairman : I wouldn't understand it so, but I will take that under advisement also. Mr. Stone : Well, it is a question that could come up inside of 15 minutes after the rule became effective. The Chairman: Your particular question is, whether that rule would be voided under our proposition? Mr. Stone : No, sir. My particular question is, under para- graph "A" of your statement, "no double compensation for the same time or service" ; would the crew that was held off the run be refused payment because they were paying another crew on the run? The Chairman: Just what rule is that, Mr. Stone? Have you got it there? Mr. Stone : 'No, but it is a general rule throughout the coun- try that if a crew is held off for an investigation, they will be paid for all time lost. The rule is common in many schedules. The Chairman : I wouldn't understand that this affected that, but I will make sure of it. And another crew went out on their run? Mr. Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman : I wouldn't understand that that was in- volved, but — Mr. Stone : Of course I can understand now what would be the cheapest way out of it — to assess a reprimand against the crew whether they were guilty or not ; then they would not have to pay them. The Chairman : That is not usual. Mr. Stone: It sometimes happens. Mr. Dodge: Now, under the engineers' contract on the Wabash they have this rule, "enginemen making continuous or turn-around trips over a division, performing work-train service en route, accumulating one hour or more, will be paid for the hours engaged in work service at work train overtime rate, allow- ance made under this rule to be in addition to mileage and other allowance." Now, the example is this : 299 The Chairman: Can you give me that schedule? (Hands him schedule.) Mr. Dodge: A freight train runs — The Chairman : Just a minute. Schedule "Engineers and firemen." Mr. Dodge : On the Wabash. The Chairman : On the Wabash. Paragraph "F" of Article VII— Mr. Dodge: A freight train runs 100 miles in 13 hours. It performs three hours' construction work en route. Now they are paid under that rule 100 miles, three hours overtime and three hours for construction work. The Chairman : They are paid 13 hours for the run? Mr. Dodge: And they are paid 130 miles or 13 hours for the run, and three hours for construction work. Here is a yard proposition: On the O. S. & L. Mr. Stone: Wait a minute. The Chairman : Wait till I get this down. Mr. Dodge: Now, the 0. S. & L. have a yard rule reading like this: "A yard crew required to perform service outside of yard limits will be paid for the actual time in addition to all other time made on that date." Mr. Stone : I would like to get all the different examples in rotation if I could. Mr. Shea : We had the following rule in engineers' schedule on the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Eailway Company: "Article No. 23, Switching at Terminals. When engineers are re- quired to make up or switch their trains or do other switching, not necessary to the completion of their trip at terminals, they will be allowed actual time at overtime rate, as per class of service in addition to regular trip, and overtime." Now, assuming — a crew was called to leave at eight o'clock but were delayed until nine on account of switching, they made a run of 100 miles in ten hours but upon arrival at final terminal were delayed one hour. Under this schedule the crew would be entitled to 100 miles and two hours' overtime. What would they receive under "A," Companies' propo- sition? Mr. Walber : Is that ten hours after eight A.M. or ten hours after nine A.M.? 300 Mr. Shea : Ten hours after eight A.M. Mr. Garretson : I have got a question or two I want to ask that will lead to a certain extent while they are on "A." They will interlace to a certain extent with "C," because there is a relation there between "A" and "C" that we can't get away from. The Chairman: Exactly. Mr. Garretson : And I am asking them before we get away from "A." They are not the class of questions that have been put up to you, but they are foiinded on incidents that occur every day in the service. They occur everywhere where the 10-hour-or-less, or 8-hour -or-less clause exists. Consequently, I am not going to localize them on a given road, but I will found them in a general way on the interpretations placed on those rules in the Western territory. The Chairman: Do I get you then, that these are general in the West? Mr. Garretson: Oh, the occurrences are just as general in the East, but I say I am founding on — there is a universal interpreta- tion in regard to the 10-hour-or-less clause. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: That is far older in the West you know, than it is in the East. That is why I locate there. A crew leaves on a short turn-around run, goes 15 miles out, returns to terminal in four hours, making a total of 30 miles. Would you, under the provisions of either "A" or "C," presumably "A," assert the right to run that man straight on through the terminal with the train that he had picked up, or would he be released under the 10-hour- or-less, or 8-hour-or-less clause? Or, if he was in the only crew next out, when he came into that terminal, and he was called to go on with it just as any other man would be called, how would the two trips be paid? The short turn-around, and the long run to the terminal? Now, being paid on the basis of a day for the turn- around, and a day for the one-way run, it being 100 miles? The Chairman : Does that involve the automatic release fea- ture? Mr. Garretson : It involves the automatic release feature in this : In all of the territory, unless a man has been assigned to a series of short runs for the day, it releases him. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: That is under our award with you, but 301 assuming that such is the case, because that is largely universal, he would be, under the present plan, paid a day for that short turn- around. You notice I am making him first out when he arrives, also, in one of the questions. In other words, will he be paid the same as two crews would be paid, called under the first in-and-out rule? Next : A crew makes a run of 100 miles from terminal "A," leaving there at six A.M. and arriving at terminal "B" at ten A.M.; that is four hours for the 100 miles. You bear in mind there is a class of runs in existence that are carded that fast. The Chairman : Yes, and that would be ten A.M. Mr. Garretson : At ten A.M., having been on duty four hours, that crew is called again at eleven A.M., an hour after their arrival, to return to terminal "A," arriving there at 6 P.M., that is, using seven hours. Under "A" that provides that no double compensation will be paid. In other words, time won't be paid for twice. What woiild that crew be paid? The Chairman: Well, that isn't my interpretation of that, but you want to know what that fellow would be paid? Mr. Garretson : What I am finding out is whether the lan- guage and the intent are in accord with each other. The Chairman: Exactly so. You understand, of course, that those three are read in connection with what precedes it. Mr. Garretson : Sure, but what I want is the positive appli- cation of that language. You will understand that these cases, as I have cited them, occur everywhere every day. The Chairman : Yes, what would that man be paid at pres- ent? Mr. Garretson: He would be paid a day for each of those trips. You note neither of them run into overtime. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson: And would the minimum day apply under "A" to one of those runs or to each of them? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : Please just let me ask a question right there, on that one subject. Mr. Garretson : Go on. Mr. Shea : Mr. Lee, do your propositions, either one of them, "A," "B" or "C," contemplate the changing of the provisions of 302 individual schedules regarding the recognition of terminals, as they are now understood, by the employees and the officers of the different companies? The Chairman: I don't exactly get the purport of your question, Mr. Shea, but that point has not arisen with us, and I would say that it does not enter into that provision unless some of these provisions for a changed basis, would enter into it, then we would want to enter into it along with the men. Mr. Shea: Well, I was prompted in asking that question by the question of Mr. Garretson, when he involved terminals. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: Now, you know that on practically every rail- road, crews are not run in and out of their terminals on contin- uous time. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : Yes. In other words, we have what is known as the first in first out rule. The Chairman: On many of the roads, yes. That is in- volved, however, with the rule that Mr. Garretson just spoke of, the second clause, short turn-around clause of the Article "I" of the Eastern award. Mr. Garretson: You will bear in mind my question also brought out two things: First, whether the right would be as- sumed to run this man on, regardless of crews or not. Second, in the event that there were no crews. The Chairman: Exactly so. Mr. Garretson: Whether he would be paid precisely the same as two crews would be paid. The Chairman : Exactly, I understand your questions. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: But Mr. Shea's was a little involved with that. Mr. Garretson : Mine was a single turn-around. The Chairman : I have got your question pretty straight. Mr. Garretson : Now, another, and you will recognize how often this arises : A brakeman making a short turn-around, a total of forty miles on a crew — that is, the crew of which the brake- man is a part — making a trip of that character, making that run in five hours, allowance now being made, of course, for a day for 303 that trip. One hour thereafter he is called, being an extra con- ductor. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : To run a train out one hundred miles from that terminal "A" to terminal "B," making it without overtime being earned on the trip. Under the provision of no double com- pensation for time or service, or under the provision of "C,'' of a man being paid a certain way in differently paid classes of serv- ice, with a minimum day for the combined service, what would that man be allowed under "A" and "G" ? The Ghairman: These, I take it, are separate calls? Mr. Garretson : Undoubtedly he was released on his crew call, with his crew. Then he is called, although the eight hours or the ten hours, at least a day's period, has not yet elapsed. You will bear in mind, there comes the double compensation for the same time. That problem is involved under "A," while the com- bination of services and the application of the minimum day will apply to that under "G." The Ghairman : I see. What would he be paid at the present time? Mr. Garretson : What would he be paid at the present time? He would be paid one day for the service as brakeman — com- puted wholly by itself. He would then be paid one day as a con- ductor on the second service, computed wholly and absolutely by itself. Now, the question is, under "A" and "G," what would he be paid if the contingency upon which they are founded came into existence? Mr. Stone : I have got a couple of more for you on that same point. Mr. Garretson : I have got one more. It will bring out one ques- tion that is involved in all the others, but I will put it in specific form in this one. Under the same form of rule — 100 miles or less — a crew runs 51 miles — I have raised it to 51 miles to cover all possible 50-mile limitations in any agreement of any of the organi- zations — runs 51 miles in three hours, under what you intend to be the application, or the interpretation, of "A," "B" and "C"; would that man be released on arrival as he is now, and paid for a day, or would the right be asserted to use that man in any other form of service, either hours or mileage, within the limitation of 304 hours that mark the day ; switching in the yard, doing any other form of labor, car repairing or anything of that class — bear in mind I am going wide afield in that question because that right has been asserted occasionally, but has never been exercised on a big road to any extent. Is it your purpose to assert any such right to so utilize a man for the unexpired period of his labor, under the provisions of either "A," "B" or "C," or the combined "A," "B" and "Q"? The Chairman : Will you make that broad to this extent : Could he be used for any other service in or out of train service? Mr. Garretson : That is it, put it in that way, and it will cover the points that I desire. Dr. Neill : Mr. Garretson, is it a turn-around run? Mr. Garretson : What is it? Dr. NeOl : Is it a turn-around run — turn-back? Mr. Garretson : I put this just a run of 51 miles. It doesn't matter an iota in the application of that principle whether it is a turn-around or a straight away. That is, he might have been out there on work-train service and he came in, he tied up the night before out there, they found they didn't want him, they sent him in. What I want to get, is the 51 miles free from all complica- tions. Dr. Neill: And he reaches the terminal? Mr. Garretson : And he reaches the terminal, his terminal. Mr. Garretson: Those are all that I desire to ask on that now. Mr. Dodge: Can I ask you a couple of questions, Mr. Lee? The O. S. & L. have a proposition like this: There is a rule in their yard contract; yard crews required to perform service out- side of yard limits, will be paid for the actual time, in addition to all other time made on that date. Now, for example, a yard crew loads stock outside of yard limits, four hours. They receive under this rule one hour in yard service ; they receive one day of ten hours and four hours overtime for loading stock or a total of 14 hours. What would you pay under your proposition? Then I have another question. Under the Kansas City Southern Ey Co. The Chairman: Have you got that O. S. & L. schedule, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: No, but I have a — (hands him paper.) 305 The Chairman : I didn't know but there might be some ref- erence to the schedule. Mr. Dodge: Well, that isn't — that is a rule in their schedule — Mr. Walker — Mr. Walker: Here, sir. Mr. Dodge : What yard rule, or what section of that article was it? Is it a number or a letter? Mr. Walker : I don't know what rule you mean. The hour for the foreman? Mr. Dodge : No, the question I just asked, didn't you bring me up a question, where if you performed — on the O. S. & L. I don't want you at all; you are the Puget Sound. Davis? Can you give me a reference to the particular rule, Mr. Davis, or can you read it intelligently? Mr. Davis : That is a ruling made by the General Superin- tendent. The Chairman : Well, that is a ruling under your schedule? Mr. Davis : Yes, sir. The Chairman : Now, the Kansas City Southern. Go ahead, Mr. Dodge. Mr. Dodge: The yard crew performs eight hours' work in yard service; it is required to go outside of yard limits and per- form five hours in road service. That would make a total of thirteen hours on duty. The Kansas City Southern pays one day in yard service and one day in road service. The settlement reads like this: "When road crews are not available, yard crews may be used for road work, when they will be paid not less than a minimum day for the road trip, or trips, and not less than a min- imum day for the yard work. The time so paid will cover the yard day of ten hours, plus the time or mileage on the road, but in no cases to exceed thirteen hours for the two days' pay." The Chairman : Can you give me the number of that? Mr. Dodge : Well, I tell you that is a settlement under their present contract. I was just wondering what you would pay under your proposition — under your proposal. Mr. Sheppard: Have you finished, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: Yes. Mr. Stone: Have you got something? Mr. Sheppard: Yes. The Chairman: Mr. Sheppard. 306 Mr. Sheppard : In the Delaware and Hudson schedule for conductors and trainmen on page 12, Article II, paragraph "C" is found a rule reading as follows : "Conductors and trainmen re- quired to do switching at any point shall be paid in excess of mileage or hours made; time to be kept for switching at such points and to be added together, and time to be allowed at the rate of ten miles per hour." In the event that a crew makes a trip from terminal to terminal within the prescribed day and does two hours' switching en route, either continuously or in different periods to the sum total of two hours, what compensation would be paid under your proposition "A"? It is now paid not less than 100 miles or one minimum day for the trip, plus the time consumed or made in switching. In the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. schedule for conductors and trainmen — The Chairman : Just a moment. In that run that you men- tioned did not it run into overtime? Mr. Sheppard: No overtime involved, or overtime may be involved. It is immaterial, it is paid independent of all time made on the trip. The Chairman : The point you want to get at is how that par- ticular arbitrary would be paid? Mr. Sheppard : It is double time under all circumstances, now. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Sheppard: I want to know what your proposition — proposition "A" would do — with a rule of that description. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. schedule for conductors and trainmen, on page 15, rule No. 13, is found the following language, "(a) Where trains have arrived at terminal points and crews are directed to deliver their trains to a point beyond said terminal, they will be paid at overtime rates with a minimum of three hours." A crew has reached its terminal on this railroad, and is required to take the train to an outlying point or to some other part of the terminal. They consume one hour in so doing, for which the allowance is now three hours independent of their time over the road. Does your proposition "A" contemplate throwing this in with the time of the trip, and would that three hours' pay extend the time for the company to that extent? Mr. Garretson: Before overtime accrued? 307 Mr. Sheppard : Before overtime accrued — "b" on same page, same schedule, is found this language: "In case of assisting trains in the opposite direction, a minimum of one hour at over- time rate will be allowed trainmen." The Chairman: Same rule, same road? Mr. Sheppard: Same road, same application. Paid in ad- dition to all time on the trip now. What does your paragraph "A" contemplate in regard to that? Same schedule, same page, "c" : "Freight trainmen will not be required to switch over 20 minutes in getting their trains ready for departure at the follow- ing terminals" : (naming terminals.) "If required to switch more than 20 minutes at the above named terminals, they will be paid overtime rates with a minimum of one hour." Is this time under your proposition "A" thrown in the trip, and if so, does it extend the trip 20 minutes, or one hour as paid for? Referring to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad schedule for conductors and train- men, under their rule 4, which reads as follows : "Crews other than passenger required to make short trips outside of terminals before beginning or after completing day or trip, will be paid not less than a minimum day in addition to their regular service from terminal to terminal; time of succeeding trip in such cases begins when relieved of preceding trip. Crews will not be re- quired to make short trips if other crews are available." Does your proposition "A" contemplate continuous time in this? The Chairman: Is that the trainmen's schedule? Mr. Sheppard : That is conductors, and a same ruling ap- plies to trainmen, and I think the rule number is the same Num- ber Four, general rule. Mr. Walber : That is an interpretation of the rule, is it not? Mr. Sheppard: First quote the rule, then we give the ex- amples further down. I think the rule first read is in the schedule. I will tell you. (Refers to schedule.) I might say that this is the latest interpretation, rather than the text of the rule. The Chairman : It is an interpretation of the Rule Four? Mr. Sheppard : No, the Rule Four I referred to is Rule Four in the special pamphlet. It has a bearing on Rule Four, however, in the schedule. Under this same interpretation the following ex- ample appears: "Example No. 2 — A crew called for through freight service from 'A' to 'C has been on duty thirty minutes, checking train, and so forth, was taken off the through freight, 308 and sent to wreck between 'A' and '0/ is gone four hours and fifteen minutes, resumes duty on the first or through freight trip on account of no other crew being available, the thirty minutes' time made in first service to be added to the time from 'A' to 'C in through freight service, making not less than a mini- mum day in through freight service, plus one minimum day for the trip in wreck service." Does your paragraph "A" contemplate a combination of this time? The Chairman : That is a B. & O. rule? Mr. Sheppard : That is a B. & O. rule, that last one. Ee- ferring to the New York, Chicago and Saint Louis Railroad Com- pany's schedule: On Page Six is found a provision for short turns reading as follows: "Twenty miles or less straight away, or a round trip of forty miles or less, for one hundred miles, ten hours or less; two continuous trips may be made; overtime at turn-around points." Under this rule, a crew is called for a turn-around run of 30 miles, and at the turn-around point they are delayed two hours switching. Total time on trip, including the time consumed in switching, 10 hours. At present they receive 100 miles and two hours' overtime. What would they receive under your Para- graph "A"? Illinois Central schedule. Article 23: "Trainmen making side trips or lap-back runs, doubling back, during progress of regular trip, not in connection with their own run, will be paid actual mileage or hours, whichever is greater, at overtime rates for such work, in addition to their regular trip compensation." Under that rule a crew is called for a 100-mile trip, makes a lap-back, or doubles back, consuming 8 hours the entire trip, in- cluding the double. Mr. Walber : What is your lap-back? Mr. Sheppard : Lap-back is what we call doubling back — retracing, it is the same. The example does not show the mileage, but it is paid on an hour basis, presumably, where the time is greater than the mileage — paid 8 hours for the double. The entire trip consumes 15 hours. Under present rule, the crew would re- ceive 230 miles. What would the same crew be paid under your proposition "A" under like circumstances? I. & G. N. schedule. Page 17, Article 18, Section B, reads as follows: "At terminal stations where business does not justify 309 or require regular yard crews, freight train crews will be paid regular overtime rates in their class of service for all switching done, but will not be required to load or unload any class of freight, and such time made will be kept and paid for separate from road time." What would your proposition "A" pay a crew under such circumstances? Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company schedules : Conductors and Trainmen, Page 14, we find the following lan- guage : "Where a train crew loads stock for a train other than its own, they will be allowed time for such service. It being un- derstood that time for which they are so paid will be deducted from total time, which they consume in making the trip, and no overtime will be allowed therefor." Assuming they loaded stock two hours on a trip of 100 miles made within a minimum day, what would your proposition "A" provide therefor? San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company schedule, for conductors and trainmen, Page 20, Article 47, regarding doub- ling, reads as follows : "When trainmen are required to double on grades, 10 miles will be allowed as a minimum, over 10 miles, actual mileage. This mileage will be paid in addition to any other time made on trip and regardless of whether the run is more or less than 100 miles.". What does your proposition "A" contemplate regarding that? Wabash Railroad: In the schedule is found a rule in sub- stance as follows : Running for coal or water, crews required to run for coal — Caption, "Running for Coal and Water: Crews required to run for coal and water will receive actual miles made in addition to mileage made on trip." For example, a crew on 80- mile division makes 15 miles running for water, and makes trip over division in 8 hours. They now receive 115 miles. What does your paragraph "A" contemplate regarding that? Mr. Garretson: Well, now, there is one rule here that is different from that. It touches on the question that was raised a little while ago that you raised, as to automatic release. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Here is a schedule provision that provides that they cannot, under this rule, run crews through their ter- minal on a territory that they are not ordinarily assigned on ; and I will read the rule, that phase of it. 310 The Chair man : What particular road? Mr. Garretson : Oregon, Washington Kailroad and Naviga- tion Company. Rule 38, in its entirety, applies to short turn- around runs. The only provision that I care to put into the record is this : "This riile will not permit the running of crews through terminals on to districts where they are not assigned." Now, what effect would your rule "A" or "C" have upon a provision of that character, provided, of course, that your rule should be- come effective? Mr. Sheppard : I want to ask one more. Mr. Garretson: All right. Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Chairman, does the companies' propo- sition "A" contemplate the retention of rules similar to regulation No. 50 in the Pennsylvania Railroad schedule for conductors and trainmen, which reads in substance about as follows : "Individual trips made prior to the commencement of a regular trip will be paid for on the basis of miles or hours — whichever is the greater, with a minimum of one hour. Additional service required, or trips made after the arrival at the regular terminals, in con- nection with their own train, will pay miles or hours, whichever is the greater, with not less than a minimum of three hours. The Chairman: They are required to go to some point be- yond the terminal. Mr. Sheppard : Does proposition "A" contemplate retaining such rules in the various schedules? Mr. Walber : Isn't that the same as the P. & L. E. ? Mr. Sheppard: It provides for both ends on the Pennsyl- vania, while P. & L. E. only applies on arrival. Mr. Garretson : This is quite a busy question box, and in the past three days I notice that there has been another victim. I hope that the gentleman on the other side of the table will give con- sideration to how us four have stewed over those questions for the last three days. Mr. Shea: The only difference is, Mr. Garretson, we an- swered right off the bat, and they are going to take time to do it. Mr. Garretson: Well, they will have a riot among them- selves, which we didn't have. The Chairman : You understand, Mr. Shea, that you created your proposition in the beginning — this is created — Mr. Shea : By the railroads. 311 The Chairman: On your explanations of your proposition. Mr. Shea: Yes, but — The Chairman: Now, we can't tell right ofE the bat or we couldn't tell right off the bat until we found out what your propo- sition meant. Mr. Shea : Yes, but, Mr. Lee, didn't you anticipate at least what your proposal contemplated? The Chairman : To a certain extent, yes. But we couldn't tell how it would be affected or how our proposition would affect this thing until we found out what your proposition means. Now, we have found out from our questions what your proposition means. Now, we are going to go ahead and tell you what these questions mean, as you have interpreted your proposition, understanding all the time that our proposition is contingent on a change. Now, we have gotten quite a number of interpretations from you gentle- men that we hadn't thought of for a minute when we discussed your proposition. Mr. Shea : You mean you have got a great many interpreta- tions from us bearing on our proposition? The Chairman : Exactly so, and those, of course, affect these questions. Mr. Garretson : We want to give you our kindly assurance that we are going to do our very best to give you those changed conditions to base this on. The Chairman : Fine. Mr. Garretson : I was afraid you doubted that. The Chairman : No, no, I don't know yet whether you are going to get them, and I don't think you are, but that is a matter for future discussion. Mr. Garretson : We don't know about that. The Chairman: Up to the present time we haven't heard any arguments. Mr. Stone : I might add that there isn't any doubt in our minds on this side of the table in regard to it. The Chairman : That is fine. When either side has not any doubt, it is easy to clean up the slate. Mr. Stone : Yes, but in view of the fact that your proposi- tion was prepared long before ours was formulated you ought at least be able to know what it means, because it was there in print, and known by all the managers the day we presented our request. 312 The Chairman : Mr. Stone, this proposition of ours was not formulated before yours, and the interpretation, as I said to Mr. Shea, cannot be put on it until after we have found out what your proposition means, which we brought out by the various ques- tions asked. Mr. Stone : All right, I have another question I want to ask you. Mr. Garretson : Bring out some more. Mr. Stone : There is another angle or two yet that I haven't gotten to. On the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern, the four organizations have an agreement which reads practically as fol- lows — I haven't the schedule here but I think it is correct : "When road crews are required to switch in yard, and a yard crew is lay- ing up at that point with rest-up, the yard crew will be paid actual time that is consumed in switching by road crew. If the yard crew is not called for service on that day, or if not used on that day they will be paid a full day." Under your proposition "A" how would this yard crew be paid? The Chairman : Is it a yard crew or a road crew? Mr. Stone: Yard. Mr. Walber : This is a guarantee for the yard? Mr. Stone: It is a straight guarantee for the yard crew. The road crew has received pay, there is no question how the road crew is going to be paid, but under your proposition how would the yard crew be paid? The Chairman: Is this engineers' schedule? Mr. Garretson : All four organizations. Mr. Stones On the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern, this is another one: The four organizations' agreement. When road crews run through a terminal, they will be paid a minimum day. For example, a crew is called to leave "A" at eight o'clock A.M., arrive at their terminal "B" at two P.M., a distance of 100 miles; reaching "B," they are sent 20 miles further on the next division "C," a distance of 20 miles, and return to "B," laying up at 4 P.M., total time on duty eight hours. Under the present rule they would be paid 100 miles for the trip from "A" to "B" and a minimum of 100 miles for the trip from "B" to "C" and return to "B," total time on duty eight hours. What would they be paid under paragraph "A"? Now, I want to read you a rule on the International and 313 Great Northern — one of the recent schedules, Article XIX, Section B; "At terminal points where business does not justify regular yard crews, engineers and firemen will be paid regular overtime rates for all switching done according to class of service, but in no case shall it be less than one hour, which time shall be kept and paid for entirely separate from road overtime. Engin- eers and firemen will be called to begin switching one hour before trains are ordered to leave, and if delayed getting out, three hours or more from the time they commenced work, road time will start 30 minutes before time ordered to leave. Now, here is an example: Called to commence switching at seven o'clock, they switch three hours and leave at ten A.M., three hours' switching time paid for under the Article ; the road time would start at 7.30 A.M., 30 minutes after time called. Mr. Garretson : The example he reads is printed with the rule. Mr. Stone : Right in the book. The Chairman : I know it is right in the book. Mr. Garretson : Yes, you can verify it right from the rules, which is the same for all four. Mr. Stone : And they arrive at the other terminal, 100 miles distant, at 5 :30, total time on duty is 10 hours. What would they be paid under paragraph "A"? What effect would paragraph "A" have upon the Articles in the several schedules for what are known as no-call days for helper and work train service, who are paid every day, whether used or not. Would it have any effect whatever? The Chairman : You mean that refers particularly to the guarantees? Mr. Stone : Yes, sir, guaranteed compensation. The Chairman: You haven't any particular — any road? Mr. Stone: It is a general proposition on work train serv- ice in the West and on pusher service — pusher service and helper service. Mr. Shea : I want to ask one more question from an entirely different angle than what we have covered heretofore. On some railroads in the Western country they have special rules or rates for mountainous service, particularly the Denver & Eio Grande and the Colorado & Southern. The engineers' and firemen's schedule on the Colorado & Southern provides that on certain territory 44 miles is equivalent to 100 miles, because of the moun- 314 tainous service, and it is paid for as constructive mileage. Un- der "A," of your proposition, how would the engineers and firemen be compensated? In other words, would this be considered double pay, or rather double compensation under "A" of your proposal? Mr. Garretson: I think if you will allow me, there is one instance, at least. Mr. Russell, do you still pay straight double time over Soldier Summit? Mr. Stone: No. Mr. Russell: No. Mr. Garretson : Well, you used to pay it in that language ; that is the point I wanted to bring out. Mr. Shea: On the Denver & Rio Grande R. R. they do not pay this rate as constructive mileage, but they pay it according to the different gradients, at a higher rate per mile so far as the engineers and firemen are concerned. Now, they have their dif- ferent bases for a day's pay. They have the 44-mile basis, they have the 60-mile basis, they have the 61-mile basis, the 80-mile basis and the 85-mile basis. Now, on some territory — ^take it from Salida to Minturn, over Tennessee Pass. They will start out with a rate for a certain gradient, and as they increase, the rate increases, and going over that one division I think the engineers and firemen are paid three different rates. Is that so. Brother Wilson? Mr. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Shea : That is right ; they are paid three different rates. Now, what effect would paragraph "A" have on the Denver & Rio Grande basis and the Colorado & Southern basis? Now, note the distinction — the Denver & Rio Grande is not paid as con- structive mileage, but at a higher rate according to the gradient, whereas on the Colorado Southern it is paid as constructive mile- age. Mr. Stone : On your paragraph "B." Mr. Sheppard : Pardon me, Mr. Stone, I have just one more I'd like to get in, where a constructive time allowance, an arbitrary allowance and all, are involved. On the Northern Pacific Rail- way, for example, on a run of 100 miles; crew is called to leave terminal at 7 :00 A.M. Their time starts at 6 :00 A.M. They are required to coal up two engines prior to leaving, for which they are allowed an arbitrary of two hours for each engine, but it only consumes one hour's actual time. They arrive at their terminal at 315 4 :00 P.M. The total time on duty including coaling engines and all, and the running time is 10 hours. Under Rule 9, Article 10, they would receive 100 miles for their trip, and, for coaling two en- gines, four hours additional, equivalent to 40 miles, a total of 140 miles. What does your proposition "A" contemplate re- garding this? And if you contemplate extending overtime, would it extend the actual hours consumed in coaling engines, or the equivalent of 40 miles for coaling two engines? The Chairman : What does it do now, Mr. Sheppard? Mr. Sheppard : It has no bearing on overtime at all now. The Chairman : Could you let me have that? Mr. Sheppard : I did not put it in the record just as it ap- pears there, I amplified it a little. The Chairman : This coaling of two engines, is that in the schedule? Mr. Sheppard : That is a schedule provision. The Chairman: A schedule provision? Mr. Sheppard : Two hours for coaling each engine. They coaled two which gave them four hours, but it only took them one hour to coal the two engines. The Chairman : How was that done, coaling engines by hand is it, or — Mr. Sheppard : Yes, oh, yes ; I understand that. Mr. Garretson : That is out in the Western territory. Mr. Sheppard: Presumably the entire crew got busy. Mr. Stone : In your Paragraph "B," Mr. Chairman, it reads : "The same classification for the purposes of compensation to be applied to all members of the train and engine crew." Now, for example or illustration, we have on the Pennsylvania Lines, East, probably 300 runs where the train crew is paid the yard rate be- cause it is higher. Where the engine crew is paid the road rate, what effect would your paragraph "B" have on runs of that de- scription? The Chairman : Yard rate for the train crew? Mr. Stone : Train crew, and road rate for the engine crew. Mr. Garretson : And there are a few cases Avhere the conduc- tor of those trains is paid road rates and the brakemen switch rates. Mr. Sheppard: You will find three rates on many of these runs. 316 The Chairman : I think perhaps, Mr. Sheppard, you will find four rates on some of them. Mr. Sheppard : I have one in mind here. The Chairman: Four bases of compensation? Mr. Sheppard : Now, bear in mind that is not in the sched- ule, it is by classification between committee and management. In other words, the schedule doesn't put it up that way. You have some schedules where it is in the schedule. Mr. Garretson: But you pay the crew on three different terms in the schedules that are in effect. The Chairman: There is no question but that does exist. That is, they never could agree whether it was the road or whether it was yard or whether it was some other kind. Mr. Garretson : So they exercised the option on what suited them best? The Chairman : That was the way it was. It wasn't on the work performed, it was the pay that decided the question. Mr. Sheppard: Do you want me to tell you exactly how it came about? There was a time on the Pennsylvania Railroad when yard service paid less than road service, The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Sheppard : But yardmen's pay went up faster than the roadmen's pay. They are still hanging to their old jobs, and the rates of pay which go with it. The Chairman : And many attempts were made for change of classification, too. Mr. Stone : He meant — Mr. Sheppard : It used to be twelve hours in the yard. I hate to name the figures — one sixty for a brakeman. The Chairman : Many years ago. Mr. Sheppard : And when at that time the road brakemen were getting one eighty for perhaps seven or eight hours. Mr. Stone: It says in your paragraph "B" that you con- template the same classification. The Chairman : That is the intention of that, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : And in arriving at that classification do you con- template bringing the high men down to the low level, or the low men up to the high level? The Chairman: Why, I didn't go into that at all, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Well, then, just what does paragraph "B" mean? 317 The Chairman": That is what you asked me here to answer. Mr. Stone : Oh, you are not supposed to answer. I beg your pardon. The Chairman ; We are not supposed to answer any right now, without discussion on our part. The question of how these will exactly apply, is more or less hazy in my mind. After we have gone back and discussed your decisions on your articles, then we can tell more nearly how these questions will apply to ours. Mr. Stone : All right, here is another one to go with it. The Chairman : Go ahead, the more the merrier. Mr. Stone : On many of our roads, the crews on work-trains within certain limits around these large terminals are manned by yard train crews, paid the yard rate. The Chairman: These are work-trains? Mr, Stone : Yes, sir. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone : While the engine crew is paid the road rate. What effect would paragraph "B" have on jobs of that character? The Chairman: That is similar to the other one. Mr. Stone : Yes ; and it also involves the question of whether work-train service belongs to the yard or road service. The ques- tion has never been decided. The Chairman : You want us to decide that, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : If you are going to apply the classification, you will have to decide something along that line, and say whether it takes road or yard rate under your classification. Mr. Walber. Well, just supposing — as you are supposing — we left it for you to decide? Mr. Garretson: What the classification will be? We would probably take the four highest rates. Mr. Walber: With the same classification for all? Mr. Garretson: What? Mr. Walber: With the same classification for all? Mr. Garretson; Why, under your Reclassification Clause we'd have you put it all in the same class — the four high rates. The Chairman: What would you call it? What kind of work would you call it, then? Mr. Garretson : I would call that "Silver Finish," but here is what is actually existent : There are places where a part of the men are paid the through freight rate, and others are paid a 318 special rate. There are other places where the special rate is hooked up with the local freight rate; there are places where a wrecking rate will obtain for a part of the men in that service, and another rate, either local or through freight, will obtain for others engaged in the same class of service. Now, those are some of the things that you can solve while you are answering "B." And if you don't have unfinished business on the Judgment Day on that — The Chairman : Well- Mr. Garretson : I don't know why. The Chairman: Well, you are trying, as I take it, to get us to solve the question that the two organizations, your two, and Mr. Dodge's, in many instances have never been able to solve — haven't you? Mr. Garretson : I have had a suspicion that there are some of these things in this classification problem that, well — there may be a way to solve them, but we haven't found it. Mr. Stone : You understand, with our present schedules we are fairly well satisfied, under the present classification. The Chairman: So are we, under the present schedule. Mr. Stone : But you propose to have the same classification for the purpose of compensation to be applied to the train and en- gine crews? The Chairman: That is one of the things we want to con- sider. Mr. Stone : Then I want to know how you expect to apply it. The Chairman : That is all right. Mr. Garretson : Well, then, we will consider it. Mr. Stone: At least we will guarantee to give it all the consideration it deserves, after we know. The Chairman: That is true — all that you consider it de- serves. Mr. Stone: I didn't say that. The Chairman : I did. Mr. Garretson : I would accept the amendment. Mr. Sheppard : There is another set of runs, Mr. Chairman, where it is entirely passenger business, and which takes a freight rate for some one or more members of the crew. The Chairman : Yes. Well, how does your proposition con- 319 template that those men who are on those runs are affected by this movement? Mr. Sheppard: We would desire you to answer that ques- tion. The Chairman: Well, ours has got to be based on your interpretation to us, Mr. Sheppard. Mr. Sheppard : Well, without conference with the others, I would hold that if you are now paying a man on the freight basis, although on a passenger train, he'd get the benefit of what is being done here. Mr. Garretson : If you will remember, in regard to extra passenger running, the other day, the basis was laid down flat. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That's where extra passenger men are paid the freight rates, they would take the best. I don't know what case Sheppard had in mind there, but exactly the same applica- tion there would probably apply fairly. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Sheppard: There is some on the Erie, I think. The Chairman : All right, we will go over these, and talk to you in the morning about them. Mr. Garretson: Now, there is a man (Mr. Walber) that is a born procrastinator. Mr. Sheppard : He has other troubles. Mr. Dodge : He has other troubles this afternoon. Mr. Garretson : Why, let him bury his other troubles. Mr. Sheppard : Good ; that lets us out. Mr. Garretson : You see, we aren't holding an inquest on his other troubles. The Chairman: In view of complications that may arise on interpreting these questions of yours before answering, we will go through them and let you know in the morning. If we haven't enough answered for a full meeting we will let you know. The meeting stands adjourned until 10 A.M., Thursday, June 8,. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING, NEW YORK JUNE 8, 1916 No. 7 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kouns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. L. W. Baujwin, H. W. McMastek, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. C. L. Baedo, N. D. Mahee, Gen'lManager,N.Y.,N.H.&H.R.R. Vice-Pres., N. & W. Ry. E. H. CoAPMAN, James Russell, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. Gen'l Manager,'.©. & R. G. R. R. S. E. Cotter, A. M. Schoter, Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. ResidentVice-Pres.,Penna. Lines West P. E. Crowley, W. L. Seddon, Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. G. H. Emerson, A. J. Stone, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. Vice-Pres., Erie Raiboad. C. H. EwiNG, G. S. Waid, Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. Vice-Pres. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset _ __ „ Central Lines. E. W. Gbice, Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. J- ^- Higgins. A. S. Greig, C. p. Neill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J. G. Walbeh. Representing the Organizations A. B. Gabretson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (RepresentinglW. G. Lee, Pres., B. of R. T.) Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. &;,E.) L, E. Sheppabd, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. 321 Xew York, N. Y., June 8, 1916. Met pursuant to adjournment at 10 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman : I will say that on account of the questions, one being involved with the other, that we received yesterday, and it being involved, perhaps, with the other features of the sched- ules that were mentioned, the Conference Committee were not prepared to give the answers to those questions this morning, and it was suggested then that if we weren't ready to give those an- swers this morning, that we would meet and get further questions, and then adjourn until Monday as that would suit the convenience of both sides. Mr. Stone : All ready, Mr. Lee. The Chairman : Go ahead. Mr. Stone : I would like to refer back, for a minute, to Article A, and ask a couple of more questions. This is down on the Erie. Now, under Rule "13-C," an engineer now working in the yard eight hours and then required to perform three hours' road service would receive eight hours or 80 miles, yard rate, and 100 miles, road rate. What would he get under Article "A," as proposed by you? Another, Rule "13-B" of the Erie : An engineer on a division of 100 miles or less, if required to perform any service after com- pleting his trip, will receive an extra 100 miles. What would he receive under Paragraph "A," as proposed by you? And what would he receive under your Paragraph "A" if he was required to return to a point 10 miles back, and bring in another train? Total time consumed, 10 hours. Present schedule would give him 200 miles. I have another on the C. I. & L. Monon, they have a rule in their contract that limits to 15 miles distance through terminals, where a new day begins — that is, running a train through terminal. A crew arrives at South Hammond, from the shops, with a stock train for the Union Stock Yards. The distance to the stock- yards from South Hammond is 19 miles. At the present time they are paid 100 miles for trip to South Hammond, and 100 miles for the stockyard trip. Under Paragraph "A" of your proposi- tion, what would they receive? The Chairman: You say they receive at present 200 miles? 322 Mr. Stone: Yes. Now, referring to paragraph "C," "two or more differently paid classes of service performed in the same day or trip," your proposition is to be paid proportionate rates according to class of service with not less than a minimum day for the combined service. Take for example, the Santa Fe proper. They have a rule reading in part, as follows: "Engineers in combined passenger, freight and local service where mileage is less than 100, will be paid the highest rate for trip." How would article "C" of your proposition apply? It is Article II, of the engineers' schedule. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe proper. The Chairman: Will you tell me how that is paid now, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: Paid the highest rate for the entire trip. The Chairman : What speed basis? Mr. Stone: I can't answer that offhand. I am under the impression it is ten miles per hour. ( Turns to audience. ) Santa Fe proper. Kaiser, you can answer this. Mr. Kaiser: What? Mr. Stone : On that combination service what is your speed basis, ten miles per hour? Mr. Kaiser : Ten miles per hour. The Chairman : Or time after ten hours? Mr. Kaiser: Yes, sir. Mr. Stone: Well, the firemen is practically the same. Chicago, Milwaukee and Gary: Article IV. "When an engineer performs two classes of service in one day, he shall be paid upon the basis of the highest rate for either class of work for entire day or trip." What effect would paragraph "C" have? Mr. Shea wants to give an example under that. Mr. Shea : As applied to firemen. Crew called, made 50 miles in passenger service in two hours on an engine that pays 2% cents per mile. They then go into freight service and make a tiip of 50 miles in five hours on an engine that pays four cents ])er mile. Under the schedule, the firemen would be paid S4, whi(!h is the highest rate applicable. This would also apply to engineers with the exception, of course, the rates would be higher. How would they be paid under paragraph "C," j-our proposition? The Chairman: That is, on that Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary, or is that a general proposition? 323 Mr. Shea : Well, that is a general proposition, particularly in the East and on many roads in the AVest. The Chairman: You say he would get |4 now? Mr. Shea: The fireman would receive |4. The Chairman : On what speed basis would he be paid, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea : That is on ten miles per hour. Mr. Shea: Take another question, Mr. Lee. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : Crew called for switching service, works three hours on an engine that pays the firemen $2.50 for ten hours, they then go into freight service and make a trip of 25 miles in three hours, on an engine that pays the firemen 4 cents per mile. They then go into passenger service and complete that trip, a distance of 50 miles, in two hours on an engine that pays the fireman 3 cents per mile. Under the existing schedule the fire- men would receive three hours in switching service, three hours in freight service or equivalent to 60 miles ; and 50 miles in pas- senger service at the highest rate applicable for the entire day's work, which is 4 cents per mile or the equivalent of 110 miles or f4.40. What would he be paid under "C" of your proposition? The Chairman : Have you any particular schedule in mind, Mr. Shea? That is a little bit complicated. If we had some reference to schedule it would be better. Mr. Shea: Take all- of the roads that were in the Eastern Arbitration. That is the interpretation of the arbitrators on the firemen's Eastern award. Mr. Stone: Missouri Pacific: "When an engineer performs two classes of service in one day he shall be paid upon the basis of the highest rate for either class of work or service." Under that rule if an engineer switched five hours in the yard and then performed five hours' road service, either in freight or work-train service, how would he be paid under your article? At the present time he would be paid the highest rate for the entire day. It is old Article XXI. I don't know what it is in the new schedule. The Chairman: That is close enough, I just want to get a general reference to it. Mr. Stone: Oregon, Washington Railroad and Navigation Company, Article VII, Section 3 : "In case of mixed service of any kind, performed in same day, the entire service will be paid 324 for at freight rates ; in no case will less than one day be allowed." A man worked three hours in switching service and four hours iu road service loading or unloading material, a total of seven hours, what would he be paid under "C"? Southern Pacific System; Article XIV, Section 4-A: "In case an engineer performs service in passenger and freight under the provisions of this section, full freight rates for the entire service will be allowed." A man runs 40 miles in freight service and 40 miles in passenger service, under the present schedule he would be paid a full day at freight rates with a minimum of 100 miles, what would he be paid under paragraph "0" ? Wabash, Rule 25: "When two classes of service are per- formed on one trip, the engineer will receive pay for trip at higher rate when not otherwise provided for." What effect would your paragraph "C" have on a rule of that kind? Baltimore & Ohio, Article XXVII-A: "When an engineer performs two or more different services in one day or trip, he shall receive the higher rate for the entire service — " (That is only a part of the rule, that is all that is applicable. ) Under that rule an engineer switches five hours and performs road service of some kind for five hours, at the present time he would receive a full day of ten hours at the higher rate for the entire service, what would paragraph "C" do to him? 0. 0. 0. & St. L., Big Four Route, Article III, "When two or more classes of service are performed in one continuous trip or day's work, the engineman will be paid for the trip, or day's work, at the highest rate applicable to any part of the service performed." Would that article still remain in effect if Paragraph C was adopted? Or what effect would it have upon that article? Delaware & Hudson, Article IV, "Engineers or firemen in mixed train service of any character or doing two different classes of service in one day's assignment, will be paid freight train rates according to class of service and engine used." A man switches for three hours, works in short passenger work for two hours with a minimum of forty miles and works four hours in freight service, making forty miles. He would be paid a minimum of one hundred miles for the day's service, at the freight rate according to class of engine. Now, what would he be paid under Paragraph C? Pennsylvania Lines, West, Article XXXV, "Unless the rates of pay so specify, engineers assigned to two or more classes of 325 service in one day, will receive the highest rate of pay for the entire period? A man switches for four hours in yard service, does construction work for t"wo hours, and is four hours in freight service. A total of ten hours. He would be paid the highest rate for the entire service." Now, what would he be paid under Para- graph 0? "*; Queen & Crescent, North, Article 9, "Engineers required to perform different classes of service in one day or one trip will be paid for all work done during the entire day, or trip, at the highest rate applicable to any class of service required." We have an engineer who is in construction work, or work train service, for four hours, he is in wrecking service for two hours, and in freight service for three hours. He will be paid a minimum day at the highest rate for that service, now, and on some divisions he would be paid an hour's overtime because time would begin one hour before time called to leave. What effect would Paragraph "C" have? Nashville, Chattanooga & St. L©uis, Article 37, "When engi- neers are employed in different classes of service, during the same trip or day, the highest rate for the class of service performed in either miles or hours will govern the entire trip or day. This to apply to main line, branches and switch engines." Under that rule, a man would switch in the yard three hours, would work on branch freight three hours, and on main line freight two hours. A total of eight hours. He would be paid a minimum day at the highest freight rate for the entire day, according to class of engine. What would he receive under Paragraph "C"? The Chairman : I take it there is a different rate for branch than there is for main line on that, Mr. Stone. Could you bring that up? Mr. Stone: I couldn't tell you without looking it up. It isn't specified here. Seaboard Air Line, Article XII : "Engineers in two classes of service, on same trip, straight away or turn-around, will be paid higher rate." Here we have a man working three hours in each class of service during the same day. Under this rule he would be paid a minimum day at the highest rate. How would Article "C" affect him? Southern Railway, Article XIII : "Engineers working in two or more classes of service, on the same trip between terminals 326 will be paid for all work done at the highest rate applicable to any class of service in which they have been engaged. Time on such trips to be continuous from the time engineers are ordered to report at terminal until they are relieved on arrival at terminal or in accordance with other provisions of the agreement. Over- time to be computed on the highest speed basis, or the shortest daily basis applicable to any class of service performed in that trip." Mr. Stone: Mr. Witten! Mr. Witten: Yes, sir. Mr. Stone: What is your speed basis on passenger? Mr. Witten: Twenty miles per hour. Mr. Stone: Then do I understand from this article that your entire speed basis would be computed on 20 miles an hour for the entire day? Mr. Witten: Yes, sir. The highest speed basis or shortest hours. Mr. Stone : Then a man in this combination service for ten hours would have a day and five hours overtime? Mr. Witten: Yes, sir. Mr. Stone : A 100-mile trip I am figuring on. That is a good rule. What would paragraph "C" do to that rule? This could be continued at length, gentlemen, because I think the great majority of the rules in schedules are along that line. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone : But I have read enough so as to give you at least our side of it. I just want to read one more. The Virginia, Article 14, paragraph "T." "In road assign- ments when an engineer performs two or more different classes of service in one day or trip he shall receive the highest rate for the entire service." Under this rule a man works three hours in freight service, making 40 miles, and he works four hours in construction service or work train service, and he would receive a day at the highest rate according to class of engine, for the entire day at the present time. What would he receive under Paragraph "C"? Mr. Shea: On the International & Great Northern R. R., the schedules provide the following rule: "Switch engineers and firemen in yard service will be allowed 100 miles at through 327 freight rate for going outside of yard limits, this in addition to the ten hours for yard service." Example : Switch crew works in the yard from seven A.M., until three P.M., exclusive of dinner hour. They are then ordered to go out of the yard limits a dis- tance of ten miles, round trip, to pull in a train that has been tied up under the hours-of -service law which consumes two hours, making a total of ten hours from the time they were called until final release. Under the schedule rule above quoted, crew would be entitled to 100 miles at through freight rates and ten hours in yard service. How would they be compensated under Paragraph "C," of the Companies' proposition? Mr. Stone : We have just one more I'd like to ask you. This is. El Paso & Southwestern system. Crew called at 6 A.M., for turn-around passenger service of 50 miles, makes trip in four hours; on arrival at terminal same crew called to make a turn- around trip of 50 miles in freight service, using four hours; at completion of freight trip, same crew called for work train ser- vice, tying up at 6 P.M. ; total time on duty, 12 hours. Under the present schedule they would be paid 100 miles passenger, 100 miles freight and one day work train. What would they be paid under paragraph "C"? The Chairman: Was that service all continuous, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: I beg pardon? The Chairman: Was that service all continuous? Mr. Stone: Yes, each time he arrived at the terminal he is called for the other service. Mr. Shea : I have one more question. The Chairman : Just a minute. He'd get the 100 miles pas- senger, 100 miles freight? Mr. Stone : And one day work train. The Chairman: On duty 12 hours? Mr. Stone: Yes. What would Paragraph "C" pay him? The Chairman: That should be true if he was released at the end of his trip. Mr. Stone: It doesn't matter whether he is released or not, he is called when he arrives under the schedule, it don't matter whether he was released or not. Mr. Garretson: Arrival releases him. 328 The Chairman : They have the automatic release, have they? Mr. Stone: Not in so many words, but it is continuous time. Mr. Garretson : First in, first out rule. Mr. Stone: It is the same crew they are calling all the while, so I take it for granted it was the only crew at the ter- minal. Mr. Waid: I was just wondering if it was under the first in and first out. Mr. Garretson: It could. A case of that kind could hap- pen, because I have known on one of the roads here represented, where one crew performed the same double four times in suc- cession within a period of 12 hours, and each time were called first out. They were first out on arrival, when business was full. Mr. Waid : Yes, but I wondered if it could be done, a con- tinuous service proposition, first in and first out, with the reg- ulations. Mr. Garretson : In this case, I don't know. But I know the other has been done many times without violating the first in and out rule. Now, I want to avoid burdening the record, I only want to make this statement in regard to the examples that are put up by the motive power department. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : The rules on those roads, while they may differ in verbiage to a certain extent, the method in which they are paid is almost exactly the same for the two ends of the train — the conductor, brakeman, engineer and fireman on the payroll show the same method of payment in the majority of instances. To minimize the number of questions we will, instead of presenting any synonyms, simply take the position that your answer to the questions and examples put up by the motive power department will apply to the other two where the rule is similar and the result or method of application is the same. Is that satisfactory? The Chairman : Yes, that is satisfactory so far as I know now. You can go along on that basis, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : The only thing is, Mr. Sheppard will give you four or five questions on phases of the question that have not been put up. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : We want to avoid — 329 TheKChairman : I understand. Mr. Garretson : Making those questions more numerous than necessary. The Chairman : I think it is a very wise provision, Mr. Gar- retson and I am perfectly agreeable. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be done. Mr. Garretson : It seems to me that it is better for both of us. The Chairman : If I find any objection, I will let you know. Mr. Garretson : Good. Mr. Sheppard : Mr. Chairman, on many lines in the Eastern Territory we find the rule regarding combination service mate- rially different as between the enginemen and the conductors and trainmen. For instance, on the same railroad you will find they will have a combination rule which will pay them the highest rate for the entire period, while the conductors and trainmen have no rule which combines their service. In some instances they get not less than two minimum days ; in other instances it is one minimum day in one service, plus the other service, and so on. Your atten- tion is called to the Wheeling and Lake Erie schedule, page 23, general rule number five: "When crews in local freight service are used in other service before starting, or after completing a full day or trip, it will not be classed as combined service and time will be allowed for each class of service performed." Under this rule a crew used in two services although the time period may not cover more than fifteen hours, or a lesser number of hours, would receive not less than a minimum day in each service, and each service computed and paid for separately. San Antonio and Aransas Pass Railway schedule for con- ductors and trainmen, on page 22, Article 53, regarding runs off of assigned territory, reads as follows: "When a regular crew is run out of its assigned territory a minimum day will be paid for as per class of service performed. This will be paid in addition to any time made on the regular run." Example: A crew is assigned to a run between terminals "A" and "D"; at an inter- mediate station "B" they are run over a branch line a distance of 25 miles, they then return to their original track, or their regularly assigned territory and proceed to terminal "D." They would re- ceive for this service in their regular assigned territory not less than 100 miles, and they would receive 50 miles additional for 330 the service diverging from their regular assigned track or ter- ritory. Mr. Garretson : But not less than fifty. Mr. Wade : Not less than one hundred. Mr. Sheppard : Yes, one hundred, that is, two days in the proposition — two days, instead of a day and a half. Apply "C" as proposed. Baltimore and Ohio schedule provides in some instances that they will receive one minimum day in one service, plus the time made in another service. For example, on page 7, of Pamphlet issued as effective August 1, 1915, is found the following: 5-D, "If crews in freight service, while en route, are withdrawn from the service for which they were originally called or assigned to, and placed in any other class of service between, or for the balance of the day or trip, they will be paid for such additional service on the basis of miles or time, whichever is the greater, at the highest rate applicable to the two classes of serv- ice performed, added to the actual miles or time in the original service. The first service to be not less than a minimum day, sep- arate and apart from the other service. This does not contem- plate the payment of double time." It is recognized there as separate service, and not combined service, as will be seen. An- other example : No. 3, found on page 8 of the same pamphlet : "Lo- cal freight crew on run "A" to "D," time on duty" from terminal to terminal, twelve hours; distance, 90 miles; required at "C" (yard en route where yard engine is stationed all or part of the time each week) to perform four hours' yard switching, handling cars other than those in connection with their own train ; crew works eight hours on road, and is entitled to one minimum day at local freight rates, plus four hours for yard service, at forty-five cents per hour for conductors, and the yard rate paid at that point for the brakeman." It may be seen here also that it is recognized as two services, and not as combined service. Another instance, where yardmen are sent out of yard, to bring trains to terminal, found on page six of the same pamphlet : "Where a yard crew is required to pull in train to terminal 'A,' the crew will receive not less than a minimum day for bringing train to terminal 'A,' plus not less than a minimum day in yard service for the yard- men, except as provided in General Managers' ruling of January 8, 1915, which reads as follows: (This is exception, Mr. Chair- man, to the two minimum days.) 'Where yard crews are used 331 in pulling in trains at points where the train is on the main track, practically within the yard, or so near the yard as to make it im- possible to do otherwise, Ave Avould then use yard crew with main track blocked. It is not the purpose to use yard crews for going to outlying stations to get trains off side-tracks to bring them in, where road crews should be utilized. Under this agreed upon restricted use of yard crews, which contemplates their being used only in emergency. Article 1-D, of Yard Eegulations, trainmen's schedule, provides a basis of pay.' " That is an exception where they do not pay two days. The Frisco schedule has the usual provision for the freight service, 100 miles or less, ten hours or less to constitute a day. It is under heading Article 13, found on page 15 of the conductors' and trainmen's schedule in effect April 15, 1912, and reads in part as follows: Section I: "Crews deadheading under orders with cabooses shall be paid $.418 and |.278 per mile, respectively, for conductors and brakemen, with a minimum of 50 miles." For example, a crew is called to leave a terminal, and does leave at 7 A.M., to deadhead 30 miles on the passenger train, deadheading from "A" to "B," returns from "B" to "A" with a freight train, arriving at 4 P.M. Time period being from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. Under present schedule crew would receive 50 miles at full rate for deadheading, plus 100 miles at through rate for freight movement, "B" to "A." What would be the compensa- tion under your Paragraph "C"? That is a combination of the deadheading and service. Now, we have another set of rules where certain compensa- tion is paid up to a given number of hours, after which not less than two days are paid. Although the time period may cover much less than two minimum days. For example: Kansas City, Southern Schedule, Article 4, Section 4-E, reads as follows: "Freight crews performing more than one class of service on one run will be paid at the highest rate for all work done on the run." In the same schedule, page 15, Article 4, Section 5-E is found this language: "When more than 12 hours of combination through freight and work train service is performed, not less than a minimum day in each class of service. In that case, after 12 hours not less than two days' pay would be paid." What would be paid under Paragraph "C"? I think that is sufficient, Mr. Chairman. 332 Mr. Garretson : There are one or two questions that occurred to me that I don't know — Mr. Chairman : Just a moment. ( Consults with Mr. Crow- ley.) All right, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : This question really comes under "A" more than it does under "C." On the Aransas Pass road, under the heading of Article 52, you will find an allowance that brings out this question of double compensation more strongly than most rules that I have seen. The Company is obligated not to release crews between terminals under ordinary conditions. When it does so, the rule reads as follows : "When so tied up, trainmen will be paid a minimum of one hour putting away and a minimum of one hour making up train." There are other modifications to the rule, but that stands by itself as a minimum two hours' allow- ance in the case of every tie-up. Now, this can readily arise: A train arrives at a point where the line is broken ahead of them. They are released from duty; they put their train away on the siding. On acount of faulty communication or for other reasons, it is immediately ascertained within the course of half an hour that the line of traffic can be resumed. They are ordered out 40 minutes after they were tied up. Their allowance was two hours, absolutely arbitrary. What effect would the double compensation clause have on an occurrence of that kind? Mr. Crowley: Would they be released after tying up? Mr. Garretson : Whenever they had the tie-up they were re- leased, whenever they were ordered to tie-up and gave notice they had done so, they were released; but bear in mind, there comes the payment of two hours for forty minute^' service, because it isn't based on the amount of work. If they are held there longer, they would be paid more hours, for it is continuous pay during that tie-up period, but the minimum is an hour for putting away, and an hour for pulling out, and it comes strictly under the head of what might be classed, where he only lost forty minutes, as double compensation. It brings it out more strongly than most of the rules do. Mr. Crowley : Mr. Garretson, let me get clear on that. This crew was ordered at oile P.M. to tie up at "B." Mr. Garretson: At "B." Mr. Crowley : They put away their train, and at four o'clock 333 they were ordered to proceed? Are they paid while they are laying there? Mr. Garretson: Between three and four. Mr. Crowley: Between one and four. Mr. Garretson: Between one and four they are paid three hours. Mr. Crowley : And in addition two hours? Mr. Garretson: Oh, no, don't get that, I am taking them out of there, in less than an hour ; I am taking them away from there in forty minutes after their tie-up. You see they come in there and are tied up at three. At 3 :40 they are notified to pro- ceed. They are ready. They go right on, they have been there only forty minutes. Their allowance is the minimum allowance of two hours. Mr. Crowley : But in the case that I mentioned, tied up at one and proceeded at four, they would only get the straight time at three hours? Or would they get the two hours putting train away and making it up again, in addition to the three hours they had? Mr. Garretson: No, no, they would not. This is a dupli- cation, not of double terminal time, or intermediate, rather, but a duplication of road time ; an allowance, arbitrary allowance, for a tie-up, that is what the duplication comes on. It is not on detention time itself, it is on detention and road. It brings it out strongly because here is a two-hour minimum, taking the two together. How would that be affected under "A" in regard to double payment? Mr. Waid : Mr. Garretson, this trip from terminal to term- inal would run into overtime, all of which might have been due to that detention at the tie-up point. The overtime for the road trip would be paid in full, plus two hours setting out and picking up the train, would it not? Mr. Garretson : I think the overtime in full would be paid with the two hours additional. (Turns to audience.) Wade, isn't that correct? Mr. Wade : He'd receive 100 miles to the tie-up point and 100 miles from the tie-up point to the other terminal. Mr. Garretson: A new day would start in addition to that? Mr. Wade : Yes, sir. 334 Mr. Garretson : Well, lie makes it stronger than I did. Under that rule a new day would start. In other words, the two hours would be added on to the former part of the day. Now, what effect would "A" have on that rule, as you have heard it interpreted by the man that works under it? Mr. Crowley : Mr. Garretson, that places another light on it. The crew would be allowed a day to the point of the tie-up and a day from the point they were tied up to the destination? Mr. Garretson : They would. Mr. Crowley : Would they, in addition to that, be paid con- tinuous time for the time they were held at the tie-up point? Mr. Garretson : They would. Mr. Wade : I didn't understand his question. Mr. Garretson : They'd be paid for all the time they laid at the tie-up point, would they not? Mr. Wade : No, they would not be paid unless they were tied up after 10 hours. After 10 hours they'd be paid a new day. Mr. Garretson : Wait now, there is something crosswise here. Train may be tied up— this phase is covered under other portions of the rule. Bear in mind what I want to bring out is the two hours minimum, actual mileage and time, with a mini- mum of 100 miles, and time will be paid for, as per service rend- ered, from point tied up to terminal, when so tied up. This is part of the rule I quoted : "When so tied up, trainmen will be paid a minimum of one hour putting away, and a minimum of one hour making up train. If time exceeds one hour, actual time will be paid." Mr. Wade: That is for putting away the train? Mr. Garretson: No, the two hours — one hour minimum is paid for putting it away and one hour minimum for making it up, but if you lay there three hours, what are you paid for the three hours? Only the two? Mr. Wade : No, you don't get anything for laying there until you exceed so many hours. You have got that part of that Article from some other Article in there. Mr. Garretson : Oh, that is 52. Mr. Wade : Let me see it. Mr. Garretson : Good, I want to get this straight. ( Shows him pamphlet.) They get just the two hours unless the hours exceed ten. 335 Mr. Waid: And if the hours exceed ten, what do they get then? Mr. Garretson : If the hours exceed ten — ^Wade, what do they get? Mr. Wade : They commence to draw on overtime after ten hours for each hour, up until you have been there 16 hours ; then when you are there 16 hours you get one day and each additional eight hours after that you get another day. Mr. Garretson : They are on the 8-hour basis. The 10 hours are not paid for in any event, but the succeeding 8 are paid for and then release takes place again, from the ten? Now, here is a condition that arises occasionally, in regard to two or more classes of service. A freight conductor has run, I can't cite a schedule provision that exactly covers all the condi- tions of it, although it exists in the form of payment on almost any road. A freight conductor going over the division is in ser- vice for a distance of 100 miles — I will put it right up to date in all the parts of the example — a passenger train overtakes him, the conductor is disabled by an accident ; the freight man is taken off and put on the passenger train to run it to its destination. You notice it brings up the two classes of service sharply — The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: — and he runs that passenger train for a period of 200 miles — I am putting 200 to reach all the minimum days under the mileage system. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: That man would be paid in the general way, at least a day in freight service for his 100 miles, he would on most roads, or on many roads, be paid the minimum trip rate on Western territory. You notice I have got to draw the line as between the three territories because in the East and South he would be paid 200 miles, which is more than the minimum day in either of the territories, for the passenger work. The only thing I can't make clear is the amount that he'd be paid in the Western territory because it is on the monthly basis. And I can't, with the varying rates in the different classes, say exactly what he would be paid. Even on the different roads, the subdivi- sion is different, because the lay-over day would enter into the fixing of the trip rate. But he would be paid at least a day in any of the three territories for the passenger work, a day for the 336 freight work. What would your combination clause pay to that man? In any one of the three, in each of the three territories, that is a better way to put it. Then, I have just one more question to ask, for I don't think it applies at all, but I'd be glad to have your statement on it. Would your interpretation of "A," "B," or "C," or "A," "B," and "0," in any way affect monthly guarantees? Because, now here is what exists on at least seven or eight Western roads. Through freight men have a guarantee of earning a definite sum — ^you will find that on Southern Pacific, Houston & Texas Central, Chicago & Northwestern (Omaha), San Antonio and Aransas Pass. (Turn- ing to audience) : Has the rabbit got the guarantee? Mr. Hughes: N. P. has. Mr. Garretson : Wade, has Houston- West Texas got the guarantee? Mr. Wade : I don't think so. Mr. Garretson: And all local freight in the Eastern ter- ritory, and I believe the Southern. It is just a general question as to whether or not singly or collectively, they affect that ques- tion. I think that will furnish you amusement for a reasonable period. The Chairman: For the rest of the afternoon. Meeting adjourned to meet Monday at 10 o'clock. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING. NEW YORK JUNE 12. 1916 No. 8 The Mastee Reporting Co., Ofl&cial Reporters 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, P. R. Albeiqht, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. L. W. Baldwin, Gen'l Manager, Cent, of Ga. Ry. C L. Bardo, Gen'l Manager, N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R. ■ E. H. COAPMAN, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. S. E. COITBK, Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. P. E. Crowley, Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. G. H. Embeson, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. C. H. EWING, Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. E. W. Gbice, Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. A. S. Gbeig, Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. Chairman. C. W. KouNS, Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. H. W. McMasteb, Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. N. D. Mahek, Vice-Pres., N. & W. Ry. James Rttssell, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. A. M. Schoyee, Resident Vice-Pres., Penna. Lines West W. L. Seddon, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. A. J. Stone, Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. G. S. Waid, Vice-Pres. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset Central Lines. J. W. HiGGINS. C. P. Neill. J. G. Walbee. Representing the Organizations A. B. Gaeretson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. (Representing W. G. Lee, Pres., B. of of R. T.) TiMOTHT Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppabd, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. G. H. Sines, Vice-Pres., B. R. T. 337 XeAV York, N. Y., June 12, 1916. Met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the chair. The Chairman : I will read these corrections in the Eastern and Southern territory. They are very few. I will get them straightened out. Central Kailroad of New Jersey. Party to negotiations with- out reservation. Long Island Eailroad. Concerning Mr. Stone's question, as follows : Just what is meant by trolley cars? The single unit car that is doing switching within the yard and all that, the Long Is- land Company ad\dses as follows : "I did not cover Mr. Stone's question of the single unit car that is doing the switching in the yard. We have several of these crews consisting of a motorman and a conductor. They are not attached to any one unit, but as each unit is self-propelling, they move from one cut to another. We have no intention of excepting these crews and believe they should be considered as yard crews." Concerning hostlers, the Long Island advises as follows : "We do not propose to exclude hostlers from anything thej' are entitled ■to under the last arbitration award. I am perfectly willing to dis- cuss with the Firemen's Committee rates of pay and working con- ditions, that is, hours of service of hostlers, but under no con- ditions make the Firemen's Committee represent the Long Island hostlers in anything else, as they have never had that right." That is, he doesn't want to extend the right. Mr. Shea: Everything covered in the Eastern Arbitration award? The Chairman : That is it. Southeastern territory. Elimi- nate from the Atlanta Joint Terminal, under road service, en- gineers, white firemen, conductors and white trainmen. The rea- son for that elimination is, there is no road service. Additions: Southern Eailway Company includes Northern Alabama Eailway. I think that question was raised. Mr. Shea: Well, in addition to that, I think, Mr. Lee, it includes three other small lines running out of Knoxville, Tenn. The Chairman: Those are not included. Charleston & Western Carolina. Mr. Garretson : Yes, you read that in the other day. The Chairman: Under road service, engineers, conductors 338 and white trainmen; under yard service,' engineers, white con- ductors and white switchmen. Macon, Dublin & Savannah : Under road service, engineers, white firemen, conductors and white trainmen. Under hostlers, white hostlers. Under yard service, engineers, white firemen, white conductors and white switchmen. Mr. Stone : I would like to ask a question for information, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone: Mr. Coapman, is it not a fact that those three small lines out of Knoxville are operated as one division by the Southern Eailway? Mr. Coapman : No, sir, they are not. You mean the three lines themselves? Mr. Stone : Are they not a part of a division of the Southern Railway? Mr. Coapman: No, sir, they are not. They have different regulations and different rates of pay. Mr. Garretson : Were any of those agreements made by the general manager of the Southern Railway? Mr. Coapman : No, sir, none. Mr. Garretson: No. Mr. Coapman: None. Made by superintendent, Mr. Hood. Mr. Garretson : And on an appeal from Mr. Hood, wasn't it a fact that the terms thereof were settled? Mr. Coapman : Not necessarily, no. Mr. Garretson : Well, isn't it true in regard to existing — Mr. Coapman : I might say I have no authority on this mat- ter at all. Mr. Stone : Now, who did they appeal to, from the superin- tendent, to you, or the president of the property? Mr. Coapman: I don't know who is the president of the property. Mr. Stone : Well, that is easily found out. Mr. Coapman : As a matter of fact, those three roads were never in any concerted action, they were not in the Southeastern concerted action. Mr. Garretson : Stages of concerted action go forward occa- sionally. Mr. Coapman: . Not in this case. 339 Mr. Garretson : They include more and more lines from time to time, according to the stage of absorption that has taken place. The Chairman: Are you ready to proceed now? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman : We have drawn up a sort of what might be called a yardstick, in which we have replied to these questions that you have given us. The yardstick, we think, is fair. We think it covers these cases. Of course, in the discussion it might develop, that it does not altogether cover them. But, as far as we can see, it does cover them now. We also attempted, and there we have sometimes perhaps run into some snags, we have attempted to apply our yardstick to your proposition as we understand it. There have been some cases where there has been a question be- tween ourselves as to our understanding of your proposition. I will touch on that particular point later as we come to it. Most of these cases are fairly clear, but I want to discuss with you some of these questions as to how, regardless of our contingent propo- sition, you would treat them, because we are a little in doubt as to how you would. There are some of these questions that you have asked us that had not occurred to us to ask you, and, therefore, we are a little bit up in the air as to how our proposition would apply in certain cases, because we don't know how your proposi- tion without ours would apply. Do you get me? Mr. Garretson : I fancy I do. The Chairman : Yes, it is a little bit involved, but that is the sense. Mr. Garretson: I think that I gather your meaning. As we proceed we will find out whether I do or not. The Chairman : That is it. Now here. There is what might be called the yardstick, that we have drawn up to pass upon these things. I can let you all have a copy of this. (Distributes copies to each one.) Now, Chicago & Great Western. Mr. Garretson : Hadn't you better read your yardstick into the record? The Chairman : Yes. This is the yardstick. "A road man's time will start from the time he is required to report for duty and except where tied up between terminals, in accordance with existing agreements, all work and delay required at initial terminal and en route will be paid as continuous time or 340 mileage. At final destination existing rule or rules concerning additional service after arrival, final terminal delay and so forth, not to be disturbed and will be paid for pro rata until the time on duty equals the overtime limit of the run. Time paid for under one rule not to be paid for under another rule or rules." Mr. Garretson: A little understanding in regard to that. That would abolish all initial and intermediate arbitraries while maintaining final arbitraries subject to the time consumed in run. It would leave final arbitraries in force and effect not as ar- bitraries, but as allowances, if overtime was not earned. The Chairman: That is right. Understand, now, that is applying it to your proposition with all that eight hours and time and a half in it. Mr. Garretson : It is applying that rule to any settlement that may be made regarding the propositions which we have presented, and it is not to be affected provided no settlement was effected and present schedules remained in force and effect. The Chairman: Absolutely so. Mr. Garretson: That is, if the present schedules remain in effect there is no change. I assume that that is the deliberate in- tent and purpose of the conference committee of managers, pro- vided any arrangement is made that places in force and effect any of the present propositions i^resented by us, in the event that a settlement should be reached. The Chairman: I don't exactly get you, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : It is your purpose to apply this, if any con- cession is granted to the men in the way of change of base? The Chairman : I won't say that absolutely. Mr. Garretson : That would be your proposition if our propo- sition went into effect. Now, if there was some other proposition went into effect, that might be modified. The Chairman; Depending on the equities of the case. Mr. Garretson: Our proposition is peculiar in this: It is not a modifiable proposition as applies to its principle. In other words, it is either it or nothing, because it only contains two propositions, in reality only one, because the proposition that is contained is the establishment of the eight hour day, and the punitive overtime proposition is nothing but an incentive to con- form to that day as near as possible under the nature of the busi- ness. What makes me ask if that is the deliberate conclusion of 341 your committee in the event that the eight-hour day should, be established, is this: I will say to you very frankly that on the proposition alone, the yardstick and its application, there is no reason for the continuance of these conferences. The Chairman : Well, I will say this to you, that is the yard- stick that we — you see, the difficulty that I had the other day. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : The difficulty was to get something to apply our basis to. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : You said, take our proposition of eight hours and time and a half and apply your basis to that. Now, we have taken your eight hours and time and a half and have attempted to draw up some yardstick that to our mind would be fair and equit- able to both sides. Now, if there was any other change of basis than what you propose, the eight hours and time and a half, that might be modified, but as applying to your proposition that would be our basis. Mr. Garretson : You will bear in mind our attitude is based on this : The question of the establishment of the eight-hour day. In other words, our faith has been questioned as to whether we wanted an eight-hour day or not. There is only one consistent way that the punitive overtime can be applied, and that is the incentive to work the man eight hours, and the penalty placed on you if you work him over that. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : A certain amount of overtime is not con- trollable. A larger amount, from our experience, is controllable. Therefore, the propositions coupled together as they are, or the proposition reinforced by the penalty proviso in regard to the payment of overtime, is in itself a demonstration of the fact that it is the eight-hour day we want. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : The consequence is it is an impossibility to arrive at what might be known as a compromise proposition, because if you abandon the eight-hour day it has ceased to be the eight-hour day demand. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And if you abandon the overtime the eight- hour day is not an iota better than the ten, unless there is a cor- 342 rector attached to it. It is exactly like the enactment of legisla- tion. Legislation is absolutely useless unless it provides a penalty for a violation of that law. It is just so with this setting up of the eight-hour day as far as the period to be worked by men is con- cerned. Without the penalty, it becomes exactly that. It has been asserted by representatives of your committee that we had in view an increase of pay ; therefore, of necessity, we are compelled to associate with the proposition the penalty that goes for the violation of its terms. I am using violation not in the sense of in- fringing on its letter, but — The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Garretson : But of not using every effort to shorten the working day for the men on whose behalf we appear. Assuming for a moment that our purpose is sincere, and assuming that yours is sincere, that there is no desire to curtail the earning power of these men, we have got to get sincerity into your proposition. To go back to the status quo of the agreement, that you have no desire to curtail their earning power under the agreements as they exist, this is an absolute declaration of your purpose to curb their earning power if the new standard is established. The Chairman : I don't take it that way at all, Mr. Garret- son. When you bring the man down to eight hours — Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : And pay him time and a half for overtime after eight hours, you are increasing his earning ability tre- mendously. Mr. Garretson: That does not change the fact that if you pay him for given services outside of those contracted for in con- nection with the daily wage, if you pay him now for extra services required, or extra time required, and on the new basis you cancel all the provisions for such payment, thereby you have largely lim- ited his ability to earn, regardless of by what name it is called. You will narrow his ability under the rules that now exist for the pay- ment of allowances of that character, as an offset against the short- ening of the day and you can only weigh one against the other in asserting that you have not narrowed his ability to earn. The Chairman: Mr. Garretson, do you mean to take the position that if you shorten the man's day to eight hours and then pay him time and a half on top of that eight hours, that he is 343 going to get less money at the end of the month than even if these things are cut out? Mr. Garretson : I say to you that it is an undoubted fact that will figure out true on a thousand runs every day, that are made in your territory (I am speaking of the territory of the committee), that control your overtime to a reasonable degree. Your statement is manifestly correct to a large extent. There may be exceptions to it where overtime was not earned, but when you have brought the majority of those runs inside of the time where you don't pay overtime, and then you cut off the special allowances that are now made, and pay him for the eight hours exactly what you are paying him for the ten, you have curtailed his earnings. That is a foregone conclusion. The Chairman : I don't see your argument at all, Mr. Gar- retspn. Mr. Garretson : Well. The Chairman : Now, on your own argument that I have heard here, if you put a man on that eight-hour basis, you are going to get him over the road quicker — Mr. Garretson: Sure. The Chairman : Well, noAV, if you are going to get him over the road quicker, how can you stop him to do this extra work unless you run him into overtime? Mr. Garretson : That don't apply an iota except to the inter- mediate feature of it. The Chairman : Certainly. Mr. Garretson : For instance, you bring him doAvn and you hold him as under some of these allowances — under one at least — if he made one switch before he started he'd be entitled to an hour? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: There is the extreme of arbitrary allow- ances. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : He would only be detained ten minutes mak- ing that switch, but then he goes on and he makes it inside of overtime. Leave all other allowances out now. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Under the old rule he would have been paid for that run |4.18, plus one hour or 42 cents, as the case may be. 344 And he would have had a total of a day and an hour. Under this, the same thing would take place, and all the pay he would get would be one day. The Chairman : Well, now, under this proposition that you have here — Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Suppose now, this same man did this one hour's switching and he gave you the ten hours the same as he does today, where would he land? Mr. Garretson : Then he would have the opportunity to se- cure two hours' pay at overtime rates. The Chairman : Certainly. Mr. Garretson: But that don't prove anything against the statement that I laid down, that you said you couldn't follow the argument that he don't run into overtime if you control the over- time. In every instance then you have curtailed his ability wher- ever an arbitrary is killed. The Chairman : You are making a supposition, Mr. Garret- son, that I can't see before me, that if you come down to an eight hour day you are going to run these trains in every case, without overtime. Now, let's get straight on this. That will mean per- haps in individual cases that a man will get less, but there are cases through here where he will get a blamed sight more than he gets today, cases right on through here. Mr. Garretson: There isn't a doubt of this because, if you will remember, in every instance the examples that some of the representatives have put up — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: — ran the case into overtime or to the limit of the payment of overtime, in every one of those examples and as applied it would work out the payment for the hours, but on the other hand, some of the representatives put up every case in- side of the limit of the eight hours. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : The examples were meant to bring out the exact facts as the runs now exist. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : They were framed that way for that purpose, but this fact remains, free yourself of the idea that every run is 345 going to run into overtime, and then my statement in regard to what this will do becomes an absolute fact. The Chairman : If you have this incidental work on every run, yes. Mr. Garretson: The fact is that the incidental work isn't on every run. The bulk of the arbitraries only occur on a divi- sion to one or two crews a day — maybe not so many, sometimes oftener. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : But in the month they amount to a sum in earnings upon which you have based your annual pay of those men. The Chairman : Yes, well, now, look here. Let me get this a minute. There are certain of these arbitraries, Mr. Garretson, that seem to us would be perfectly proper under a 10-hour pro rata schedule for overtime, but when you cut the day down to 8 hours, and limiting the man's time to 8 hours for 100 miles, then you put the punitive feature of time and a half on top of that, you want to get the man in, you say — get him in to his terminal. My heavens, you have put a penalty on there that is going to bring him into the terminal, it seems to me in any case, where you can get him in. You won't do this incidental work unless you have to, and when you have to in 99 cases out of 100, it is going to run him into overtime. Mr. Garretson : What was the arbitrary on intermediate and initial overtime originally put into the agreements for? The Chairman : There were a good many reasons as far as I know. Mr. Garretson : The real reason was the corrector of through freight trains doing intermediate switching or intermediate con- struction work, or things of that class. It was the effort to put that service on to the trains that are properly provided for that purpose. The same thing was true in regard to initial time. Initial time was put in to largely require the proper making up of trains, the throwing out of cars that should be thrown out by yard crews, instead of putting it on the road crew. And that is done. The fact is, before those delays were paid for, they were universal, now they are only common, that is the real genesis of the existence of all those rules. The terminal delay was put in as a rule to get 346 trains into yards where they were blocked out. They were all originally put in exactly for that purpose. The Chairman : We don't interfere with that proposition of terminal delay. Mi;. Garretson : Final terminal, you don't except that -f you don't pay it as an arbitrary under this? The Chairman : If he is on overtime, no. Mr. Garretson : You pay it, in other words, if overtime don't accrue, but you don't pay it as overtime in the other. The Chairman: Well, I think that is pretty general, isn't it, under the present arrangements? Mr. Garretson: I fancy. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : There are very many. The Chairman : We don't pay both. Mr. Garretson : The real essence lies in the abolition of the other two. The Chairman : Yes, that is what I understand. Mr. Garretson: With that interpretation, I don't see any good purpose, Mr. Lee, of going further, because measured by that yardstick, there isn't a man we represent that would accept any conclusions based on the abolition of those arbitraries. The Chairman : Well, with that statement there is no neces- sity for answering your questions, then. Mr. Garretson: Strictly speaking, the yardstick itself has answered a very large part of them. If the answers are prepared on those questions, you bear in mind, if you want to answer those questions and put them in the record, we will be very glad to have you do so, for this reason, in taking those questions back to the men, your replies on those questions will have their effect. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : If you are a believer in the good effect they will have, you are entitled to have them in the record. If you are a believer in one of the other effects that they will have, we are very glad to have them there. The Chairman : Well, then, I will tell you what we will do then. That is your position — I didn't understand that that would be your position — we can adjourn until this afternoon, and then we can come back and tell you whether we want to give them to you or not. 347 Mr. Stone : I would like to ask you one question before you adjourn. The Chairman : Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Is it not a fact that your yardstick, as you term it, applied to your proposition, stripped of all its trimmings and of all its fads and fancies, means a service period, pure and simple, nothing else? The Chairman : I don't understand it so for a minute, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : Well, I don't read it any other way for a min- ute. The Chairman : If a man has made one hundred miles in seven hours, he comes up to his terminal, you pay him terminal overtime for terminal delay as an arbitrary. Mr. Stone : Show it to me, please. The Chairman : I will show it to you right here. Mr. Stone : Show it to me in this rule, this yardstick of yours. The Chairman : "At final destination, existing rule or rules, concerning additional service after arrival, final terminal delay," and so forth — ^whatever they are— "are not to be disturbed." Mr. Stone : Bead ahead. The Chairman : "And will be paid for pro rata until the time on duty equals the overtime limit of the run." You pay him pro rata as an arbitrary. I will just illustrate for you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : All right. The Chairman : For instance, I will take a simple case, a hundred mile run. Mr. Stone : I will grasp it easily. The Chairman : So will I. I will say frankly I am no sched- ule expert, but I can understand one or two simple things. Seven hours up to his terminal, he is delayed. Mr. Stone: What distance has he run? The Chairman: One hundred miles. Delayed three hours in the terminal. Under the Western award, now — Mr. Shea: Final terminal or initial terminal? The Chairman : Final terminal. He gets 100 miles, one hour pro rata of his final terminal delay, and two hours' time and a half. ISTow, how do you get any? Mr. Stone: Why did he get time and a half? 348 The Chairman: Because he runs eight hours, he is eight hours on duty at the end of the first hour terminal delay. Mr. Garretson: And he is predicating on your proposition of overtime. The Chairman: And if there is any service proposition in there, I can't see it. Mr. Garretson: Eight here, following up Stone's question, nothing more would be required of the man than is required now under the payment of that arbitrary. The Chairman: No, no, it says here, "At final destination, existing rule or rules concerning additional service." Mr. Garretson: Well, what brought that question out is additional service after arrival, as. it is there. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : What you refer to is the additional services that are now named in the agreements. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Shea : In other words, under your explanation, I under- stand that if a crew made a trip of 100 miles in six hours, and were delayed two hours at final terminal, making a total spread of eight hours, they would be paid for the two hours pro rata of the pay- ment of the trip. The Chairman : If their present final terminal delay called for that, he'd be paid the two hours additional. Mr. Shea : But if he made the trip in six hours and was de- layed three hours, he would be paid two hours at the pro rata rate of the trip and one hour at time and a half? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea : That is your proposition? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : Well, now, Mr. Lee — The Chairman: Understand, that is based on our under- standing of yours, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : But assuming now that a crew was called to make a trip of 100 miles, but was required to perform three hours' switching service at initial terminals, and made the trip of 100 miles in five hours ; they'd receive no compensation for the three hours' switching at initial terminal? The Chairman: No; he'd run 100 miles. 349 Mr. Shea : Then in that instance the service period would come in, wouldn't it? The Chairman: Well, I don't know whether you'd call it a service period ; it is in his tour of duty ; it is the eight hour day. Mr. Shea : Well, that is a very important factor in con- nection with schedule-making. Now, you appreciate the fact that there are many, many roads that have agreed to come into these negotiations that pay the crews what is known as "initial ter- minal delay." The Chairman: I understand there are quite a number of them, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : And they also pay for work en route. The Chairman: I understand some do. Mr. Shea: So that under these rules if a crew makes a trip "in miles" as they term it, they would be paid for all initial ter- minal delay, and be compensated for time consumed switching en route, loading stock, and so forth, in addition to the miles made on the trip? The Chairman : I understand there are some schedules that provide that, yes. Mr. Shea : Yes ; many, many schedules in the West. And it may not appear to you that that amounts to very much, but here is one example: When the Western Arbitration Award became effective, many of the railroads in applying it eliminated all of the arbitraries, such as initial terminal delays and compensa- tion for work en route; and on one particular road in the West it reduced the wages of an engineer |65 in one month and a fire- man |45 in one month — for just that service. Mr. Garretson: Wages or earnings? Mr. Shea: Earnings, earnings. Therefore, by the elimina- tion of all of these arbitraries, such as initial terminal delay and payment for work en route, it reduces the ability of the crew to make money. The Chairman : That was under the ten-hour day, I take it, Mr. Shea? Here this thing is based on going to an eight-hour day and time and a half for overtime. And it does seem to me that if that should prevail that the railroads certainly are sufficiently penalized by having these other things and should not be penalized in addition to that. 350 Mr. Stone : I would like to ask you one question. The Chairman: Eemember this, now, your overtime starts two hours earlier and it is paid time and a half under your propo- sition, and if a man goes over the road for 100 miles in ten hours to- day, he gets no overtime, but under your proposition, if he went over the road 100 miles in ten hours, he gets his day's pay and three hours additional. Mr. Garretson : Let me draw your attention, Mr. Lee, to this fact. That on all these eight-hour roads in the Southeast territory, on all the eight-hour roads in the Western territory, a very strong percentage of the mileage that this committee represents, all those arbitraries are paid now on the eight-hour basis. The Chairman: Well, wait a minute, now, just a minute — there are only certain forms, certain classes of service in the Southeast. Mr. Garretson: The best of the arbitraries are those paid on the eight-hour roads. The Chairman: In the Southeast territory there are only certain classes of service and certain portions of the runs that are on the eight-hour basis, but here you are imposing time and one- half on top of that. Mr. Garretson : Sure we are, but those arbitraries now exist- ent, the one that I cited as the extreme, the one minute switching on an eight-hour road. It was put in Avhen the road was on a better basis than that, for that road used to be faster than twelve miles and one-half an hour. Mr. Stone: Let me see if I get your idea right, Mr. Lee. I understand at the present time that you concede without ques- tion that when a man has run 100 miles in ten hours, that he gives you a day. Or when he has run 100 miles, regardless of the num- ber of hours, he gives you a day. The Chairman: I think so, sir, yes. Mr. Stone : Now, with your proposition, if I give you 100 miles in five hours, you claim the right to call me out and switch me three hours in order to make a good day before I start? The Chairman : Before you start? Mr. Stone: Yes. The Chairman: Well, I don't know if I'd put it quite as baldly as that, Mr. Stone. 351 Mr. Stone : Well, I have put it as baldly as it will actually apply in service. The Chairman : I will put it frankly to you. If he switch- es three hours before he leaves and makes his run of 100 miles in five hours, he gets his 100 miles. Mr. Stone: He'd get his 100 miles without the switching. He gives you a day when he runs the 100 miles. The Chairman : I say, under this proposition. I want you to understand what it means. Mr. Stone : I understand what it means too well. No ques- tion of what it means in my mind. The Chairman: And, Mr. Stone, this case you cite of 100 miles run in five hours is rather an exceptional run. Mr. Stone: Is it? The Chairman : Yes, sir, it is, very exceptional. Mr. Stone : Then we had some pretty big liars in some of our testimony in the West. The Chairman : Oh ! I don't see where you get that at all. Twenty miles an hour for freight trains from terminal to ter- minal? Mr. Stone : Yes. The Chairman : Oh ! Mr. Shea : Mr. Chairman. The Chairman : I question if there are many of the fast freights that make it. Mr. Shea : Mr. Chairman, we can show and we can prove, taking the railroads' own statements in our Western Arbitration award, that a large per cent, of the through and irregular freight service on all of the roads in the Western Arbitration completed their trip between terminals at greater speed than twelve and a half miles per hour. The Chairman : I would like to see that statement, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : We can show it. The Chairman : I would like to see it, and I have looked for it, for it was promised to me here, but I have looked for it and I haven't seen it. Mr. Shea : And before we adjourn, Mr. Lee, I am going to take the pleasure of reading that into the record. The Chairman : Fine ! I would like to see it. 352 Mr. Stone : It is also very evident that you have forgotten the famous Black Book that was filed in 1912 in the engineers' arbitration in the East. The Chairman : No, I haven't forgotten that. Mr. Shea : So don't forget, Mr. Lee, if I forget in introducing that, call my attention to it because I want to get it in. The Chairman : Well, we have been looking for it for about a week now, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : Well, the opportunity has not presented itself. The Chairman: I see, the psychological moment. Mr. Garretson : Well, what time then, Mr. Lee? The Chairman: Two o'clock. We will adjourn till two o'clock. » 353 Meeting convened at 2 :00 P.M. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson, I got a letter from Mr. Wheeler which is a joint letter. Mr. Garretson : We all have copies of that. The Chairman : What do you want to do with it? I am agree- able to doing anything with it. Mr. Garretson : Frankly, here is what I would like to ask : what value to either of us are the details of a referendum of that character outside of any interest we might have in its results? The Chairman : Personally, I don't know, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : If you haven't any, I sure haven't, as far as I am concerned. The Chairman : I haven't any idea. The only thing is, it is a request from a large body. I don't know whether it would be proper for them to come in here while we are in conference or not. That is the reason why I haven't made any reply to it. I wanted to talk with you when you were here in mutual confer- ences, and I didn't want to make any reply till we discussed the matter. Mr. Garretson : As far as I am concerned, if Mr. Wheeler wants to present to us, after Ave have finished discussion of what is between us, tomorrow — It don't seem to me advisable to recess our conference for that purpose. Does it to you? The Chairman : No, I don't think it does. Mr. Garretson : If he wants to present it after that time, if my associates have no objection, I am perfectly willing to listen to the result. The Chairman: Very well then, we can both write him along those lines. Mr. Garretson: Is that satisfactory to you? Mr. Stone: Is it well to establish a precedent of that kind? Are you going to entertain the stock shippers, and all the others of the country? If you entertain one association, I don't see how you are going to bar out the others. The Chairman : I don't see, Mr. Stone, if they are all going to ask you — Mr. Garretson: When there was a request the other day from somebody to be present, it was an efficiency bureau that wanted the man present, and I said to you that there were 50 of 354 them, and if we gave it to Emerson's man we would be virtually in consistency bound to let every other man be present. The Chairman: That is very true, but this thing is a na- tional body really, and as I say, while it is immaterial to us, we are perfectly willing to let them come in, but if there is any ques- tion do just as you like. Mr. Garretson: As far as I am concerned I will say this: If Mr. Wheeler desires to present What he states — he should be glad to present the result of the referendum on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce in open session Tuesday afternoon — I,, for one, will stay here to hear the result of it, even though it seems that that result has been pre-discounted by the telegram received by the news companies that that association was already in Wash- ington attempting to get Congress to take certain action. That message reached here Saturday night through the news agencies, who called me up in regard to it. The Chairman: I hadn't heard anything about it. Mr. Garretson: It was published in at least one of the papers. The Chairman: Somebody told me there was something about it in one of the papers this morning. Mr. Garretson: It was Saturday night, the City News Agency called me up in regard to it. They wanted to call my attention to it and wanted to know if I had a reply. At least one of the papers noted that fact. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: And if they have acted before it was can- vassed, good ! Mr. Garretson: The papers have been full of pre-canvass activities. I am perfectly willing to stay here tomorrow after we close the conference, if conference we hold, and hear that result. The Chairman : Well, should we both write him along those lines then? Mr. Garretson : "Well, I am perfectly willing to do so. The Chairman : Yes, I don't want to commit one side more than the other because it is a mutual proposition. We will write him along those lines then and you can write him the same. Mr. Stone : So far as the canvass of the vote was concerned, it was a foregone conclusion as to what the vote would result in before they took it. 355 The Chairman : I don't know, Mr. Stone. Mr. Shea : What interest do they represent, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : What interest? Mr. Shea: Yes. The Chairman : All I know is what they say it is, the Na- tional Chamber of Commerce. As I understand it, it is an asso-> ciation of practically all the Chambers of Commerce in the country. Mr. Shea : Eepresenting practically big business, big institu- tions. The Chairman : Well, there are a whole lot of little institu- tions, too. So far as that is concerned, I don't know anything about it, really. Mr. Crowley tells me that in the smaller cities the grocery men are members of the Chambers of Commerce, and I know, down in the town I have been living in, Wilmington, there are a good many of the millinery people, dry goods people and all that. Mr. Garretson : All over the country commercial men are either affiliated or in communication with it. The Chairman : That is my understanding. Mr. Garretson : I know from personal reports from scores of those just how the vote went. The Chairman: I have seen it in the papers, that is all I know about it. Mr. Garretson: Well, I got mine from direct statements from members of the clubs in some instances. Mr. Dodge : Now, Mr. Lee, I would like to file a protest, or a statement, which I discussed in the minutes the other day in re- gard to representing a certain class of men, and I would like to have that filed. The Chairman : Shall I read it into the record for you, Mr. Dodge? Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir (addressing Mr. Sines) : Perhaps you had better read it, I don't want to get too hoarse. Mr. Dodge hands it to Mr. Sines. Mr. Sines : "New York, June 6, 1916, Mr. Elisha Lee, Chair- man National Conference Committee of Eailroad Managers, City. Dear Sir : In connection with the statements from the Managers' Conference Committee of which you are Chairman, that the au- thority to represent certain railroads in the Southeastern terri- 356 tory in the present negotiations was restricting your authority to white train and yardmen only, and excluded the colored train and yardmen. In view of the fact that all lines in the Southeastern Territory, mentioned in the Washington agreement of July 1, 1910, and October 1, 1912, ^ath the exclusion of the A. B. & A. Kailway have recognized and conceded the privilege to the Brotherhood of Eailroad Trainmen, to arrange rules and rates for the colored train and yardmen in the abovementioned agree- ments. The undersigned hereby enters protest against the ex- clusion of the colored train and yardmen from the negotiations now in progress. "It might be well to mention there are some other roads in the Southeastern Territory, not parties to the Washington agreement, that have recognized the right of the Brotherhood to negotiate rules and rates for the colored train and yardmen, as mentioned in their present schedules, and they are also to be included in this protest. Yours very truly, T. E. Dodge, Assistant President, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen." The Chairman: At this time, Mr. Dodge, we will have to take the position that we can represent these roads only so far as they have given us authority. Mr. Dodge : I understand, but I wanted to file my protest. The Chairman: In reply to that message, Mr. Dodge, that you read the other day from Mr. Lee, in regard to the Toledo yard of the Michigan Central, we took that matter up with the General Manager, Mr. Bronner, and he advises as follows : "Cannot agree that trainmen represent switchmen at Toledo, for the following reasons: First, switchmen's union deny any such percentage as stated. Claim that a large part of the men belong to both organi- zations and counting these with the straight switchmen's union, the latter are in the majority. Second, we do not wish to divide up our yards as to representation any further than they are now divi"ded. Third, trainmen have never presented this question to any officer of this company. Fourth, this was not included in the demands made by all the trainmen which you are now consider- ing." Mr. Dodge: Well, I think there must be a mistake about that Toledo matter, because out of 38 switchmen, by investiga- tion, we had 36 belonging to the brotherhood. There may be some double-headers. I don't know anything about that. Mr. Sines was 357 a committeeman on the Michigan Central when they were willing to give us the schedule. The Chairman: Isn't it the case, Mr. Dodge, that these double-headers often count both ways? Mr. Dodge : I guess that is true. The Chairman : So it is rather difficult to get at just what the proper percentage might be. Mr. Shea : Mr. Lee, not wishing to take up too much time, but while we are on the question of exclusions, I wanted to know if you received any further information particularly from the lines in the West as to your authorization to represent hostlers on these roads where you have not received authority? The Chairman : Those particularly, I presume you mean, Mr. Sliea, in my letter where we had asked for further advice? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman : Well, that is a little bit involved, Mr. Shea. There are one or two answers here, but I can't determine just whether they are, or they are not. There are some clauses at- tached to the message that might either put them in, or put them out, and I would like to go over that a little more carefully, be- fore I state whether there is any change or not. Mr. Dodge : The message you received from the Michigan Central officials merely spoke about the Toledo yard, didn't it? The Chairman : That was the specific one you asked about, Mr. Dodge. Mr. Dodge : Well, then. I said we had a good representation of the yardmen west of Detroit, including Toledo; that, after a thorough canvass of the proposition, we represented a good sub- stantial majority of the yardmen west of Detroit, including the Toledo yards. The Chairman : As I remember it, your protest, Mr. Dodge, referred particularly to the Toledo yard. Mr. Dodge : Well, I called your attention to our membership in the Toledo yard, and you will note the message which I gave you a copy of. The Chairman: Yes, I have it here. It says: "We repre- sent 36 of the 38 Michigan Central yardmen employed in Toledo." Mr. Dodge : Yes. The Chairman: "Demand our right to speak and legislate for that yard. By actual check we have more members of the 358 Michigan Central west of Detroit in switchmen's union than sys- for that yard. By actual check we have more members on the Michigan Central west of Detroit than switchmen's union, taking entire system. We represent a very substantial majority." As I understand your protest was particularly on account of Toledo yard, on account of that message. Mr. Dodge : We protested on account of the Toledo yard, and also entered a protest as long as we represented a large majority of the men on the Michigan Central west of Detroit that we ought to have the right to legislate for them. The Chairman : Did your men, your local committee, make that claim to the Michigan Central people? Mr. Dodge : I don't know ; it didn't state-^ The Chairman : It says that no claim has been made Mr. Shea : When you receive replies from the Western roads, Mr. Lee, regarding possible representation, I want to go into that matter in greater detail than I have heretofore, showing our rea- sons why we shall insist upon the representation of hostlers. I have refrained from doing that until you have received replies from all these roads. The Chairman : I was expecting to give you that chance, Mr. Shea, and that is absolutely open fbr you. We didn't want to start off any discussion on that particular point until we had got the thing where we could say we were done with it. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson, when we stopped this morn- ing, as I remember it, you had stated that you wanted to know whether the yardstick that we had drawn up was the deliberate intent of our Committee. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : I would say that that was the deliberate in- tent of our Committee, and it was the only way that we could work out the equities to both sides. If you still feel that the yardstick speaks for itself, and there is no necessity to answer these specific questions, why we have no desire to burden the record with it, but if there are any particular questions that, to your mind, come up in connection with it, why we would be very glad to answer those specific questions or any others. Mr. Garretson: Bear in mind I want to get this clear, be- cause we do not have the record of this morning — I mean the writ- 359 ten record. I want to know if that was the deliberate reply of your Committee as an interpretation of what was meant by these three propositions, and how they would be applied to existing schedules in the event of a change of base. As to the extent of the day on those properties that now have the ten-hour day, we were speaking from the position taken by you in the morning after these were read into the record, in which you will remember you took the position that there was nothing in the presentation of these, that even remotely outlined the acceptance of the proposition named in sheet 35 — I am using that for purpose of identification. Was that your deliberate answer? The Chairman : Just a minute, just a minute, say that over again, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : If that was — The Chairman : No, that other statement you made. Mr. Garretson : I don't know whether I can or not. The Chairman: The thought that you wanted to convey was, in putting those in we did not by that action agree that your proposition was proper to go in on the roads. Mr. Garretson: Oh, that is it. Taking that assumption as the outline of our position, for you will bear in mind I stated specifically to you at that time, that we would not judge the state- ments that you had made the day before, when introducing these, as in any way holding out an idea of an offer. The Chairman: That is right. Mr. Garretson: Of a counter-proposition, I think was the word you used. The Chairman : Yes, that there is in no way a counter-prop- osition. Mr. Garretson: No. Following that up, we take this [re- ferring to yardstick] as in the remote possibility, from your stand- point, that the 8-hour day was put in, and the time and a half acceptable on the part of the companies, that that is the way you would apply the measuring by this yardstick. The Chairman: That would refer particularly to "A" on those propositions. Mr. Garretson : Well, "A" when you come down to the facts — A — you mean "A" of Article 1, and "B" of Article 2. The Chairman : No, "A" of our proposition. Mr. Garretson : Oh, "A" of yours. 360 The Ohairman: That would refer particularly to "A" of our proposition. Mr. Garretson: Well, "A" and "0" are so vitally inter-re- lated that no positive answer, I should say, could possibly be made to one that would not apply in greater or lesser degree to conditions arising under the other. The Ohairman : One or the other might be involved. Mr. Garretson: Yes, and when you come down to the last line or the last sentence of your yardstick, it couldn't be otherwise than applied to "B" of your propositions. The Ohairman: Well, that last line of the yardstick, you understand — Mr. Garretson: What? The Ohairman : The last line of the yardstick refers to those arbitraries or payments for service at the final terminal. Mr. Garretson : Oh, that is a point — The Ohairman : I just want to make it clear, that is all. Mr. Garretson : Well, that was a point that wasn't brought out strongly this morning. But if that was the way that you were to measure, combined with your statement of the day that I refer to, that that was not even remotely to be considered a counter proposition, and that your language was in no way to be under- stood as hinting at anything of that kind, we accepted the laying down of this as an equivalent to the rejection of 35 in its entirety. The Ohairman : I don't understand that at all, Mr. Garret- son. That is laid down as an idea that we think should go along with 35 if accepted. Mr. Garretson : Well now, you will bear in mind that that idea has found its first expression, I mean in the form of a pos- sibility of the acceptance of the propositions contained in 35. The Ohairman : Understand me, you said the other day, as I remember it, that we in applying our proposition, would have to take something to base it on. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Ohairman: And we would base it on the supposition that 35 was in existence. Mr. Garretson; Yes. The Ohairman : We had to have something to base the prop- osition on. We based it on that proposition, merely a supposition, 361 as I think you also stated the other day, that you wouldn't think that you had an offer from anybody. Mr. Garretson: No. The Chairman: Until it was a flat-footed offer. Mr. Garretson : Made in set terms. Mr. Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: But in the face of the statement that you made a moment ago, now, here — The Chairman : You are not trying to get me to say that we have accepted that, are you? Mr. Garretson : Well, I guess not. I have known you some time. The Chairman : I have known you too, Mr. Garretson, very pleasantly, I will say. Mr. Garretson: Here, don't run away with the idea that I was, in any form, trying to take a snap-shot admission. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: But, now let's get it straight. The Chairman: All right. Mr. Garretson : We will not divide our playthings on a sup- position. We are basing on the idea that it carries with it the rejection of 35. The Chairman: Why we haven't rejected 35. Mr. Garretson : But you have said here how you would in- terpret it. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: We say to you that no such an interpreta- tion as is foreshadowed in this "yardstick" would make the propo- sitions themselves acceptable to us. The Chairman : Then, do I understand, you reject it? Mr. Garretson: No, we reject your interpretation of those propositions. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Even if with your interpretation or with your "yardstick," came the proposition to accept those articles as they are. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : It becomes, saddled with that as an inter- preter, an utterly undesirable proposition from our standpoint. 362 Therefore, we take the assumption from what you said the other day that there could no contingency arise, whereby these would be acceptable to you, except interpreted by this key. Now, there I think I am interpreting your idea. The Chairman : That is my idea, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : And if you would only consider acceptance of these with these interpretations applied to them, that would fur- nish us no common ground. Now, rather than to let it appear that we are disagreeing on a shadow man, we will go ahead, and let you present your answers to the propositions that we have presented, and see what those answers interpreted by this are, for I am right in assuming that you prepared them, based upon this yardstick? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Out of the answers themselves then, will probably come, not the shadow, but the definite point upon which disagreement would probably arise. The Chairman : Yes, we are perfectly willing to let them go in, if you would like to have them. Mr. Garretson : Yes, good. The Chairman: What shall I do, just read them along or do you want to discuss them as we go along? Mr. Garretson: Well, it would be probably better to read them. How are they, seriatim? The Chairman: Yes, seriatim, except that we had left out some of these, because as I mentioned this morning, we are a lit- tle indefinite as to how yours would apply on certain questions, particularly on these two classification propositions. We are a little up in the air on that, and I would like to ask you some ques- tions. Mr. Garretson : Very good ; I would be very glad to answer them. The Chairman: And we would like to know how yours would apply so as to get at our own. Take, for instance, the Chicago & Great Western case. That is an engineer's case. Arti- cle III, Section I. We have engineers required to perform any switching service either before the beginning or after the ending of the trip. They will be paid extra at the rate of 10 miles per hour. I »i<|| Mr. Garretson: Well, now, let us get straightened out in 363 the minutes where that is. I think the first question was El Paso & Southwestern. Mr. Shea: Two hundred and eighty -four was El Paso & Southwestern. Mr. Dodge : Down close to the bottom ? Mr. Garretson : The first one is 275, and is El Paso & South- western. That is the question that Mr. Stone read, you will re- member, where the question arose right following it, as to whether specific answers would be made. The Chairman : Where is El Paso & Southwestern? Mr. Stone : Two hundred and seventy-five. The Chairman : Well, now^, is there any between that and Chicago & Great Western? Mr. Garretson : I think that that was the one that immedi- ately followed the El Paso and Southwestern question on page 275. The Chairman : "Whenever engineers are required to per- form any switching service, either before the beginning or after the ending of the trip, they will be paid extra at the rate of ten miles per hour." Question : A man switches 3 hours before leaving terminal, runs 100 miles in 7 hours, total time on duty, 10 hours. How will he be paid under paragraph "A"? Answer: 100 miles, and 2 hours' overtime. His total time on duty is 10 hours. Mr. Stone : That is under proposition 35, but not as applied to the present schedule? The Chairman : How is that modified by our proposition? Mr. Stone : That is 35 modified by your proposition. The Chairman : That is what I say, yes. Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Shea :, You say he would receive three hours. Mr. Stone: Two. Mr. Garretson: Under the old he would be paid 13, under this he would be paid 10. The Chairman: So that that question that Mr. Stone just raised can be made perfectly clear, I want to say that these answers are all drawn up based on the assumption of 35 in con- nection with our contingency proposition. That was in accordance with the request, Mr. Shea. 364 Mr. Shea : Yes, sir, I understand. The Chairman: Under this proposition, a man would get 100 miles and two hours overtime. Mr. Garretson: "Would get what? The Chairman : One hundred miles and two hours overtime. Mr. Garretson: Yes, that is equivalent to ten hours. He would absorb one hour of the arbitrary of the initial switching. The Chairman : Oh, yes, that is right. I am frank to say I have no schedule in my hand. That is right. Mr. Garretson : That is right. That is the result that works out. The Chairman: Understand on this that the overtime is time and a half, under your proposition, too. Mr. Garretson : Well, but there is no overtime in this. Mr. Stone: Yes, sir, there is. The Chairman : Yes, there is under the proposition that we have put down here. Mr. Garretson: What? The Chairman: Under the proposition that we have put down here. Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes, but I mean as it was propounded. The Chairman : Well, if it goes to an eight-hour day there certainly is some there, isn't there? Mr. Garretson : Yes, but I say the question as it was origi- nally propounded was within the ten-hour limit. The Chairman: Yes, at the present time. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : So as a matter of fact on that question you would practically get the same under the combination of the two propositions as he gets today. Mr. Garretson : One hour less. The Chairman : That is time and a half, though. Mr. Higgins : He would get 100 miles and three hours now. He would get 100 miles and two hours' overtime at time and a half, 100 miles and three hours under it. Mr. Garretson : On that schedule they pay on the basis of the overtime rate for work of that character. They pay pro rata now, ten miles an hour. If the schedule reads that, they pay eleven hours' time, for under the interpretation that was given by you, it wouldn't be paid under the overtime rate, the punitive rate. 365 Mr. Shea : Under this question that we are discussing, as applied to the Chicago & Great Western Eailroad, the crew would receive one hundred miles and three hours overtime, because there was only a spread of ten hours, three of which were con- sumed as switching at the initial terminal. Mr. Higgins : The overtime would be pro rata? Mr. Shea : Oh, absolutely, yes, under the present method of computation on that road. Mr. Higgins : Now, applying 35, which is your proposition, to that identical case, a man would get one hundred miles, and two hours overtime, which you provide for at time and a half, which is three hours, or taking it into miles, today he would get one hundred and thirty miles. Under your proposition he would get one hundred and thirtyseven and a half miles. Mr. Shea : Yes, I think that is true, figuring it out at that rate. Mr. Garretson : Under the interpretation that was given by Mr. Stone of those clauses, there is no punitive rate, nor would there be under 35 for those three hours' work, because that sched- ule distinctly provides a pro rata rate of the service in which they are engaged. Therefore, it wouldn't run into punitive overtime at all, and would be paid at the flat rate. You will bear in mind it is where his schedules read "will be paid at the overtime rate," that he interpreted to you, that the punitive rate would take ef- fect. This isn't one of those, therefore; there is the dead loss of an hour. The Chairman : To you? Mr. Garretson : Yes, the men. The Chairman: Under your proposition? Mr. Garretson : Under our own proposition. The Chairman: Yes. Not as modified by ours? Mr. Garretson: As modified by yours, yes, because under our proposition the three hours would be paid for still as an arbitrary at the pro rata rate. The Chairman : But as under our proposition he is paid on overtime. Mr. Garretson: Under your proposition, he is not paid as under overtime, except where it runs into it in the last hour. The Chairman : That is, he is on duty ten hours? Mr. Garretson: This example isn't on final terminal, it is initial terminal. 366 The Chairman: I know, but he doesn't get this two hours overtime with^ us at his initial terminal. Mr. Garretson: Sure, he don't. The Chairman : He gets it at his final terminal where he is on overtime. He is ten hours on duty. Mr. Garretson : There it would have the same result. Mr. Higgins: Your proposition, paragraph "D," Article I, says : "All overtime to be computed on the minute basis and paid for at time and a Jialf times the pro rata rate." (f) "Time will be computed continuously from time re- quired for duty until released from duty and responsibility of duty, at end of day or run." Now, taking those together, how could you figure more out of it than we have answered? Mr. Garretson: In money, it would be exactly the same, because in the end, you'd pay at the punitive rate regardless. Mr. Higgins : We give you 1371/^ miles instead of 130, that you are getting today. Mr. Garretson: I don't see 137% miles. What is the dis- tance? Mr. Higgins : One hundred miles. Mr. Garretson: Oh, if the distance was 100 miles, I won't resolve it into miles. You'd give on the flat hours two hours over- time at the punitive rate. Mr. Higgins: What? Mr. Garretson: Which is equivalent to 30 miles under the old. Mr. Higgins : And what under the new? Mr. Garretson: Under the new? Mr. Higgins : Three times 18 — Mr. Garretson : Oh, the difference is, for every one of those hours you'd give 12^^ instead of 10, which would be equivalent to being absolutely synonymous with each other. Mr. Higgins : It would be 137 miles. Mr. Garretson: It would be 137 miles, but the amount of money he'd get — Mr. Higgins: Our interpretation of your proposition and the application of the yardstick would give him seven and a half miles more for the identical hours that he is getting today. Mr. Garretson : It won't give him one cent more, regardless 367 of how many miles it gave him. It would give him exactly the same money. Mr. Shea: No. Mr. Garretson : I am wrong because the overtime rate would go up. Mr. Higgins : Sure. Mr. Garretson : He'd be paid for the 100 miles and the two hours, which would be seven miles and a half more than the present rate. Mr. Higgins: Correct. The Chairman: Missouri Pacific, Engineers and Firemen, Article 31 : "Engineers and firemen, required to do switching at terminal or division points ahead of leaving time or after arrival, shall be paid overtime rates for all such work." Question: Man called to leave at 7 A.M., leaves at 7 A.M., and runs 100 miles in 7 hours. Switches 3 hours after arrival at final terminal. Total time on duty, 10 hours. What would he be paid for the trip under your proposition? Answer: 100 miles, one hour pro rata, and 2 hours over- time. Eock Island Engineer — Mr. Garretson : One minute. 100 miles, 2 hours pro rata. The Chairman: No, one hour pro rata, 2 hours overtime. Eock Island Engineers, Article III. "When delayed one full hour before leaving, one hour's time will be allowed. When delayed one hour and 30 minutes, 2 hours will be allowed, etc." Question : "Man called to leave at 8 o'clock A.M., leaves at 9 :35. He j'uns 100 miles and arrives at the other terminal at 6 P.M., total time, 10 hours. Mr. Garretson : 6 :25 P.M. Mr. Stone : Well, I changed it later on. Mr. Garretson : Oh, you did? Well, mine was not corrected. The Chairman : What will he be entitled to for the trip under your article? Answer: 100 miles, and 2 hours' overtime. Eock Island again, "When delayed 30 minutes after arrival" — Mr. Garretson : One minute. That overtime is the one and a half where you used that phrase. The Chairman : Where we used the phrase, it is Form 35 overtime. "When delayed 30 minutes after arrival, one hour's time will be allowed. When delayed one hour and 30 minutes, 2 hours will be allowed, and so on." 368 Question : Crew called to leave at 8 A.M., depart at 8 A.M., run 100 miles, arrive at terminal 3 :30 P.M., laid in yard two and a half hours, released at 6 P.M. ; total time on duty, 10 hours. Now paid 100 miles and 3 hours terminal delay. Answer: Will be paid 100 miles, 1 hour pro rata, and 2 hours' overtime. Illinois Central : "Engineers in through or irregular freight service — Mr. Garretson : Will you let me ask a question right there on that last? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: If his running time had been two hours longer, what would he receive? The Chairman : Let's see. It is seven and a half now. Mr. Garretson : His total time on duty was ten hours. The Chairman: Yes. That is in the example, it is ten hours. Mr. Garretson : Yes, yes. If his total time was 12 hours in the example, what would he receive? The Chairman : Why he'd get a couple more hours overtime. Mr. Garretson: He'd get — Mr. Higgins : Where is the couple of hours to be added, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Instead of arriving, make it on the arrival time. Mr. Higgins : That is 8 P.M. Mr. Garretson: That he would arrive at the terminal at 5:30. Mr. Higgins : At 5 :30. Mr. Garretson : You see I am taking the time there. It is 3 :30 now. Mr. Higgins : He is nine hours and a half on the road then, making 100 miles. Is that correct? Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Higgins : All right, it would be 30 minutes pro rata. The Chairman: No, no. Mr. Higgins: He'd be on overtime when he got there, and would be on continuous overtime after eight hours. The Chairman : After eight hours. Mr. Garretson: No change. 369 Mr. Higgins : No change. Mr. Garretson : That is what I wanted to see. The Chairman: Under that, though, he'd get two hours additional overtime under your proposition. I think more than that. He'd get four hours overtime. Illinois Central : "Engineers in through or irregular freight service are required at intermediate points to perform switching not incidental to their own trains. They will be paid at over- time rates in addition to their regular trip compensation." Question : Man leaves terminal at 8 A.M., does commercial swiching not incidental to his own train for two hours. Runs 100 miles, and arrives at terminal 6 P.M. Total time on duty, ten hours. Now paid 100 miles and two hours at regular over- time rate. Answer : He'd be paid 100 miles and two hours overtime. Mr. Garretson : That is your answer? The Chairman : Yes. B. & O. Railroad : "When through freight engineers are re- quired to make up trains at terminals or intermediate points, or do switching, they will be allowed schedule pay per hour for such service, thirty minutes or less not counted. Question : A man leaves 8 A.M., does intermediate switching for two hours, runs one hundred miles, and arrives at terminal at 6 P.M., total time on duty, ten hours. At present would receive one hundred miles and two hours for intermediate switching. What Avould he be paid under paragraph "A"? Answer: One hundred miles and two hours' overtime. In other words, at the present time that man would get one hun- dred and twenty miles, and under the proposition as laid down he would get one hundred and thirty-seven and a half. El Paso and Southwestern : "Engineers will receive twelve and a half miles per hour at classification rates for bedding cars, loading or unloading, or waiting for stock between terminals, first thirty minutes to constitute an hour, hour for hour thereafter." Road on twelve and a half miles per hour speed basis. Question: Man leaves terminal 8 A.M., stops at intermedi- ate point, and loads or unloads stock for two hours, runs one hundred miles, arrives at terminal 4 P.M., total time on duty, eight hours. Now paid one hundred miles and two hours addi- tional for loading stock. What would he be paid under "A"? 370 Answer : One hundred miles. Missouri Pacific : Weighing and icing cars en route. — "En- gineers in through and irregular freight service required to load or unload stock or material, or to ice or weigh cars, or to replace cars derailed by other trains, will be paid for such work at regu- lar overtime rates." Question : Man leaves terminal at 8 A.M. at intermediate point, consumes three hours weighing and icing cars, runs 100- mile division, arriving at terminal 6 P.M. ; total time, ten hours. Now paid 100 miles for the trip and three hours for weighing and icing cars. What would he be paid under paragraph "A"? Answer: One hundred miles and two hours' overtime. Missouri Pacific : Same as rule "A." Question : Man leaves at 8 A.M., stopping at several points en route, consuming three hours weighing and icing cars and re- railing cars that have been derailed by other trains and runs 100 miles; relieved at 10 P.M.; elapsed time, fourteen hours. Now paid 100 miles and five hours' overtime. Mr. Stone : That should be seven hours' overtime, I corrected it later on. The Chairman : Well, is that right? Would he get seven or what woT^ld he get? Seven is right, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone: Yes. It is seven under the rule. The Chairman: How would you make that, Mr. Stone? How would you make it seven hours? Mr. Stone: He is paid for three hours weighing and icing cars en route, and paid four hours in addition to ten hours on duty between terminals, while on duty. The Chairman : That three hours weighing and icing is not taken out of his overtime? Mr. Stone: No, sir. Mr. Higgins : But under the present rule he would draw the equivalent of 170 miles. Under our answer he would draw the equivalent of 2121/2 miles. The Chairman : I haven't answered it. Mr. Stone: He hasn't answered it yet. Mr. Higgins: I thought he had. The Chairman : Answer : One hundred miles and six hours' overtime. 371 Mr. Garretson : One hundred miles and six hours' overtime. The Chairman: One hundred miles and six hours' over- time, that is under the present proposition, he would be paid practically for 170 miles. Under this proposition he would be paid 2121/,. Question : On a road where a basis of a day is 100 miles or less to constitute a day's work. A crew on a run of 80 miles from terminal to terminal, made the run in six hours. Upon arrival at destination were required to switch two hours, for which they would receive two hours' compensation under existing schedules, in addition to a minimum of 100 miles for the trip, or a total of 120 miles. How would they be compensated under "A" ? Answer : One hundred miles and two hours pro rata. Next. A crew runs 150 miles in ten hours, after arrival at terminal, delayed two hours before iinally released. The road has final terminal delay rule. Now receive 150 miles and two hours final terminal delay. Total time, 12 hours. How would they be compensated under the railroads' proposition? That would be 150 miles plus the allowance under final ter- minal delay rule pro rata. We have to answer it that way for this reason, Mr. Shea (that was one of your questions) , we didn't know Just exactly what final terminal delay rule it was. If it is the Western final ter- minal delay rule — Mr. Shea : Take the Western. The Chairman : Then, he would get 150 miles and two hours pro rata. Mr. Shea : Now, when you say tAvo hours pro rata, do you mean the overtime is computed at a speed of 12i/^ miles per hour? The Chairman : Yes, sir, that is under your propositions. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman: You will note that fellow didn't run into overtime, and that is why it is pro rata with him. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Cliairman: Question: Crew called to report 7:30 A.M., to leave at 8 :00 A.M., but delayed one hour after time set to de- part, and made trip of 150 miles in eight hours. Delayed at final terminal one hour. Under schedule provisions, crew entitled to one hour initial terminal delay, one hour final terminal delay, in addition to 150 miles for the trip. How would they be compen- 372 sated uuder "A"? Assume that overtime computed on a speed of 121/2 miles per hour. Answer : One hundred and fifty miles plus allowance under final terminal delay rule. If that is the Western rule, that would be one hour pro rata. Mr. Shea : That is a case where, under the "yardstick" for measuring, he would not be entitled to one hour initial terminal delay. The Chairman : Correct, Mr. Shea. Question : Under schedules allowing minimum of ten miles, if required to double hills en route. Schedule in question pro- vides this is an arbitrary allowance. Assuming that a crew made a run of 100 miles in seven hours, but were required to double one hill, for which under their schedule they would be entitled to one hour in addition to 100 miles made on the trip. How would they be compensated under "A" of the companies' proposition? Answer : In Such cases, crew made 100 miles independently of the double. Crew would get the 100 miles, plus the actual mileage of the double and overtime woiild be extended accord- ingly. Mr. Garretson: One minute. You would substitute the ac- tual miles for the present allowance of one hour? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Would wipe out the arbitrary? The Chairman : It would wipe out the arbitrary. It would give them the actual miles made. Mr. Garretson : Sure. If it was a quarter of a mile double, he'd get a half of a mile. Well, such doubles are commoner than almost any other kind. The Chairman : Yes. There are some roads that don't give them unless they make half of a mile. Mr. Garretson: There are some that don't. Mr. Stone : Some don't give it to them at all. Mr. Garretson: They didn't give anything until it was brought strongly to them. Mr.. Shea: We understand. under your answer that he would be allowed the actual miles made for the double. The Chairman : Yes, indeed. Mr. Shea: But now assuming that it was on a road where they paid a minimum of 10 miles, and probably the actual miles 373 didn't exceed 2 miles. How would it work out under your prop- osition? The Chairman : Actual miles. Mr. Garretson : This is the minimum here. An arbitrary of one hour, that is 10 miles. The Chairman: A. T. & S. F. Ky., unloading material: "When through or irregular freight engineers are delayed at any point more than 1 hour loading or unloading material, they will be paid for such service at regular overtime rates, provided, how- ever, that any time allowed for such service will not be paid for as overtime at the expiration of the run." Mr. Garretson: One minute. You skipped one. The Chairman : I did skip one. I will explain that after. Mr. Stone: All right. Mr. Garretson: You have got that headed wrong, I think, Mr. Lee. Didn't you say Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe? The Chairman: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Mr. Garretson : Well, the one you skipped is the Gulf. The Chairman: Yes, I skipped the Gulf. Question: Crew leaves terminal at 8 A.M., stops at inter- mediate point to unload or load material for 2 hours, arrives at destination, 100-mile division, at 6 o'clock P.M. Total time on duty, 10 hours. Under present schedule would be paid 2 hours for loading or unloading material and 100 miles for the trip, what would crew be paid under railroads' proposition? Answer : One hundred miles and two hours overtime. That is a case, Mr. Shea, where at present he'd get 120 miles, and under this proposition he'd get 1371/^ miles. Mr. Garretson : Two hours' overtime was your answer, wasn't it? 100 miles and two hours' overtime? The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : You'd cut out two of the hours and pay the others at the punitive rate? The Chairman: How is that? He is ten hours on duty, I take it. Mr. Garretson : Yes. He is ten hours on duty, all told. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Two of which are unloading material. The Chairman : All goes in together. Mr. Garretson: Sure, you absorb the two hours difference between the ten and the eight hours, under that. The Chairman : We par him overtime for it . Mr. Garretson : In other words, the running is the same. The Chairman : Running is the same. Southern Pacific (Sunset Central Lines) : "When engineers are required to interrupt a trip to unload or load stock or per- form work-train service, load or unload company material, or per- form wrecking service, or do work incidental to their service, they will be paid for such service at overtime rate of 55 cents per hour, irrespective of time on road." Mr. Garretson : Well, you don't go back to this Gulf, Colo- rado & Santa Fe? The Chairman : Well, didn't you xmderstand that I was go- ing to hold that out for the present? Mr. Garretson : Oh, hold it out for the present. The Chairman: Crew leaves at S A.M., at intermediate point, does wrecking service two hours, arrives at terminal 100 miles distant at i P.M. Total time on duty eight hours, present schedule provides payment of two hours at 55 cents per hour for the wrecking service and 100 miles for the trip. What would they receive under the railroads' proposition'? Answer: One hundred miles. Sunset Central lines, same rule as under Question 16. Question : Crew leaves at S A.M. Delayed two hours en route, doing special work for which they receive extra compensation. Ar- rive destination 2 P.M.. one hundred miles being run. Delayed final terminal one hour for which paid one hour. Xow paid 100 miles, two hours switching and one final terminal delay. How would they be compensated under paragraph "A" of railroads' proposition? Answer: One hundred miles and allowance under final ter- minal delay rule pro rata. Putting up coal. C. G. W. — Mr. Garretson : One minute, just one hundred miles on that last case? The Chairman : Xo. And whatever the allowance would be under the final terminal delay. I think one hour in that case. Mr. Garretson: Pro rata? The Chairman : Yes. 375 Chicago and Great Western: Putting up coal. Rule for placing coal at chutes, ten miles in addition to trip will be allowed on through freight trains only. How would they be compensated under paragraph "A" of companies' proposition? Question : Crew leaves S A.M., runs one hundred miles. At two points en route puts up coal, arrives destination 4 P.M. Total spread, eight hours. Now paid one hundred miles and two hours, or twenty miles, for putting up coal. What would they be paid under "A" of proposition? Answer : One hundred miles. Same road and rule as above. Question: Crew leaves 8 A.M., delayed en route two hours putting up coal, runs one himdred miles, arrives 2 P.M. Total of six hours. Delayed thirtyfive minutes account of final terminal delay. Now paid one hundred miles for trip, two hours at over- time rates for putting up coal, and thirty-five minutes final ter- minal delay. Answer : He would be paid one hundred miles, and allow- ance under final terminal delay rule pro rata. Mr. Shea: For thirty-five minutes? The Chairman : Whatever their final terminal delay rule is. We don't disturb those in this thing, Mr. Shea, nor do we disturb any rules covering the work at the final terminal. Mr. Garretson : You would make that time pro rata instead of— The Chairman : Yes, because he hasn't gotten on to over- time. Boston & Albany : Running for fuel or water. Rule reading: "In computing mileage engineers will be al- lowed all miles made by the engine after leaving engine house, including terminal miles, doubling hills or going for water out- side of water limits, or for fuel, provided this service is not caused by failure or neglect of the engineers." Question: Crew leaves at 8 A.M., makes intermediate run of 20 miles for fuel and water, total mileage 120. Arrives 4 P.M. Total time eight hours. At present paid 120 miles. Answer: One hundred and twenty miles. He is paid the miles, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: What was that total time? The Chairman : Eight hours total time. 376 Boston & Albany, same rule. Question : Crew leaves 8 A.M. At intermediate point runs for coal and water, actual miles 20, round trip. Arrives 4 P.M. at terminal 80 miles distant. Now paid 100 miles and 20 miles running for fuel and water. I understand under that rule, that was I think Mr. Stone's question, you said they'd be paid one hundred and twenty miles for that. I understand they'd only be' paid 100. Mr. Stone: Who says so, Walber? Mr. Walber : Mr. Truden says so, the general superintend- ent. Mr. Stone: All right. Mr. Walber : I do not see how you read that into it, Mr. Stone, when the rule itself says actual miles. Mr. Stone : All right. The Chairman: That should read there now: Paid 100 miles. Answer : One hundred miles. Santa Fe Coast Lines, Engineers' Article 22, last paragraph, page 25: Question: Crew leaves initial terminal 8 A.M. Before de- parture they had one hour initial terminal switching. Arrive 5 P.M. Actual mileage, 125. Constructive mileage allowance, 150. Now paid 150 miles, one hour and one hour terminal overtime. Answer : We are unable to locate such case in the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe schedule, therefore we are unable to answer specifically. Our proposal does not contemplate the opening of a differen- tial in rate of pay where it is allowed on accojint of grades or mountain service, either of excess rates or constructive mileage, but we do not thereby subscribe to the equity of the various methods as laid down in the various schedules. Mr. Stone: Don't you think you overlooked something? The Chairman : No, sir, that is a question of rates. Mr. Stone: A question of rates or earnings, which? The Chairman : That is a question of rates, as I understand it. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, Article IX. "When engineers in through freight service are stopped at in- termediate points to do station switching, or are used in work- 377 train or helper service, they shall be paid for such extra service in excess of mileage or hours made. For each six minutes one mile will be allowed, according to class of engine. Question: Does Article "A" of companies' proposition con- template the negotiation of a new rule to supersede this in case the basis of a day's pay is changed? Answer : Yes. Question : Under paragraph "A," an engine or train crew is held out of service for investigation. Mr. Garretson : One minute, let me get that answer straight. I have it here, the question was on that Milwaukee rule. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: It is Article IX, paragraph "B," isn't it? The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson,: The question was if the crew is held out of service for an investigation. Mr. Stone : No, that is another one. The Chairman : That is the next one. That is another case. Mr. Garretson : Well, your copy is evidently different from mine, then. Oh, I see the question is embodied in the same para- graph. The Chairman: Under Paragraph "A" an engine or train crew is held out of service for investigation, and another crew is sent out on the run, and at investigation are found blameless. Does "A" apply and would companies refuse to pay both crews? Answer : No, we would not refuse. That is one of the rules that isn't affected. Wabash Eailroad, Rule "F," Article 7, page 12 : "Engineers making continuous or turn-around trips doing work-train service amounting to one hour or more, will be paid for the hours engaged in work service at work-train overtime rates, allowance to be in addition to the mileage or other allowance." Question: Freight train runs 100 miles in 13 hours. Does 3 hours' construction work en route. Now paid 100 miles, 3 hours overtime and 3 hours' construction work, that is, they would be paid 160 miles. Answer : Under our proposition they would be paid 100 plus 5 hours' overtime. Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern — Engineers' Schedule, Article 23 : 378 "When engineers required to make up or switch their trains, or do other work not necessarr to completion of their trip at ter- minal, they will be allowed actual time at overtime rates as per class of service in addition to regular trip and overtime." Question: Called to leave S A.M., delayed until 9 A.M. switching. Eun 100 miles in 10 hours after S A.M. Delayed one hour at final terminal. Xow paid 100 miles and two hours over- time. Answer: One hundred miles plus overtime in excess of 8 hours. We are a little uncertain just where he had completed his trip in that question, Mr. Shea, and just exactly how long he was on duty. Mr. Shea : Let us see. Crew was called to leave at eight o'clock, but were delayed until nine on account of switching. They made a run of 100 miles in ten hours and upon arrival at final terminal were delayed one hour. Well. I assume that in that case they were on a spread of ten hours. The Chairman : Total spread of ten hours. Under the pres- ent schedule they would receive one hour initial and one hour final in addition to 100 miles on the trip. The answer for us would be 100 miles plus overtime in excess of eight hours. That would be 100 miles plus two hours" overtime. Crew leaves on short turn-around run, returns to terminal in four hours. Total, thirty* miles round trip. Question: Would you, under either "A" or "C." presumably "A," assert the right to run that man straight on through the terminal with the train he had picked up. or would he be re- leased under the ten hoius or less, ov eight hours or less clause ; or if he was the only crew, and next out, when he came into that terminal he was called to go on with the work as any man would be called, how would the two trips be paid — the short turn-around and the long run out of the terminal? Xow paid a minimum day for each. Answer : Paid continuously. Mr. Garretson: How? The Chairman: Paid continuously. Mr. Garretson : In other words you woxdd assert the right to send him through? The Chairjnan : If there were no question of seniority dis- tricts, yes. 379 Mr. Garretson: And under the clause of •calling him be- cause there was no other crew." he wouldn't be paid the same for the trip as another man would hare been paid. The Chairman : Do I understand your question to be that the man was released? Mr. Garretson : Why sure, on arrival. The Chairman: Oh, released on arrival? Mr. Garretson: Tes. The Chairman: Actually by the company or through the terminal. Mr. Garretson : Arrival at the terminal naturally releasing him as is the usual practice. The Chairman : What do you call that? Mr. Garretson: Automatic release. The Chairman : The automatic release wouldn't release him unless the company released him. Mr. Garretson : Well, then, three-fourths of the men are never released in railway service in this country. The Chairman : I don't understand that. Mr. Garretson : They have never been formally released. Mr. Higgins : After 30 miles in? Mr. Garretson : Sure. After going at all. there isn't a road in the West on which the conductors and brakemen aren't re- leased unless they have been formally assigned. It is universal. The Chairman : Tes. you mean they are automatically re- leased. Mr. Garretson : There aren't but two roads that even set up the claim otherwise. Mr. Shea : Well, you can leave it — The Chairman : You can. They are not automatically re- leased in the East on the short turn-around clause. Mr. Garretson : Well, under the verdict of the Arbitration Board here, the Company don't have to incorporate it in the call, but they have got to serve notice before he is released, if they want to send him on others. In other words, you don't release him at all. Ton call him for a turn-around. He is released if you don't call him. The fact is the automatic release takes just as much place in the East as it does in the West, unless the call intervenes. The Chairman : That is all right. 380 Mr. Stone : Then if I understand you correctly, Mr. Lee, this application of your yardstick would abolish all automatic re- lease? The Chairman : I think it would, Mr. Stone. Mr. Iliggins : But it won't violate the provision in schedules now which permits the combination of the short trip with the long one, provided the short trip be made first. Mr. Garretson : There isn't such combination in the West- ern territory so far as we are concerned. The only chance there is in the Western territory to get a combination of short trips, is by agreement between the manager and the committee. That is, between certain named points a crew may be assigned for the day. That is the way they get short trips in the West. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: They know nothing about the automatic release there. The Chairman: All right. Mr. Stone: But you would hold, if I get you correctly, in the absence of any specific rule, specifying that the company does release him, that custom doesn't release him at all. The Chairman: I would say on that, Mr. Stone, I don't know just what you are driving at. Mr. Stone : I am driving at just a straight question. The Chairman: Yes, now just a minute. I would say un- der this and the usual acceptation of the automatic release when a man gets back into his terminal, I would understand that it would not apply unless it was his final terminal. Mr. Stone : Well, take it for example in 95 per cent, of our pooled or slow^ freight service, it specifies the crews shall run first in first out. Then I understand this would do away with that, if you wanted to run him through the terminal, your yardstick would? Mr. Higgins : We would call the first man. Mr. Garretson: Let me see now if I have interpreted your answer right, because I don't want it wrong. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : Let me just add one thing. It abolishes the automatic on such runs. Higgins says if it don't exist, it can't abolish it. The Chairman: Wait a minute, who said it didn't exist? 381 Mr. Garretson: Higgins. Mr. Higgins : I said that this answer didn't violate the pro- visions that exist in schedules now in this country as to coupling up a short trip with a longer trip, if the short trip is made first. Mr. Stone : May I ask you a question? Does it violate the provision in the schedules that now exist that crews shall run first in first out? Mr. Higgins : No, sir, I don't understand that at all, because you will call this man, the first man out, assign him to this trip, that permits a short trip before a longer one is made. Mr. Stone : That not only exists on a few schedules, but on many schedules. Mr. Garretson : You evidently are not in your answers any- where in accord with Mr. Higgins' idea nor is Mr. Higgins in accord with his own answer of a few minutes ago. The Chairman : We will get it straightened out then. Mr. Garretson : Here is what I gathered from your first answer in response to the questions that I asked you. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : It abolishes automatic release, that was what brought out the statement from Mr. Higgins, that there was no automatic release. The Chairman : Well, let us get it straightened out ; I may be balled up on this automatic release. Mr. Garretson: The territory that Mr. Higgins represents has universal automatic release, and there are only two compan- ies that differ from it, and I defy the statement to be disproved. Mr. Higgins : On the railroad I was connected with, it wasn't. Mr. Garretson : It wasn't on the railroad that you were con- nected with, except in regard to certain exceptions that existed, for instance, between St. Louis and De Soto. There are a few like that, but as a general proposition whenever a man comes into terminal in such territory, he is released and there is no form of release in the companies' usage. Kegisters and he is done. The Chairman: Does that mean any terminal, Mr. Gar- retson? Mr. Garretson: Any terminal recognized as such for him. There is what is absolutely true. It is not general ; it is universal with the two exceptions I have named. Nearly every road will have a given point named between two points where crews may 382 be assigned for a day on short turn-arounds, but that is done by agreement between the management and the committee. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Frisco and the Missouri Pacific have two or three of those inserted by name, they being put in, in the orig- inal instance. The others are agreements between the manager and the Committee. Now, you answered that it would abolish automatic release, as applied to runs of this character. Second: That it would run crews through terminal, that is, in violation^ — The Chairman: Not on to other seniority districts? Mr. Garretson : Oh, no, but there are roads here where the seniority district covers the line. Mr. Dodge: Mr. Garretson — didn't the 1907 General Man- agers' Committee of Chicago recognize the automatic release? Mr. Garretson : In name, no, in fact, yes. Mr. Dodge: Yes. Mr. Garretson : The third is : You don't pay the same to one man going through, that you would to two, called under the first in and first out rule. The Chairman: Say that again now. Mr. Garretson : When a man comes in on the — The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Goes out here, when he comes in and stands first out and goes on through, under the first in and first out rule, you say that you pay continuous time. The Chairman : Pay continuous time, yes. Mr. Garretson: In other words, if you keep the first in first out rule in force you would pay double. The Chairman : We would pay him a minimum day for each run. Mr. Garretson: Each run. Here a man under the same condition as the other men is called, will only be entitled to con- tinuous time. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : Good, then I haven't misunderstood you. Mr. Higgins : Now let's see what that does. Today you make the double, you say, of 30 miles. Mr. Garretson: The question is, a crew leaves on a short turn-around and goes 1.5 miles out, returning to terminal in four hours, making a total of 30 miles. Would you under the pro- 383 visions of either "A" or "C," presunibly "A," assert the right to run that man right on through the terminal with the train that he would have picked up or would he be released under the ten- hour or less, or eight hour or less clause? There is the first ques- tion. Mr. Higgins : All right. Noav, under your rule today, as you understand or state it is generally applied, he would get 100 miles for the thirty. Mr. Garretson : He would. Mr. Higgins : For the four hours work. Mr. Garretson : Yes. Mr. Higgins : And though he was not relieved a moment at the terminal but continued on through, he would get 100 miles for the next 100 miles run to his final terminal? Mr. Garretson : That is what he would. Mr. Higgins : Yes, let's assume, to be extreme, that he was four hours and a 100 miles, ten miles an hour, that is fourteen hours doing it. In that particular case he would have given you 11 hours for 200 miles, equivalent of 200 miles. Under your prop- osition, as we interpret it, and in this answer setting forth our interpretation, for the same 14 hours, and 130 miles, he would get the 130 miles, and time and a half. What is the extended overtime basis there, on 130 miles, 121/2 hours? Mr. Garretson : Oh, on your figures, we won't get into over- time at all. Mr. Higgins : Let me read the question, please, to figure it out, will you? Mr. Garretson : Seven hours and four hours is eleven hours. Mr. Higgins : I said 100 miles. Mr. Garretson: What? Mr. Higgins: I said 100 miles and I was ten hours doing it, that is, 14 hours. He is on the road for 200 miles. Now, if he is on 14 hours, under your proposition, making 130 miles, he will get 2121/^ miles. In other words, on this answer, if it was in effect, he'd get 121/0 miles more than he does today. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Higgins : That is the reason for making the answer that way. Mr. Garretson: The fact is, he'd get two days under the jjresent practice, whatever those days are, no matter if he only took 384 the four hours on the turn-around and four hours on the other 100 miles. Mr. Higgins : In your reply, Mr. Garretson, you are dealing with an isolated case that doesn't happen often enough to even be negotiated. That is why certain specified exceptions are made in a schedule or any schedule where that sort of service occurs with any regularity. Mr. Garretson : There are certain specified exceptions that are not made in schedules, where there is a regular performance of the class of runs of about from three to ten miles in extent, and there aren't any lists of exceptions more than that. There is a very few that will run as high as 30. There is one that I have in mind, two roads in the same territory, and those are the two I referred to a little while ago, where they have a combination run of very considerable extent, but the fact is, there are no rules in that ter- ritory and you are perfectly aware of it, that allow the company to make any such combinations as you name at all. What I have cited is the kind that is performed where men are paid two days for those short combination runs made in connection with an ordi- nary straight-away run. They are the regular thing and the cases that you cite where they rUn over or where they are existent in all schedules are virtually the non-existent. Mr. Higgins : I don't think you understood me. I grant you that they are exceptional, as rules, because the frequency of the service of the character cited in your example, in our terri- tory at least, occurs so seldom, that a rule has not been negoti- ated, but when it does become regular, the rule has been negoti- ated. Mr. Garretson : I beg your pardon. They were regular un- til the rule was made that they could not be done. Mr. Higgins : Oh, no. Mr. Garretson : And on that record of yours, the other day of service, I was right along with all of it, and I have seen them. I say to you that they were so common that these organizations stood on the point of automatic release, and that that kind of runs could not be made, and that is what abolished it. They were the rule in the old days, and not the exception, and now they are the exception, because the rule makes them impossible. Mr. Higgins : Were they ever the exception before we abol- ished the half day? 385 Mr. Garretson: How is that? Mr. Higgins : Were they ever the exception before you abol- ished the half day? Mr. Garretson : They were done under the half day then. You only had to pay half as much for them as you do now, and you only kick half as hard. Like the Chinaman with his insurance, he was half dead, and he wanted half of his money. Mr. Higgins: Well, wasn't it a fact that the half day was abolished because the service obtained under the half day was so infrequent, and your argument was so plausible that a descriptive day of 100 miles or less eliminated all necessity for referring to half days, and that originally, the 100 miles or less was purely _ descriptive and was intended to cover the service as a whole with such exceptions as it did not fit, which was probably 2 per cent, of the total? Isn't that what you are talking about in taking exception to this case? Mr. Garretson : No, your history is deficient. Along about '90 all of the agreements provided 100 miles or less was a day, and the managements took it up with various committees and traded them something else, and got back the 50 miles proviso as a certain measure of relief for some conditions that existed. In 1907 the Managers' Committee, the first one that was formed that dealt with these problems collectively, abolished the 50-mile rule, established the 100-mile minimum, not because the argument was plausible, but because they believed it was cheaper than it was to refuse the insistent demand for the 100-mile minimum. Mr. Higgins : I was not on the committee at that time. Mr. Garretson : No, you were not, but I was. Mr. Shea : Before we pass that, Mr. Lee, my mind is not quite clear on jonr answer yet. The Chairman : On this question, Mr. Shea, this particular question that I answered, Mr. Garretson, I think, is correct in his statement of our position. Mr. Shea : Now, let me ask a question to bring it out a little plainer. So far as the enginemen are concerned, we have in practically every schedule a rule which provides that 100 miles or less, ten hours or less, shall constitute a day's work. Do we understand that your proposal eliminates the understanding or recognition of terminals as is defined and understood between the employees and the officers on the individual railroads? 386 The Chairman : That is the second question beyond this one, Mr. Shea. Specifically. Mr. Shea: Oh, is it? The Chairman : Yes, specifically it is. Mr. Shea: Then, we will pass that on until we get over to that question. The Chairman: Crew makes a run of 100 miles from "A," leaving 6 A.M., arriving "B," 10 A.M., four hours for 100 miles. Called again at 11 A.M., to return to "A," arrive there 6 P.M., 7 hours for 100 miles. Question : Under Clause "A," what would that crew be paid? Now paid one day for each trip. Would the minimum day apply under "A" to one of these runs or to either of them? Answer : Two hundred miles or two minimum days. Mr. Garretson : One minute till I get the second part of that question. The Chairman: One hundred miles out and one hundred miles back. Mr. Shea : On what principle is your answer based? On the recognition of terminals as is now understood between the em- ployees and the officers? The Chairman : Why, they have made the miles, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Well, supposing now he didn't make 100 miles, we will assume he made 50 miles, and returned to his terminal. Then he was required to run through his terminal or used again out of his terminal, how would he be compensated? The Chairman: Well, I wouldn't like to answer that right off the bat. I have got that in the record and I will give you an answer on that tomorrow, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: I understand — The Chairman: Understand me now, I am not a schedule expert; I know a little something about it. Mr. Shea : Well, that is a very important question. The Chairman : Yes. I will be very glad to. answer that for you. Mr. Shea : Because we have certain accepted rules in every schedule, that is, it provides for assignments running a distance not to exceed 25 miles. The Chairman : Zone rules. Mr. Shea : Zone rules, and they can make a trip or succes- 387 sion of trips, but the fundamental rule laid down in practically every schedule i provides for one hundred miles or less, ten hours or less, and it governs absolutely pool crews and ,unassigned crews. Therefore, of course, this question hinges upon that. The Chairman : I think I get your point. Mr. Garretson : I didn't get your answer, Mr. Lee. The Chairman: The answer to your specific question, Mr. Garretson, was two hundred miles, or two minimum days. Mr. Dodge: I just want to ask you a question. Supposing for example the crew runs from A to B, 100 miles. Is tied up on ac- count of being on duty, 15 hours, and turn out of terminal with- in 16 hours, after tied up there eight hours. Then he goes auto- matically on duty, and he is 30 miles from the terminal. Would he get 30 miles or time and a half, whichever was the greater? ]S"ow you say he would get either miles or hours, whichever is the greater. The Chairman : We hadn't contemplated, Mr. Dodge, inter- fering in any way with the tie-up rule. Mr. Garretson : Now, let me get this one thing straight. The Chairman : Go ahead. Mr. Garretson : Further down on the page in following up that question, would the minimum day apply under "A" to one of these runs or to either of them? Your answer is, it will apply to each. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Walber : They made 100 miles on each. Mr. Garretson : Sure they did. As far as that is concerned, I got it applied exactly as I wanted it. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson: Because it goes to the very heart of your "A," you are paying double compensation there. The Chairman: In what way? Mr. Garretson: Hold on. The Chairman : Go ahead. Mr. Garretson : Under your clause it reads no double com- pensation for the same time. The Chairman : Or service. Mr. Garretson: Or service, and you are paying this man mileage. The Chairman: Yes. 388 Mr. Garretson : For the unexpired period of time allowance for the first trip. Oh, yes, you are. He is started. The Chairman : He made 100 miles. Mr. Garretson : Sure he has. The Chairman : You wouldn't want us to take any miles away from him. Mr. Garretson : That question goes to the heart of the serv- ice period. The Chairman : We recognize that service period. Mr. Garretson : That is what the question was devised for. The Chairman : Yes. You didn't get the answer you ex- pected, did you? Mr. Garretson : Frankly, I did. The Chairman : You got 200 miles then. Mr. Garretson: That is what I wanted to see, what that declaration meant and I framed a question that would bring out whether or not it was clothed in language that really conveyed its meaning.' That means that for 100 miles, assuming that eight hours was the day — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : That you won't pay for time and mileage both, would be the natural assumption from reading it. Here you were paying four hours for one hundred miles' run. In other words, you recognize purely the mileage principle. The Chairman : We are recognizing, Mr. Garretson, that one hundred miles and eight hours are practically synonymous in road service. Mr. Garretson : They are interchangeable. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : You are recognizing the fact then, that when a man has given you one hundred miles in one hour, or has given you .eight hours making one mile, that he has given you the equivalent for the money you have paid. The Chairman : Does that mean then, that one hundred miles and eight hours are synonymous? Mr. Garretson : It means that you can't require both, you can require oile or the other. The Chairman : I think that is what your declaration says. This thing underneath here [referring to yardstick] some quali- fications go along with it. 389 Mr. Garretson : Well, I don't know. The qualifications don't modify that in any one way or another as a bald prin- ciple. The Chairman : No, I don't think so, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : This was the point I wanted to make, that ten hours or less, one hundred miles or less, either of those propo- sitions, is the worth of your money. This wants three hours switching thrown in. The Chairman : I don't see it that way. Mr. Garretson : Provided you run fast enough to furnish the time. The Chairman : That is true, perhaps, provided time and a half for overtime begins two hours sooner. Mr. Garretson: Good. No matter when it begins or if it don't begin at all, the proposition stripped of it, means that that would mean, say three hours over what it means now. The Chairman : That might be, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Why? The Chairman: Yes, if it occurred before he got up to his final terminal. Mr. Garretson : Sure, and it would occur after he got to his final terminal if it didn't run into overtime. The Chairman : No, I don't get you at all on that. If their rules protected — Mr. Stone : If this rule don't protect it, then what? The Chairman : Wait a minute. Bead what it says there. Mr. Garretson: At final destinations a rule or rules as to working after arrival, not to be disturbed and will be paid for pro rata until the time on duty equals the overtime limit of the run. In other words, you will give a part of the benefit on the last delay, that is — The Chairman: At the final terminal. Mr. Garretson: You will abolish initial? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Intermediate? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : And recognize terminal within the overtime limit at the pro rata rate, but not at overtime rate. The Chairman: And then afterwards at the overtime rate. 390 If he comes in there on overtime, then he'd take overtime, of course. Mr. Garretson : Oh, if he comes in on overtime he'd get the overtime rate all right. But you wouldn't have even a shadow of ground to claim anything from him after the expiration of time and miles both. The Chairman : There are a good many roads without final terminal delay, Mr. Stone, but I can't think of a schedule that hasn't a rule in it that if you switch a man in the final terminal you have got to pay him for it additional. Mr. Garretson : Well, I don't know, I will admit. The Chairman : I don't know either, but I say I can't think of any that have. Mr. Garretson : There are a lot of those details, that in the last six or seven years have run away from me. Mr. Stone: I can think of a lot of them where they have claimed the right to do it under the schedules. Mr. Garretson : I think there are a good many places where effort is made to utilize the man after arrival in some other form of service. They don't go as far as the late lamented J. J. Hill, who once asserted to me his right to put conductors in the cinder pit if he wanted them to shovel 2 hours, provided there was that much spare time. He never tried it, but he only asserted his right. The Chairman: Question. Does A, B or C contemplate changing the provisions of individual schedules regarding the recognition of terminals, as they are now understood by the em- ployees and the officers of the different companies? Answer : The roads would claim the right to rearrange runs or change terminals if conditions under the changed bases would require it. Get that? Mr. Shea : Yes, I got that. Mr. Stone : We got it the first time over. Mr. Shea : I understand it very clearly now. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Well, now, I wonder if there is any mis- understanding there over that question, and consequently over the answer. Did you mean by that question, what was the ter- minal of a crew, or the changing of fixed terminals on the road? Now, which of the two things did the question mean, Shea? 391 Mr. Shea : What I meant to bring out was, does this pro- posal intend to eliminate or disturb terminals, as now under- stood, and recognized by the committees or the employees, and the officers of the companies? The Chairman : Does that mean, Mr. Shea, that the com- pany would not have the right to change the terminal from one place to another? Mr. Shea : No, I don't mean that. Mr. Garretson : I note your answer was predicated on that idea. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : That is what made me ask it. Mr. Shea in- terpolated that question right on top of mine, in regard to auto- matic release occurring at terminals. I was under the impression that what he meant was, would the company contemplate chang- ing the provisions of individual schedules, wherein they were re- leased on arrival, or where the terminal of a local freight train, say, is carded as a certain point, and the changing of the proviso that the man must not be run through there, not the geographic chang- ing of terminals. Mr. Shea: In other words, it would involve generally the first in, first out, rule. Mr. Garretson : It would. That is what is involved in that question and there is nothing geographic about it. Mr. Walber: Why, in the discussion of that answer, the intent was that if it is necessary, in order to operate under any changed speed basis, to change existing terminals either physical or terminals of runs, the company would be entirely free to do so. But, having established such terminals, then that yardstick which we handed to you, was operative. Mr. Stone: But do I understand it wouldn't become oper- ative until after the company had made the changes to fit the new agreement, and then having established these terminals the yard- stick would not be operative before that time? Mr. Walber : The yardstick would be operative between the terminals as operated by the railroads and then if they were changed they would continue to operate with the new terminals. Mr. Garretson : Well, you see, there has been a significance attached there to the word "terminal" that never was intended. The Chairman: Yes. 392 Mr. Garretson : For instance, a freight district runs through A, B, C and D to E. You have answered on the basis that the company would change the terminal of that division from E back to D or forward to F, and that was not involved in the question at all. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Consequently your answer and the ques- tion are really at cross-purposes. It is not uncommon to find this arise, and I think this is what Mr. Shea's question came out of. The company, some operating offtcer, will say this is the ter- minal for this bunch of runs, and another is the terminal for this other, and they will say that the turn-around station on a short run is for that run a terminal. We contest all those things. The general terminal is where all unassigned freights run to. The Chairman : If you could give us something specific, Mr. Shea, something in a definite schedule, or something of that sort. Mr. Shea : Now, take on a certain railroad where they have a rule which provides for running crews first in, first out. At A they have 5 pool crews. A crew is called, goes out, we will say, makes 25 miles. They have an engine failure. They are required to return to their terminal. Under the present practice they could not use that crew again if there were other crews at the ter- minal ready to go out, or if they did, they would have to pay them another day. Now, under your proposal, could they use that crew again and pay them continuous time or continuous mileage? The Chairman : Yes. Well, I will take that. That is another one along with that other one that you gave me. I think we mis- understood the question. Mr. Garretson: I was certain that there — The Chairman : A brakeman makes a short turn-around run, total of forty miles, in five hours, is released ; allowance now is one day, one hour thereafter he is called, being an extra con- ductor, to run a train 100 miles from that terminal, making such trip without overtime being earned. Question: What would he be allowed? Answer : Brakeman has been released on first assignment, day as brakeman, and day as conductor. Mr. Garretson: Well, you know, there again that embodies that same idea; of double pay during the same time, and it also 393 takes in the idea of different pay for different classes, but it abso- lutely introduces the necessity for the two minimums. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : If that man was summoned on his arrival or telegram sent to him on the road, would it have any bearing? The Chairman : I rather think it would, Mr. Garretson, but that is involved with two classifications that I want to ask you something about. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Question: Under 100 miles or less, crew runs 51 miles in three hours. Under what you intend to be the application in the interpretation of "A" would that man be re- leased on arrival as he is now, and paid for a day, or would the right be asserted to use him in any other form of service, either running other mileage within the limitation or hours that mark the day, switching in a yard or doing any other form of labor, such as car repairing, etc. Would he be used for any other service, either in or out of train service, to fill out the unexpired time limit? _Answer : The right would be asserted to use the man in any class of service in which usually employed, to make up a minimum day prior to reaching final terminal, or after arrival at terminal if existing rules or practices concerning additional service permit doing so. If not, no. Mr. Garretson : Let me get this answer straight now. That is it, it was hours or mileage. The Chairman: Either hours or mileage and within the limitation or hours that mark the day. If they don't permit it, why, we will let it go. Mr. Garretson: That permit is peculiar. Would you hold that the schedule permitted it if it didn't forbid it? The Chairman : Oh ! I wouldn't have drawn a line that way, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Well, I don't think there is a schedule in existence that I have knowledge of, that forbids or permits, in set terms, that fact, outside of the rule describing what is a day. The Chairman: What is agreed upon in those cases, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Why, they are almost invariably released. 394 The Chairman : We won't disturb that final terminal rule. Mr. Garretson : That is practice, standing on the interpreta- tion of 100 miles or less, eight or ten hours or less. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Sheppard: That smacks of the passenger guarantee rule. Mr. Garretson : Well, that don't apply to freight anywhere that I know of. The Chairman : There is no guarantee in that answer. Mr. Sheppard : "Fair principle should govern." The Chairman : That is the only way to take it. Mr. Stone : If you got out about midnight at about 40 be- low zero, you would think you weren't paid any too much then. The Chairman : Yes, a beautiful summer day like today, too. Mr. Stone : They only exist in dispatchers' offices. The Chairman: These days? Mr. Stone: Why beautiful summer days, flowers blooming and birds singing. The Chairman : If I couldn't see beauty in nature, I would quit. Mr. Stone : You don't appreciate beauty in nature until you get into one of those rolling mills with about 6,000 tons behind yoii. That is when the beauty of nature appeals to you and you wish you were out amongst it. The Chairman : I am skipping a couple more there, now, at the top of page 306 : Delaware & Hudson: Conductors and trainmen's; Page 12, Article II, paragraph "C" : "Conductors and trainmen required to do switching at any point shall be paid in excess of mileage or hours made, time to be paid for switching at such points to be added together and al- lowed at the rate of 10 miles per hour." Question : If a crew makes a trip within the prescribed day and does two hours switching en route continuously or accumula- tive, now paid 100 miles for the trip plus two hours switching; what compensation would they receive under "A" ? Answer: Continuous time and mileage with minimum of a day. 395 P. & L. E. Eailroad : Conductors and trainmen's, page 15, rule 13 : "Where trains arrive at terminal points and crews are di- rected to deliver their trains to a point beyond said terminal, they will be paid at the overtime rates, with minimum of three hours." Question : Crew has reached its terminal and is required to take the train to an outlying point, or some other part of the terminal. They consume one hour in doing so, for which they are allowed three hours, independent of their time over the road. Does "A" contemplate throwing this in with the time of the trip, and would that three hours' pay extend the time for the company to that extent? Answer : Kule not disturbed ; will be paid for pro rata un- til the time on duty equals the overtime limit on the run. Time paid under this rule will not be paid for under other rule or rules. Mr. Sheppard : There seems to be a difference between "be- fore" and "after." The Chairman: Decidedly, Mr. Sheppard. Your proposi- tion says time and one-half. Mr. Sheppard : Your proposition seems to differentiate be- tween "before" and "after." The Chairman: What do you mean, "before" and "after"? Mr. Sheppard : Why nothing before, but you pay them after. The Chairman : What do you mean, after what? Mr. Sheppard: After arrival. The Chairman: That is right at the final terminal. That is right. Mr. Sheppard: If they have made a through trip after- wards, you allow it. The Chairman: They are on duty and they get everything they make in that time, Mr. Sheppard, and you want to reduce it to eight hours, and pay time and a half for overtime, don't forget that. Mr. Garretson : Will you interpret that last sentence, in the yardstick, that last inch? The Chairman : Which last inch do you mean? Mr. Garretson: To be paid for under one rule, not to be paid for under another rule or rules. The Chairman : That means, Mr. Garretson, that when he gets to the terminal now, that refers to the terminal. 396 Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : He will be paid for his time under one rule, whicheyer it is. We'd give him one compensation, but he won't be paid for it under two rules. Mr. Sheppard : He is paid under two rules now. The Chairman: How do you mean, he is paid under two rules now? Mr. Sheppard: He is paid separate, distinct, not coupled together now. The Chairman: We are giving you the benefit of running into overtime on that. Mr. Sheppard: Now you couple it. The Chairman: I don't understand. Mr. Sheppard: Yes, you couple the whole proposition, couple all arbitraries after they run into overtime. The Chairman: Well, do you think it is better, then, for men to be paid the arbitraries at the straight pro rata rate instead of the overtime? Mr. Sheppard: I am not arguing that. I am just calling your attention to the fact that your whole proposition is con- trary to the wording of your last sentence. By your o,wn admis- sion you do couple. You use two rules and put them together yourself. The Chairman : I am sure I don't get you. Do you get him, Mr. Walber? Mr. Walber: This movement is with four classes of em- ployees, engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen. They do not have uniform terminal rules. Taking individual cases, if the rule involved an engineer and a fireman at the terminal, you would have the final terminal delay rule involved, which does not apply to conductors and brakemen. Therefore it might be pos- sible in the absence of the reservation that the men would get both final terminal delay and the arbitrary, and it is as a pro- tection against that, that the reservation is made. I can see why the conductors and brakemen would not see the significance of it where it applies to the engineers and firemen. Mr. Sheppard : It is to give to the conductors and brakemen as against combined service, two minimum days. The Chairman : He doesn't get this thing. Mr. Sheppard : No, but we do. 397 Mr. Garretson : The engineer was finding exactly the same fault with that rule this morning when it was handed out, that I am finding now. Your first answer to this example was "Eule not disturbed." Am I quoting you correctly? The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : Well, now, the fact is, if our rule is different, as the case cited by Mr. Walber from the enginemen's rule, that answer would be that neither r^ile was disturbed, and that they would be paid under the rule. Still your key, as a general propo- sition, wipes out those rules the minute that overtime accrues. The Chairman : It wipes it out to this extent, Mr. Garret- son, that you don't pay the rule and the overtime both. Mr. Garretson : In other words, it was founded on the blend of the two rules, and still if the rule isn't going to be disturbed, you are going to do exactly what this says you won't do — ^you are going to pay under two rules, or under blending of two rules, that are left to stand perfectly independent in the agreement. The Chairman : I don't get that. Mr. Garretson : For instance — this generally is going to be paid on the basis that it will be dependent on — one hundred miles or less, eight hours or less, ^^'ill constitute a day, and on that basis, you have wiped out absolutely initial and intermediate allowances. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : But you have left final terminal in all its features as long as overtime doesn't accrue. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson: But the minute you pass, you would pay under both rules. You'd pay him the 100 miles under the rule that 100 miles or less is a day, and you'd pay him final terminal under the other rule, even if the overtime didn't accrue. Isn't that true? The Chairman : Now, a minute. Let me get you now. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : You'd pay him 100 miles. Mr. Garretson : For 100 miles running ; claim 100 miles up to his terminal. Yes. The Chairman : Then if he is not on overtime, the final ter- minal delay rule would apply. Mr. Garretson : One hour you'd pay him under that. If you didn't, your own explanation of the rule is not correct. 398 Mr. Walber: Understand, under the final terminal delay rule, the first hour is free, you only pay for the excess. Mr. Garretson: What? Mr. Walber: Under the final terminal delay rule in the East, the first hour is free, we only pay for the excess hours. Mr. Garretson : That may be true of many there, but there are some that are not that way. The Chairman : Why the Western, I think is, that the first 30 minutes are free, but if they are over 30 minutes getting to the roundhouses, they are paid for the full time. Mr. Shea : That is correct. Mr. Garretson : They vary three ways at least, and there is a variation from the three. One rule will read less than 30 minutes, and another will read 30 and over. That only introduces a slid- ing scale of two minutes. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: At its outside, but there are other agree- ments of ours that provide that every minute will be paid for. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: And I think there is one 15 minutes, isn't there? Mr. Sheppard : More than that, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins : I don't know. Mr. Sheppard: Pennsylvania Kule 50, pays minimum of three hours; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie pays a minimum of three hours if it is only five minutes. Mr. Garretson : We have no award in the West. The Chairman : That stands, Mr. Sheppard, that stands un- der this thing. Mr. Stone : Yes, I arise to a point of order. This machine will only take one man at a time, he can't take four. Mr. Garretson: But right under that rule and its main- tenance, when overtime doesn't accrue you are going to pay the men under that rule, under two rules. The Chairman : I don't see where you get that, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson: Well — Mr. Higgins : Are they doing any work? Mr. Garretson : God knows. 399 Mr. Walber: Do you want it, or don't you want it? Mr. Garretson : Don't I want it? Mr. Walber: Say you don't want it and we will fix it up very easy. Mr. Garretson: I don't want to couch it in that language if the practice you have laid down on it is in defiance of the lan- guage. Mr. Sheppard : You are not sticking to your text. The Chairman: Put an example down there that is going to explain it. Mr. Garretson : Why, assuming right here, a man goes here for 100 miles, and he makes it in seven hours, and — The Chairman : Go ahead. Seven hours, yes, sir, yes. Mr. Garretson: And the arbitrary pays him on arrival at terminal one hour. Under the interpretation you have made of this, terminal time will be paid in accordance with the rule, if the run is made inside of the overtime allowance, here he makes seven hours, one hour added makes eight, and he. is inside of the overtime allowance. You will pay him 100 miles under the rule eight hours or less 100 miles or less is a day, and under the ter- minal rule, which you say will not be disturbed, you will pay him one hour in addition thereto. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson: Well, then, don't you pay him under two rules? The Chairman: Not for this service in here. I don't see where you pay him under two rules. Mr. Garretson : You pay him for the trip under two rules. The Chairman : Oh, that thing as I explained to you, Mr. Garretson, refers to the time after he gets to his final terminal. Mr. Garretson : Oh, then you are going to pay to terminal, under one rule, and then pay him them under another rule and then — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And, then, when he passes there, all tyou will pay him is under this rule. It will keep you going ahead and backing up all of the time. The Chairman: Not at all, I don't see it. Explain it to me. Mr. Garretson: That is a switch back. Dr. Neill. 400 Dr. Neill: You have misunderstood what is meant, as I understand, by the rule, that if he is paid for a certain time under the rule, we won't pay him for the same time under another rule. It doesn't mean that you would pay up to one point under one rule, and from that point under another rule. It means that you won't pay for a given time or a given mile, under one rule and then pay for the same time, or the same mile, under another rule. Mr. Garretson: Well, your explanation. Doctor, is exactly like the man who went hunting. He wanted to hit it, if it was a deer, but for God's sake miss it if it was a calf. There you pay under the mileage rule up to the time that overtime begins to ac- crue. Then you insert this rule here and it is covering exactly the same time that this rule covered. In other words, you hold that you are entitled to an eight-hour allowance. They have only used seven of it, and because only seven have elapsed, then you pay for the eighth hour under the terminal rule, although you claim that if overtime ensues that you are really entitled to this hour also, so you blot it out and then commence paying it on this. The Chairman : No, we pay that as an arbitrary, Mr. Gar- retson. Mr. Garretson : Oh, no, you don't. The Chairman : You don't understand it, then. Mr. Garretson : If it is done in seven hours, but — but if he used eight hours up to here you wouldn't pay it as an arbitrary, jou would pay it as overtime. The Chairman: Why? Mr. Garretson: It is to be an arbitrary, then. The Chairman: Why? Mr. Garretson: Why, I understand it, but God Almighty Himself couldn't reconcile your explanation with your language. The Chairman : No, I think it is perfectly plain, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson : Well, my grammar was neglected. Mr. Walber: Now, one minute. Just a minute, now. Mr. Stone: I will rise to a point of order again — this ma- chine in — Mr. Walber : Have I got the floor? If you will read this, Mr. Garretson, start in with the middle sentence. "At final destina- 401 tion, existing rule or rules concerning additional service, aftei* arrival, final terminal delay, etc., not to be disturbed." Now, under that language, where would you think we would be justified in working off fast time on the road in the terminal? Mr. Garretson : Oh, here is where it will be disturbed. There are 100 miles, and you complete it in eight hours. Before you arrive at terminal you have got both your miles and your time iillowance. Then this arbitrary of one hour ceases to exist. Mr. Walber : What is that arbitrary for? Mr. Garretson: That arbitrary is for the payment of one hour's arbitrary if he is held there, but you don't pay it as an arbitrary if you use both time and miles. Then you pay as over- time, and nothing else. You blot this out of existence. You blot l.he terminal rule out of existence with it, because if the terminal rule didn't exist, you'd pay exactly the same way without its exist- once. The Chairman : If he came there on overtime, that is true. Mr. Garretson : If he came there on overtime, that is true. Mr. Higgins : Well, what would you pay for the hour if he came there on overtime? Mr. Garretson : Under one rule you would pay the time and a half. Under another interpretation that has been given to you of what "35" means, you'd pay the pro rata if it read one way, and you'd pay it with the punitive rate if it read the other. Mr. Walber: Oh, no. Mr. Higgins: But your example, Mr. Garretson — Mr. Garretson : Well, maybe you know how we interpreted ours better than we do. Mr. Walber: No, you're criticising ours. Mr. Garretson : No, I am not. Mr. Walber: I understand that wherever the existing rule says "overtime," you hold that it would mean time and a half under proposition "35." We distinguish there, in the terminal or any place else, wherever the word "overtime" appears in what we call a "penalty rule." You wouldn't call — Mr. Garretson : What is the difference to you between "pun- itive" and "penalty"? Mr. Walber : Where it is 10 miles or one hour, or one hour 402 overtime, we say, those terms having been interchangeable be- fore, the work being the same under them, the earnings will be the same under them. That is all. We can't see where the 50 per cent, works in just simply on language, so we hold here that, on the terminal, where it says one hour overtime and is continued to be pro rata, the only change is it would go to 12i/^ miles an hour instead of 10, not 150 per cent. That is all. Mr. Garretson : 150 per cent, isn't entering into this at all. That is all thrown in gratis. That is the kind of thing that don't explain anything, except according to what your opinion is about 50 per cent. The fact is, that you do, in the face of language which says a rule "will' not be disturbed." If you bring a man into the terminal with his time allowance run out, you will im- mediately proceed to blot that same rule that "will not be dis- turbed" out of existence. You don't use it in your computation at all. Mr. Walber : He can take the overtime, which will be greater, and submerge it absolutely. Mr. Garretson : Never mind what he can do. You are say- ing that you don't disturb it, but you do disturb it. Mr. Walber : He can take the 3 hours pro rata, or he can take the 2 hours' time and a half which produces the same earn- ings. Mr. Garretson : Sure, he can take a lot of things if he can get them, but when you say that he can't take them, and then give them to him, what then? Or, if you say he can't have it, and won't give it to him, what then? Mr. Walber : "And, -Rdll not be disturbed, and will be paid for pro rata until the time on duty equals the overtime limit of the run." Mr. Garretson : Thank the Lord, I am one generation — Mr. Walber : "And the time paid for under one rule not to be paid for under another rule, or rules." All of which applies at the final terminal. Mr. Garretson : Oh, sure, that is it. If you repeat that twenty times it doesn't listen as loud as one blotting out of the period. Mr. Higgins : But what is the difference, Mr. Garretson, be- tween that provision just read to you by Mr. Walber, and this 403 one? Unless otherwise specified, in this agreement, special allow- ances will be deducted from overtime to avoid double payment. Mr. Garretson : There you have got something entirely dif- ferent from what I am familiar with. The fact is, in the face of your own explanations, what I want to draw your attention to is that under your own explanations you are using language here that has not been used before, and that is open to sus- picion. That is the amount of it. The Chairman : Is that it? Mr. Garretson : Oh ! sure, you remember the famous say- ing— The Chairman : That what we have been talking about? Mr. Garretson : That what we have been talking about. You remember the statement that is ascribed to Stickney in General Managers' Association, A. B. Stickney, of the St. Paul, not but what he denies it, but he said in a conference of the General Man- agers' Association ; "I would trust any one of you with my watch, but I wouldn't believe any one of you under oath, where 100 pounds of freight was involved." I want to say to you that there are people here under suspicion on the basis of their language. The Chairman : I see. Well, if the language is what you are talking about, why — • Mr. Garretson : There it is, that language is like a cloak, it might cover a mutitude of sins. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : And when your explanation is directly op- posed to the language, that only adds to the suspicion which is. The Chairman : I don't see that that is correct. Mr. Garretson : Well, evidently my thinking box is working directly opposite to what yours is. Mr. Walber: If there were only one or two terminal rules involved in there, Mr. Garretson, it would be comparatively sim- ple to say one or the other, but you have got a variety of condi- tions at the final terminal. Mr. Garretson : Sure, you have. Mr. Walber : You have got the final terminal delay and you have got your new time and a half for overtime basis, and you have got such arbitraries as are dealt with in here. Mr. Garretson: Yes. 404 Mr. Walber: Now, how could you better express it than in such language? We are not wedded to that language. You know what we mean by it. Mr. Garretson : It is well that you aren't, for I want to say to you that I am perfectly strong in the belief that you wrote it — ^if you wrote it — ^with the idea that it would conserve all your rights, all right, all right. Mr. Walber: I didn't write it. Mr. Garretson : Well, you are not guilty then. Mr. Walber: Those are honors that don't belong to me. Mr. Garretson: I pass it. The Chairman : I will take it. Mr. Garretson: Guilty. Mr. Walber : Now, the idea solely is that he should be paid under one rule and not two or three or four or five. That is all. The Chairman: Will ypu suggest language that will cover that, language that will be above suspicion? Mr. Garretson: If you want to cover that idea I suggest that you use a prevailing phrase. That will admit just as many cases, because you will find standard phrases in there, as in ours, that will cover exactly the same thing. I have seen it written, for instance, I have one in mind. They didn't say anything, except, "Payment hereunder will not be made twice." It conveyed all the things that it is supposed to convey. It don't matter if there is a hundred rules if you are not going to pay for time, twice, it is easy to convey the idea. Mr. Walber: Supposing you come along with a clear ex- ample of doing it and then add a joker to it that, "This don't mean that." Mr. Garretson : Well, now in the case, to me it seems that that is just what that language did. Mr. Sheppard : Here is the fundamental difference, gentle- men. We hold there are two services ; you hold that it is all one. We hold you don't pay twice, you hold that you do. That is fundamental difference between conductors and trainmen's sched- ule in the East and the managers on account of the highest rate being paid for the enginemen classes. Now, there is the funda- mental difference between us. The B. & O. settlement quoted herein, and the questions arising therefrom, is a very clear ex- 405 ample, where tlie time is separately computed as such, and paid separately. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : Give us another one. The Chairman : All right, we will give you another. Mr. Stone : Mr. Sheppard's is the next question in there? The Chairman : I wanted to get straightened out as to how your application would apply in the cases mentioned. Mr. Stone : Is that in the record — the information you want? The Chairman : No, it is not. We don't know how your proposition applies to these various cases, therefore we can't put our interpretation, based on yours, on them until we find out what you did mean, or how you would apply them. I have no doubt you can explain it pretty readily. I want to say the reason I am injecting this now is that before formulating our yardstick — as it might be called — on the combination service rule, we ran up against the proposition wherein you combined yard and freight and passenger service, and we were very much in doubt as to how it would be paid under your proposition under certain conditions. For instance, your proposals affect the combination of passenger and freight, don't they ? That is, under the rules today, where combination rules, the schedules permit the combination of passenger and freight. That would be continued under the schedule? Mr. Sheppard: We took the position that where you were paying men on a freight basis, this proposition 35 would apply to a man paid on a freight basis. The Chairman: What I meant particularly, Mr. Sheppard, was this: That a combination of passenger and freight in the same day or trip, two classes of service comes under most of the engineers and firemen's schedule — those two classes of service schedule. Mr. Shea : Yes, we have it in the East, so far as the firemen are concerned, and I think it also applies to the engineers. It provides that a full day's pay is guaranteed in any service. Now, the interpretation of the Eastern arbitration award by the arbi- trators further provides that a fireman being guaranteed a full day's pay in any service he performs should be paid the highest rate when two or more different classes of service are performed 406 in the same day or trip. That would be, for example : A crew made a trip in passenger service of 75 miles and then went into freight service and made 25 miles in freight service. They would be paid 100 miles at the highest rate applicable to either service. Now, in the West, the Western award is a little different from that. The Chairman: It is your intention, then, that this would cover those combination rules of combination service. For in- stance, take page 323, that is under June 8, page 323, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Correct. The Chairman : You see — do you know this, that first long paragraph in — Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman: What would he be paid? The Chairman: How would that be paid, Mr. Shea, under yours, not under the present proposition? Mr. Shea : You mean under our existing schedule. The Chairman : Special Form 35. Mr. Shea: Under our existing schedule? The Chairman: In connection with the existing schedule under Form 35, how would that be paid? You see our contin- gent proposition is based on your 35, and what we were doubting, that is, we were not certain as to how these various runs would be figured under, for instance, Form 35. Mr. Shea : In the East on the Eastern roads he would be paid at the highest rate applicable for any service, which is four cents per mile, and overtime would be computed at a speed of 12% miles per hour. Mr. Walber: Well, you have only a total of 75 miles in- volved exclusive of the yard service, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Yes, well he would be paid the highest rate ap- plicable for any service made during that day or trip. Mr. Walber : Now, granting that you have four cents a mile, what overtime then would apply? Mr. Shea : Well, he would get overtime after he would make 110 miles. He would get overtime I believe after 8 hours, and it wouldn't run to quite nine — ^if he makes 112 miles, actually 112^2, it would be actually nine hours; making 110 miles it would be a little less ; therefore, he would get 110 miles, and overtime would be computed at a speed of 121^ miles per hour. 407 Mr. Walber : Then, in other words, you convert three hours in yard into 371/2 miles. Is that the way of it? Mr. Shea : Yes, that is it. It would all be figured in the entire day or trip. The Chairman : You would take the miles, then, in this. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Mr. Walber : Take the yard hours, and the miles. The Chairman : Yard hours, I mean. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir, in other words, three hours in yard serv- ice would be equivalent to thirty miles. Mr. Walber : Now, there is just one hundred and twelve and a half miles. By taking thirty-seven and a half miles as be- ing the equivalent of three hours, that would be twenty-five miles in freight, and fifty miles in passenger — ^yes, that is one hundred and twelve and a half just exactly ten hours, over time limit there, and he was out ten hours. Mr. Shea : He made a trip consuming ten hours. Mr. Walber : And he was out one hundred and twelve and a half miles on this thing — out actually ten hours, wasn't he? He was out nine hours, you are right. I beg your pardon. Well, then, his highest rate being four cents a mile, he would get four dollars and a half, and overtime after nine hours at the freight rate, four cents a mile — not three cents a mile. Isn't that right? No, four cents a mile is right, so that becomes seventy-five cents for the overtime. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Mr. Walber : One hour ; he ^'ould get five and a quarter for his day's work. Mr. Shea : That is correct. That is on a speed basis of twelve and a half miles per hour, but on a speed basis of ten miles per hour, he would be paid four dollars and forty cents for one hundred and ten miles under our present method of computation on the Eastern roads. Mr. Walber : Well, now that gets over into Mr. Sheppard's example on the D. & H., under Article IV. Mr. Shea: What record, Mr. Walber? The Chairman : Just a minute, it is down toward the bottom of 324— Delaware & Hudson, Article IV. Mr. Walber : Engineers and firemen in mixed train service of any character or doing two different classes of service in one 408 day's assignment, will be paid freight train rates according to class of service and engine used. A man switches for three hours, works in short passenger work for two hours with a minimum of 40 miles, works four hours in freight, making 40 miles. He would be paid a minimum of one hundred miles for the day's service at the freight rate according to class of engine. Mr. Sheppard: You said Mr. Sheppard, you meant Mr. Stone, did you not? Mr. Stone : No, you read that in — Mr. Walber: You read that in — Mr. Sheppard : Delaware & Hudson, engineers and firemen? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. Mr. Sheppard: You go back to 370 and find where I am reading, 370. That is after I had ceased. Mr. Garretson: Yes, 323, Sheppard isn't on-the page at all. Mr. Walber: Well, it is immaterial who read it. The ex- ample is there. Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Walber: And is an engineer's and firemen's case? Mr. Garretson : What page is that on? The Chairman: Three hundred and twenty -four, down to- wards the bottom. Mr. Sheppard : There is a very material difference in the D. & H. rule as between engineers and firemen, and conductors and trainmen. The Chairman: Well, it says engineers. Mr. Sheppard : And it don't fit conductors and trainmen. The Chairman : You object to daddying the engineers? Mr. Sheppard : I don't object to that more than to the fact that my name is credited to it. Mr. Stone : Well, I want the answer. Mr. Walber : Well, what I am trying to get at is this, you follow the same practice there, in equating your yard hours into miles, you establish the overtime limit, where yard hours is equiv- alent to ten miles would be 121/2. Mr. Stone : I don't know whether there is any hard and fast rule in regard to it or not. Mr. Walber : Then, you would take in this case, ten hours in yard? Mr. Stone: It would be technically correct, although that 409 40 miles in passenger service ought to represent overtime after two hours because the speed basis in eastern territory is 20 miles an hour. Mr. Walber : Well, there is one thing in there that I want to ask Mr. Stone. You had 10 hours minimum; 40 miles, I suppose it was 40 actual miles. Then you would take 40 miles in Passenger, not the 2 hours and freight service four hours, making 40 miles. And you'd add your miles together, wouldn't you? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. Mr. Walber : Then your four hours for actual time on duty, so that in that case you would have 1171/2 miles, wouldn't you? Now, taking three hours at present on the 10-mile an hour basis ; Mr. Stone, what confused me on this example, three hours in yard at 10 miles an hour, would be 30 miles, 40, and 40 would be 110, and unless there was some error in the stenographer's notes, our copy showed that he would have received a minimum of 1 00 miles for the service. That is what we didn't understand. It threw us off. Mr. Stone : I don't think it was the actual miles in passen- ger ; I think it was the two hours they took in passenger, making it 3 and 2 and 4 — 9 hours — on an hourly basis instead of miles. Mr. Walber: Well, you can readily see where that would make a difference, a big difference. Mr. Stone: I couldn't tell you without checking up. I haven't it here with me. Mr. Walber : You see his overtime rate would be 50 cents an hour and his mileage rate is four and a quarter cents a mile. Mr. Stone : His overtime rate would be whatever it was ac- cording to class of engine used. Mr. Walber : I mean in passenger service, taking the' over- time rate, corresponding with the hours. It would make a differ- ence between fl.OO and |1.70. Mr. Stone: He is paid straight freight rates according to his class of service, and engine used. Mr. Walber : I know, but I am taking your two hours and forty miles in passenger within this mixed day. Mr. Stone: Whole day is paid for at freight rate in the example that is given there. Mr. Walber : Well, with the information that the yard hours would be equated into miles, then the actual passenger miles, and 410 the actual freight miles would be added together for ascertaining your new overtime limit at 12% miles an hour, where the high- est rate applies, I think we can work out the trouble we had on it. The Chairman : Take, for instance, Mr. Stone, the Western Engineers and Firemen. Award rule, "Road engineers and fire- men, required to perform a combination of more than one class of service — road service — during the same trip, will be paid at the rate and according to the rules governing each class of ser- vice, at the time or miles engaged in each, but will be paid for the entire trip, not less than a minimum day at the highest rate applying for any class of service performed during such trip. Now, assume a run of 5 hours in through freight, making 50 miles, 4 hours in passenger, making 70 miles. How would that be figured out under your proposition? Mr. Shea : Now, he made how many hours in freight? The Chairman : Through freight, 50 miles ; 4 hours in pas- senger, making 70 miles. Mr. Shea: Seventy. Well, he would be paid under that rule, because by combining both services, it would be greater than the highest rate applicable for either service. Therefore he would be paid for 50 mUes under the freight rates and rules and 70 miles under the passenger rates and rules. The Chairman : That is under the 12V2-ii[iile speed basis and 8 hours. Mr. Shea : Well, I thought you asked me how they applied under the Western Arbitration award. The Chairman : No, I meant how would you figure this ex- ample that I gave you under the Western award rule and special form "35"? Mr. Shea : I would think that he would be paid for 50 miles ; he would be paid 5 hours in freight service. Mr. Dodge : No. The Chairman : No, 5 hours in freight service, 4 hours in passenger. Mr. Shea : That would be equivalent to — he would be paid 62 miles in freight service, and 70 miles in passenger. Mr. Stone : You know a great many of those Western roads have a better combination rule than that. The joke of the whole thing was that one of the men who acted as arbitrator, Mr. By- 411 ram, turned around and gave Ms own men a better rule than the award. The Chairman : Well, when would overtime accrue on a nin of that sort, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea: Under this rule? The Chairman : Yes, under this special rule. Mr. Shea: Well, as it is interpreted under the Western Arbitration award, overtime would be computed on the freight trip at a speed of I2I/2 miles per hour, and in passenger service at a speed of 15 miles per hour. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Walber : Notwithstanding that is less than 80 miles one way? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. That is the way it is now being inter- preted on the Western roads, in combination service, and the only difference would be under this proposition that instead of com- puting the freight mileage at a speed of 10 miles per hour, it would be computed at a speed of I2I/2 miles per hour. Mr. Walber : And the overtime in each paid for, regardless of the elapsed time? Mr. Shea : Yes, that is where the combined mileage in both services would be greater than the highest rate applicable for either class of service. The Chairman : You have got me going now. Mr. Shea: For instance, supposing they made 50 miles in freight service and 50 miles in passenger service, then they would be paid the highest rate applicable to either service. Mr. Walber: We will take and apply some mileage rates to that 50 miles in freight on a three-cent per mile engine, and 50 miles in passenger with a f.275 say, if there is such a rate out there. Mr. Shea: Well, he would be paid all mileage at the rate of three cents per mile. Mr. Walber: Yes, because that is the higher rate and be- cause it is the minimum of the highest rate. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. Mr. Walber : Now then, take that case and make the 75 miles in freight at three cents and 50 miles in passenger at 2^^,, the day ending in passenger. 412 Mr. Shea: Well, now, what was the rate in passenger? Mr. Walber: |.275, say. Mr. Shea : Then he would be paid on a trip of that kind, 75 miles, in freight service, at the rate of 12y2 miles per hour, and he would be paid 50 miles in passenger service at a rate of 15 miles per hour. Mr. Walber : Yes, he is five hours out on his freight then — say he is seven hours out on his freight and four hours out on his passenger. Mr. Shea: You mean, now, he would consume four hours making 50 miles in passenger? Mr. Walber : Yes, four hours making 50 miles in passenger. Mr. Shea : And seven hours making 75 miles in freight? Mr. Walber : Yes. Eleven hours out from beginning of his trip until the end. Mr. Shea: He would be entitled to eighty-seven miles and a half in freight service, and fifty miles in passenger service, and he would get overtime after three hours and twenty minutes, making fifty miles. Do you get me? Seven hours in freight service at twelve and a half miles per hour? Mr. Walber: I see. Mr. Shea : Equivalent to eighty-seven and a half miles. Mr. Walber: I understand. Mr. Shea : Now, he ran fifty miles in passenger service but consumed four hours; therefore, computing his overtime in pas- senger service at a speed basis of fifteen miles per hour, overtime would accrue after three hours and twenty minutes. Therefore he would get forty minutes' overtime in passenger service in addi- tion to the fifty miles. Mr. Walber : And he would be out eleven hours, which on a twelve and a half mile speed basis — on the hundred and twenty- five miles he runs, would produce a ten-hour overtime limit for his day before time and a half would accrue. Mr. Shea : Well, that isn't the way they apply it in the West. Now, if that was in the East it would be different, but now, I understand you want information with regard to the method of computation under the application of the Western Engineers' and Firemen's award. The Chairman : As applied to "35" ? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. 413 The Chairman: Now, you understand, the man was seven hours running 75 miles. Now isn't the overtime there on the freight side of it? Mr. Shea: Seventy -five miles? The Chairman: Yes, 75 miles, seven hours on a 12^^ mile speed basis. Perhaps it would be better to just give us the ex- ample. Mr. Shea : I see the point, I think I can answer that now, in figuring out on that basis he would get overtime after 6 hours and would receive 75 miles in the freight service and one hour's over- time computed at a speed of 12% miles per hour, and he would get 50 miles in passenger service and 40 minutes' overtime. The Chairman : It is about time to adjourn, I think we are all getting a little woozy. Mr. Garretson : I have got past reading. I can't read a little. The Chairman : Perhaps we will just give you another ex- ample there, Mr. Shea, that one, and you can let us have that in the morning and one or two of these others so that we can be straight on it, so we can fix up our own. ( The Chairman reads example into the record. ) "Assume a run of seven hours in freight, making 87% miles, and five hours in passenger, making 75 miles. How would that run under the Engineers' and Firemen's Western Award — how would special form "35" apply? Southern Eailway Eule at the bottom of page 325. Mr. Stone : All right. (Chairman hands memo of example to Mr. Stone.) ( Mr. Stone has stenographer copy example into the record. ) An engineer runs 75 miles in freight service on a 5 :40 engine in six hours, then picks up stalled passenger train and runs in 20 miles to terminal in one hour ; total hours, 7 ; total miles, 75. The Chairman: We will adjourn until 10 o'clock in the morning. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING. NEW YORK JUNE 13, 1916 No. 9 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kottns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. C. L. Babdo, H. W. McMaster, Gen'l Manager, X.Y.,X.H.&H.R.R. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. ■.-■ TT ^ N. D. Maher, E. H COAPMAN Vice-Pres., N. & W. Ry. Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. ^ ^ James RussEii, S. E. Cotter, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. a. M. Schotbr, P. E. Crowley ResidentVice-Pres.,Penna. Lines West Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. W. L. Seddon, _, „ T-i Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. G. H. Emerson, Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. ^- J- ^tone, Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. C. H. EwmG, Q g ^^_ Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. Vice-Pres. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset E. W. Grice, Central Lines. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. J. W. Higgins. A. S. Greig, C- P- Neill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J. G. Walber. Representing the Organizations A. B. Gabretson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. W. G. Lee, President, B. of R. T. Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppaed, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. James MtrRDOCK, Second Vice-Pres., B. of R. T. G. H. Sines, Third Vice-Pres., B. of R. T. 415 New York, N. Y., June 13, 1916. Met pursuant to adjournment at 10 :00 A.M., Mr. Blisha Lee in the chair. The Chairman: When we stopped last night we were dis- cussing some of these combination rules, Mr. Shea ; would you want to continue these this morning? Mr. Stone : Before taking up that, Mr. Chairman, let us con- sider this case you gave me from the Southern Kailway and asked me how we would apply our schedule to it. In the first place, the case couldn't happen on the Southern Kailway, so it is a hypothetical case pure and simple. The Chairman: This couldn't happen? Mr. Stone : This is the question. An engineer runs 75 miles in freight service on a 5.40 engine in six hours. He then picks up a stalled passenger train and runs in 20 miles to terminal in one hour. Total time on duty, seven hours ; total miles run, 95. What would he be paid? Under rule 22 of the Southern schedule, an engineer of a passenger train would remain with his train, and he would simply take the freight engine, so the case couldn't happen in the first place. The Chairman: What would happen to the freight engineer? Mr. Stone: Why he would simply turn over his engine to the passenger engineer and the passenger engineer would remain with his engine. Dr. Neill : Suppose the engineer of the passenger train was sick and they transferred the freight man to his engine and he ran it. Mr. Stone: Well, that isn't the same case. It is a stalled passenger train. Dr. Neill : It is the same case. Mr. Stone : The same case only it is different. Mr. Stone : Under the Eule 13-a, which is the ruling, "Engi- neers running in two classes of service on trip between terminals will be paid for all work done at the highest rate applicable to any class of service in which they have been engaged, time on such trips to be continuous from the time engineer and firemen are ordered to report at terminal, until they are relieved on arrival at terminal, or in accordance with other provisions of the agree- ment." Now here is the principal point I want to call your attention 416 to — "overtime to be computed on the highest speed basis or the shortest daily basis applicable to any class of service performed on that trip." In accordance with that rule, overtime would be computed for the entire period of seven hours at a speed basis of 20 miles per hour. Therefore, the man would' be paid 100 miles and two hours overtime. Under your present rule in the application of our request, the computation would be made just the same, and he would be paid two hours overtime at the rate of time and one-half time. The Chairman: On the 20-mile speed basis? Mr. Stone: Yes, sir. The Chairman : That is, he'd be paid on the basis for over- time at 20 miles? Mr. Stone: He would be paid two hours overtime at time and one-half time, whatever that is. Dr. Neill : What I was trying to get at w^s this : In this combination service I wanted to know what you would do in the case of passenger engines being involved in overtime. My un- derstanding is, that if the man took the freight rate, that you would apply the time and a half overtime, irrespective of whether it was passenger service or not. You see, the complication comes in there because the passenger service, as I understand, is not to go on the punitive overtime and the freight service is. It brings up in my own mind a real complication in figuring the proposi- tion. Mr. Stone: If it brings up in your mind a real difficulty, I don't know what it would bring up in anybody else's, because you are the man that wrote the rule, yourself. Dr. Neill: I beg your pardon. Mr. Stone: I beg your pardon; it is a matter of record. Dr. Neill: No, the record is right here. (Hands record to Chairman. ) The matter was settled outside the mediation. You will find that that matter was settled in 1911, when three rules were agreed to outside mediation, directly by the parties interested without the intervention of the mediators at all. Mr. Stone: How about it, Mr. Whiddon? Mr. Whiddon : My understanding was that it was settled in mediation. I am not positive, of course. Dr. Neill : Mr. Whiddon is mistaken. 417 Mr. Whiddon : Mr. Moore of the conductors knows, but it was always my understanding that it was a mediated rule. The Engineers' Committee didn't make the rule. Dr. Neill: Here is the settlement made by conductors and trainmen, made through the mediators. Sometime later three rules were agreed to by the two parties directly interested and signed by them, in which the mediators had no concern whatever. Mr. Stone: Well, the fact remains that our Committee, if my record is correct, never made this rule with Mr. Coapman, the general manager of the property. Dr. Neill : The rule was made by the conductors and train- men with the Committee representing the Southeastern roads. The statement that I wrote those is incorrect, because I knew nothing of the rule until after it had been agreed to and put into the record. Mr. Shea: Well, notwithstanding the question as to who negotiated the rule, the application of the rule is well understood on that road. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : And I assume that it would be applied precisely the same in case our proposition is adopted. The Chairman: Yes, but what I wanted to get at particu- larly, is a complication that came into my mind or into the minds of the Committee, Mr. Shea, was this : That if that overtime was on the passenger basis, then you would double it up in the time and a half. That is, you would convert passenger overtime by making it time and a half. Mr. Stone : I beg your pardon, the whole trip is computed, is paid for at the freight rate of 5.40 for that class of engine. They simply use the overtime at the highest speed basis for the trip to arrive at when overtime begins. It has always been paid as freight overtime, and would be paid as freight overtime in this case. Mr. Garretson: I think misunderstanding could only arise on that from the standpoint that Dr. Neill states, from this fact — if you will just take it for granted that these negotiations desire to substitute a different rate of freight pay and a different rate of overtime pay, leaving the combination rule to work with the new freight basis and with the old passenger basis, no confusion would arise on it. All the difference is you would change your freight basis of computation and pay on it as it may exist instead of on 418 the old freight rate as it exists. Under that condition, confusion could not arise any more than under the application of the present rule. The Chairman : Let me see if I get this. Dr. jSTeill: Well, Mr. Garretson, I am not trying to make difficulties, I am trying to get my own mind cleared up. Supposing the man has been in freight service four hours and then went into the passenger service and was in that three hours. Now the over- time accrues while he is in the passenger service. Mr. Garretson : Yes, but it is allowed for on freight basis. Dr. Neill: Now what I mean is that you would therefore carry the freight punitive overtime rate into the overtime which began while he was in the passenger service. Mr. Garretson: Absolutely, because on the old combina- tion you took the best rate of overtime. Dr. Neill: Yes. Mr. Garretson : To finish the computation, it might readily occur that a new rate would make a new standard of combination because some rate might rise higher than a former high rate, and the rule would justify the combination of the freight, what- ever it is, with the passenger, whatever it is, and the application of the combination rule to the choice. For instance, if he had formerly accepted passenger rate of pay for overtime, assuming for a moment it might have been better, which it was not, I think —but assuming that it was under this combination rule, if now, with the punitive addition, freight overtime became higher, the man would be entitled under the combination rule to choose which was the better at the time that the combination was made. Dr. Neill: The difficulty does not arise at present, as I understand it, because the passenger overtime basis aiid the freight overtime rate are the same. He goes right along, irre- spective of when he goes into the overtime, but under the new proposition in my judgment the complication did arise, because in one case you do not pay the punitive rate; in the other case you do; and you can have a case, as I cited, in which he is inj the passenger service when the overtime period begins. Now, I simply want to understand. You say that in that case, if he was paid the freight mileage, that would carry with it the freight overtime rate, although the overtime basis was the passenger basis, and occurred in passenger service. 419 Mr. Garretson : I won't saj that it would carry it with it, but I would say that it would only add another element of option for the man to choose. That is all optional. He takes the best rate of speed, which is the passenger rate. He takes the rate of overtime on the same basis. If it is the best in freight, he will choose the freight. On the other hand, if the passenger raised and the freight stayed down, he would choose the overtime rate in passenger, be- cause it was the most desirable. I can't see that it adds any com- plication because with every element that enters into the making up of that day's pay it is optional with him to choose the best that exists. He now chooses the speed basis out of passenger, because that is the most desirable; it is 20 instead of 11. Therefore, he exercises his option there. If the two overtimes are the same, there is no necessity to exercise the option, because either will give equal results. But now overtime goes to time and a half, there- fore, freight becomes the most desirable rate of overtime, and he as- sociates the highest rate of overtime with the highest rate of speed ; simply exercises his option that much further than he needed to before. Dr. ^Sl^eill: Well, suppose he starts out, Mr. Garretson, takes up his trip, and just before he has gotten out of his terminal he is called -to take the place of a passenger engineer, and makes his run. Would he then carry the punitive freight rate over the entire passenger trip. Mr. Garretson : If before this he could have done so, he will do so in the new combination. Dr. Neill : It didn't make any difference before that because his overtime rate is just the same. Mr. Garretson : Well, then, if he didn't exercise the option before, the chances are, now he would exercise it. Dr. Neill: There is no option to exercise because it is the same. Mr. Moore: The overtime rate is not the same at present. The passenger rate is 58 cents and the freight rate is 46 cents. We exercise choice now and take the highest rate. Mr. Garretson : That is the trainmen, conductors? Mr. Moore: Yes. Dr. Neill : I am speaking of the engineers. 420 Mr. Garretson: Yes, but you will bear in mind the rule is that — does your rule grow out of ours, or ours out of yours? Mr. Stone: Guess it was wished on us. I don't think we have made the settlement at all. I think we simply made it to make all alike. Mr. Garretson: We accepted the settlement evidently from signatures here in a collective movement in which I was repre- sented by Mr. Curtis. But, however that may be, all these ele- ments of option now exist in the conductors' rule, and conse- quently, if there is no confusion now, in applying the same rule to the conductors and trainmen, there ought not to be any con- fusion in applying it in the future, if the inequalities arise in the rate of overtime to the enginemen, because there is no complica- tion can arise in the engine service after they come over the turn- table that doesn't arise in train service. All combinations that are possible to one set of men on the front end of the train are also possible to the men on the back end of the train, because while the same emergency may not affect them alike, the fact re- mains that the same emergency may confront every one of them. The stalled train, the illness of the man in charge, or any of those features apply alike. That has not produced, so far as I know, any confusion in its application where the very inequality does exist, that you cite may exist, for the user, and there is no more reason why it should raise confusion in one department more than in another. You bear in mind, I am not attempting, Doctor, to interpret how the rule would be applied, I am only touching upon the optional feature of the rule and if, as you say, overtime is the same now in freight and in passenger, the destroying of that equality by raising one of those rates will not complicate the situation, but will only add one more element of option. Dr. Neill: Well, now take the case Mr. Moore cited. As- sume the case of the conductor in which the overtime rate, I be- lieve he said, is 58 and 46. Now if he makes this overtime in pas- senger service, will he apply the overtime, the time and a half, to the passenger overtime rate or to the freight overtime rate? Mr. Garretson : Moore, which way do you apply it now? Mr. Moore : We take the highest rate. Mr. Garretson : The 58-cent rate and the high speed. Mr. Moore : And the high speed basis. Mr. Garretson : Because they are the two desirable elements. 421 Mr. Moore : Because they are the two desirable elements, we take the highest mileage rate, the highest speed basis and the high- est overtime rate. Mr. GarretSon: Eegardless of whether they are in freight or passenger or whether the preponderance of service was in freight or passenger? Mr. Moore: Yes. Mr. Garretson : You take the three highest elements? Mr. Moore: We take the three highest elements. They do the same. Mr. Garretson : They do the same under this. Mr. Stone : Mr. Chairman, can't you and the Doctor settle that some other time? That is costing more in this particular case than it would amount to in a thousand years in actual service. The Chairman : All right. I don't think he has got it right yet. Mr. Stone: There isn't any question as to when the over- time begins. The Chairman: The overtime, as I understand it, begins after 20 miles an hour. Mr. Stone: Absolutely so. The Chairman: Then if the passenger rate is the highest, you take time and a half on the passenger rate. Is that right? Mr. Garretson : No, not time and a half, you will take the overtime rate at one and one-half, which will be higher than the passenger rate on the pro rata, for the passenger overtime is paid on a pro rata. The Chairman: That isn't changed then? Mr. Garretson : Why that isn't changed, is that it doesn't take the passenger time and put it pro rata — I mean the punitive rate on what he does. Was the passenger rate, Doctor, the over- time rate? The Chairman : Fifty-six cents. Mr. Garretson : If it is 56 cents, the result will be that the passenger rate will remain at 56 cents. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: Will it? The Chairman : The other is 48. Mr. Garretson : No, you are handling the conductors' rates now. 422 The Chairman: Oh! Mr. Garretson: They are both 56 in the engineers' service, but the freight will now become 78 cents, and it isn't high enough. Mr. Coapman: Eighty -four? Mr. Garretson: Eighty -four. The freight rate will become 84 and he will choose the 84. The Chairman : He will choose the 84 rate instead of the 56. Mr. Stone : What are you talking about now, an engineers' rate? Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Stone : Well, you are wrong. Divide $5.40 by nine and you will get 60 cents an hour for the pro rata rate. Mr. Garretson: Well, if there be a 90 freight rate, he will choose the freight rate of overtime. The passenger speed for the creation of overtime and the mileage, whatever it is, will run the same in both for both mileage schedules. Dr. Neill : Mr. Garretson, in the conductors' case, let me ask just this one more question. Would you apply the rate of 46 cents, which is the freight overtime rate, or the 58 cents, which is the passenger overtime rate? Mr. Garretson : We haven't touched passenger overtime rate in this conference at all, so far as it has gone. If the passenger rate is now 58 cents in passenger service on the Southern Eailway, it would stay at 58 cents, and the 50 per cent, would be applied to the freight rate of forty-six. Dr. Neill : Then do I understand you, he would have the option of taking the freight rate with the half time added or taking the passenger rate straight. Mr. Garretson: Sure. Dr. Neill : But he could not take the passenger overtime rate and add the half time rate. Mr. Garretson: He could not. Mr. Shea: Taking up the discussion we had last night be- fore adjournment. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Shea: Under the Western Engineers' and Firemen's award, there is a rule providing for the payment for combination service, exclusively road service. It does not involve the com- bination of service including yard service. Perhaps we'd better have an understanding as to the interpretation of the award. 423 First : If the aggregate time and mileage in combined road service exceeds the minimum day at the highest rate applicable to any engine used, then the creAV will be paid at the rate and according to the rules governing each class of service for the time or miles engaged in each. Now, in the East, under the Firemen's Eastern award, the rule as applied, provides that when firemen are required to perform a combination of more than one class of service during the same day or trip, they will be paid the highest rate applicable for any service performed during the day or trip. Now, that includes switching service. By taking the example we were discussing last night, before adjournment, as applied to the Western Arbitration. Freight crew made 75 miles in seven hours at three cents per mile, fire- men's rate. They were then called into passenger service and made 50 miles in four hours at a 2% cents per mile rate. It will be seen by this example that the aggregate time for the combined service exceeds the minimum day at the highest rate applicable for any class of service performed. Therefore, this time would be computed separately, that is,, under the different classes of service, freight and passenger, so that the 75 miles made in freight service at three cents per mile would be |2.25, and computing overtime at a speed of 12i/^ miles per hour, under this proposition, and paid at time and a half, he would receive one hour's overtime, or a total of 56 cents at a three cents per mile rate, which would make a total of |2.81 in freight service. He then went into passenger service and made 50 miles at 2i/2 cents per mile, or total of |1.25. Under the Western Arbitration Award overtime in passenger service is computed at a speed of 15 miles per hour and paid for at a fixed rate of 45 cents per hour. Therefore, on that basis, making 50 miles, and overtime computed at a speed of 15 miles per hour, the fireman would be paid 40 minutes overtime, which would be two-thirds of 45 cents, or a total of 30 cents, making a total for the combined service of $4.36. Now, in the East, under the Eastern Arbitration Award, the same service, making precisely the same miles, and consuming the same number of hours, he would be entitled to eighty-seven and a half miles because he consumes seven hours at twelve and a half miles per hour. He made fifty miles at three cents per mile. He then went into passenger service and made fifty miles in four hours. 424 or a total of one hundred and thirty -seven miles and a half, and under the interpretation of the Eastern Arbitration Award he would be paid this mileage at the highest rate applicable for both services, which is three cents per mile. Therefore, he would re- ceive four dollars and twelve cents and a half for that service. His overtime would be computed under this proposal at a speed of twelve and a half miles per hour. Therefore, overtime would not accrue on a run of one hundred and thirty-seven and a half miles until eleven hours had elapsed. Therefore, he would not be paid any overtime on this run but would be paid for one hun- dred and thirty-seven and five-tenths miles at the highest rate applicable for any service performed. Xow, you will note the difference in the application of the different awards. For that run in the West the fireman would be paid four dollars and thirty-six cents, while in the East he would be paid four dollars and twelve cents. The difference is because of the different rules. XoAV, in the AVest, as I said before, you cannot combine yard service with road service; therefore, the rules in the individual schedules would govern on such roads. Where a crew works a portion of the day in yard service, and the remainder of the day in road service they are paid the full day in yard service, and all additional miles and time made in road service. Xow, other roads are just the opposite. They would be paid at least a minimum day for road time and the actual time consumed in switching service, and that also applies to the roads in the Southeast ter- ritory. Mr. Walber : Well, what I had in mind on that example, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Shea, was this — Form 35 reads, "all time after eight hours shall be paid at time and a half.'' Noav, in this case you have seventy-five miles freight. Mr. Shea: All time after eight hours? Mr. Walber : Yes. Mr. Shea : As time and a half, yes, but understand, Mr. Wal- ber, overtime is computed at a speed of twelve and a half miles per hour. Mr. Walber : On runs of over one hundred miles, under the proposition — Mr. Shea: Yes, and in this example you will note, they made a total of one hundred and thirtv-seven miles and a half. 425 Mr. Walber : Well, the trouble does not appear so mucli under the Eastern example as it does under the West, because of the rule of paying for each class of service proportionately, rates and rules together. Here you have seventy-five miles, made in seven hours, which — Mr. Shea : Now, you are talking about the West? Mr. Walber : The case we had last night in the West. Mr. Shea : Yes. Mr. Walber : Seventy-five miles made in seven hours, which produces one hour overtime on a twelve and a half miles an hour basis, but it is not made after eight hours. It is between the sixth and the seventh hour. Would the time and a half still ap- ply, notwithstanding it is prior to eight hours? Mr. Shea : Absolutely, in combined service. Therefore, the seventy-five miles consumed in seven hours' overtime would be computed on that run at a speed of twelve and a half miles per hour. Therefore, overtime woiild accrue after six hours, and owing to the fact that he consumes seven hours in the freight service, he would be entitled to one hour's overtime. That is the way it is applied in the West now, with the exception that overtime is computed at a speed of ten miles per hour, instead of twelve and a half miles. Mr. Walber : I understand how it is applied in the West now, because there is no time and a half involved. There is no such proposition before them of paying time and a half — Mr. Shea : It is pro rata. Mr. Walber : Or punitive after a given period. Now, this Form 35 doesn't say anything about overtime prior to any given period. It says, "After eight hours, or after the period of time produced by dividing the miles run by twelve and a half, and the miles over one hundred." Now, those elements were not in this example. Mr. Shea : Yes, but Mr. Walber — Mr. Walber : So, I couldn't understand how time and a half could be reckoned after eight hours. Mr. Shea : Yes, but Mr. Walber, the question came up as to how this proposal would apply to roads and to runs now, where we have a combination service. Mr. Walber : That is a fact. Mr. Shea : Therefore, the only difference would be, as I see 426 it, you would simply substitute eight for ten. Or in computing road overtime you would substitute 12i^ for ten. That is the only difference. Mr. Walber : Well, we thought perhaps it was the intention, where the overtime was prior to eight hours, that it would con- tinue on the pro rata basis, and not the time and a half basis. Mr. Shea: Ko, sir, I would not say so. Now that applies the same to passenger service on this run, because the aggregate service exceeds the minimum day at the highest rate paid. Then you must segregate the service, and in passenger service, the fire- man would receive 50 miles, and his overtime would be computed at a speed of 15 miles per hour. Therefore, inasmuch as he did consume four hours in that class of service, overtime would ac- crue after three hours and 20 minutes, which would give him 40 minutes overtime or two-thirds of the fixed rate per hour, which was 45. Mr. Walber : Notwithstanding in the combination case, the time when this accrued was after eight hours, we would have 11 hours spread, seven hours in freight, four hours in passenger, total of 11 hours. Those were the three angles you see in that question that we wanted to get clear on. Mr. Higgins: Now, just to clear me up, Mr. Shea, on one other point. If a freight train ran 40 miles in 4 hours, and a passenger train ran 60 miles in 4 hours, making 8 hours over all, and they made 100 miles, how would you pay them? Mr. Shea: Well, you would have to figure that, Mr. Hig- gins, to ascertain whether or not the total mileage in the aggre- gate would exceed the minimum rate paid for the highest rate applicable to both services. Mr. Higgins : Let us put that on an engineer and make the freight rate five cents, the passenger rate four and a quarter, say. Mr. Shea: Made 40 miles in freight? Mr. Higgins : Yes, 4 hours. Mr. Stone: What road? Mr. Higgins : Any road in the West included in the Engi- neers' Award. Mr. Shea: Now, what was his freight rate again, five cents? Mr. Higgins: Five cents. Mr. Shea: Five cents per mile. Mr. Higgins: And four and a quarter in passenger. 427 Mr. Shea: Well, In that instance, Mr. Higgins, he would receive the total mileage of 100 at five cents per mile, which would be |5 in that case. Mr. Higgins: He would receive the highest rate for the entire service. Mr. Shea: For the entire service, because the time in the aggregate did not exceed the minimum at the highest rate paid for both classes of service. Mr. Higgins: Jfow, jxist one other question. Under your proposition as submitted, your 35, how do you justify claiming an hour's overtime within seven hours on seventy-five miles in that Arbitration Award? Mr. Shea: Under the Western Arbitration Award? Mr. Higgins: Yes. Mr. Shea: Simply because that is the way it is computed, and paid for at the present time, with the exception that we eliminate the ten-hour feature and substitute therefor the eight- hour feature and compute road overtime at a speed of twelve and a half miles per hour instead of ten. That is the difference and we do it now, we do it on your road. That is the way it is paid for on your road and every other road in the West. Mr. Stone: He hasn't any road in the West. Mr. Shea: Well, we will say the Missouri Pacific, we will say that it is his road. I have figured out that other example you gave me, if you want it now. The Chairman: I would like to have it right now, and get it straightened out so that we could find out how ours would apply. Mr. Shea : You handed me the following example : Through freight making eighty-seven and a half miles in seven hours, seventy-five miles in passenger service consuming five hours, a total spread of twelve hours. This example in the East, as figured out under the interpretation of the Eastern Firemen's Award, he would be paid eighty-seven and a half miles in freight service and seventy-five miles in passenger service, or a total of one hundred and sixty-two and a half miles, consuming a spread of twelve hours. Under the interpretation of the Award he would receive one hundred and sixty-two and a half miles at the highest rate, which would be the four-cent rate in freight service and a 428 two and a half cent rate in passenger service. Therefore he would receive a hundred and sixty-two miles and a half at four cents per mile, and one hour's overtime, or a total of six dollars and fifty cents for the entire trip. The Chairman: Yes, just a minute, Mr. Shea. You say he would get one hundred and sixty-two and a half miles at the four- cent rate. Mr. Shea : Four-cent rate. The Chairman : And one hour's overtime? Mr. Shea : And one hour's overtime. Wait a minute, I think I am wrong on that. I am in error there. He would receive six dollars and fiity cents for the entire service, and overtime on a run of one hundred sixty-two miles would not be computed or would not accrue until after the lapse of thirteen hours. There was only a spread of twelve hours. Therefore he would not make any overtime on that run. Now, this same run in the West, making eighty-seven and a half miles in freight service, consuming seven hours, and seventy- five miles in passenger service, making a total of one hundred and sixty-two miles. Now, inasmuch as the aggregate time ex- ceeds the minimum rate at the highest rate applicable, then the service must be separate and paid for under the rules governing both classes of service. Assuming that the rate for firemen in freight service was four cents per mile, he would receive for eighty-seven miles and a half |3.50. Overtime in that service being computed at a spread of twelve and a half miles per hour, he would not receive any overtime on that run. Therefore, he would receive eighty-seven miles and a half flat, or a total of f3.50. He made seventy-five miles in passenger service and con- sumed five hours at two and a half cents per mile, therefore he would receive |1. 871/2, and inasmuch as overtime is computed at a speed of fifteen miles per hour, and only making seventy-five miles, no overtime accrued on that run. Therefore, he would receive the actual mileage or a total of |5.37i/^. You will note the difference in the compensation of the firemen in the West as compared with the East. On this run the fireman in the East would receive |6.50, whereas in the West on precisely the same run, consuming the same time, he would be paid f5.37i/2. The Chairman : Just the reverse of the other. Mr. Shea: Just the reverse of the other. Now, in one in- 429 stance it works to the advantage of the men in one territory, and just the reverse in the other territory. The Chairman : I think that xs-ill straighten us out, Mr. Shea, so we can go ahead with our two classes of service rule, because we did't know how your proposition applied. You see we got through with 36 yesterday, didn't we? Wait a minute, that is the P. & L. E. Mr. Shea : What record were we working on? Mr. Garretson : The P. & L. E. is at the bottom of 306. The Chairman : Yes, we have finished with that one. Xow, the next one is where? Mr. Crowley: Top of page 307. The Chairman: "In case of assisting trains in opposite directions, a minimum of one hour at overtime rates will be allowed trainmen." Question: What does "A" contemplate in regard to this? AnsAver: Continuous time or mileage for the entire trip with a minimum of a day. That is, if you paid the continuous mileage. Mr. Garretson : How did you read that question, Mr. Chair- man? The Chairman : "In case of assisting trains in opposite di- rections, a minimum of one hour at overtime rates will be allowed trainmen." That is the P. & L. E. rule, Conductors and Train- men, 13-B. Mr. Garretson : Your answer — Mr. Sheppard: It is now paid plus. The Chairman: Xow paid plus. I understand. Mr. Garretson : Your answer is continuous time allowance? The Chairman : Or mileage, whichever is the greater. Then the next one on that same page. "Freight trainmen will not be required to switch over 20 minutes in getting their trains ready for departure at the follow- ing terminals. If required to switch more than 20 minutes, they will be paid overtime rates with a minimum of one hour." Is this time under your proposition thrown in the trip, and if so, does it extend the trip 20 minutes or one hour as paid for? Answer: It is all included in the trip. Mr. Sheppard: Continuous time? The Chairman : Yes. 430 Mr. Garretson : That is the special allowance is not paid. The Chairman : As one hour. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : No. Mr. Garretson: It will be paid under no circumstances un- less it is paid in the form of overtime at the end of the trip? The Chairman : I think that would be correct, Mr. Garret- son. B. & O. : Conductors and Trainmen, Rule 4 : "Crews other than passenger required to make short trips outside of terminals before beginning or after completing day or trip, will be paid not less than a minimum day in addition to their regular services from terminal to terminal. Time of succeeding trip in such cases begins when relieved of preceding trip. Crews will not be required to make short trips if other crews are avail- able." Question: Does "A" contemplate continuous time in this? Answer : If a short trip is made before beginning a day or trip, it will be on continuous mileage and time. Eule covering service at final destination will remain. If that is at the final destination, it will be paid in accordance with the rule. Mr. Garretson: That is a minimum day for the additional trip? The Chairman : That is what it calls for, I think, and that is what we are willing to pay. Mr. Shea: Then, according to that, Mr. Lee, where sched- ules now provide for a minimum day for service performed, before the beginning of the trip, they will be eliminated? The Chairman: That is my understanding of the proposi- tion, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: And their time will be computed continuously from the time called until they reach their destination? The Chairman : Yes, under cases such as this, that will be true. B. & O., Rule 4. Interpretations. Example 2: "A crew called for through freight service, A to C, has been on duty 30 minutes checking train, etc., was taken off the through freight and sent to wreck between A and C; is gone four hours and fifteen minutes ; resumes duty on this first or through freight train — " 431 Mr. Sheppard: "Through freight trip," that should be. The Chairman : Through freight trip on account of no other crew being available. The 30 minutes' time made in first service to be added to the time from A to C in through freight service, making not less than a minimum day for the trip in wreck ser- vice. Question : Does "A" contemplate a combination of this time? Answer: Continuous time or mileage. The Mckel Plate. Conductors' and trainmen's schedule, page 6. Top of page 308, second paragraph: "Twenty miles or less, straight away, or a round trip of 40 miles or less, for 100 miles, 10 hours or less, two continuous trips may be made ; overtime at turn-around point." Question* Under this rule, crew is called for a turn-around of 30 miles, and at the turn-around they are delayed two hours switching. Total time, including time consumed in switching, 10 hours. At present receive 100 miles and two hours' overtime. What would they receive under "A"? Answer : One hundred miles, and two hours' overtime. Mr. Sheppard : Is that one hundred miles, and two hours' overtime? The Chairman : Yes, sir. Mr. Sheppard: Ten hours? The Chairman : Yes, sir. Ten hours on duty. Mr. Sheppard : Oh, that is hours. The Chairman : This is all predicated, you understand, Mr. Sheppard, on Form 35. Mr. Garretson : If it don't run into overtime, it stands. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Sheppard: There is no overtime there? The Chairman : It would remain one hundred miles. Illinois Central, Article 23 : "Trainmen making side trips or lap-back trains, doubling back during progress of regular trip, not in connection with their own run, will be paid actual mileage or hours, whichever is the greater, at overtime rates for such work in addition to their regular trix> compensation." Question : Under that rule a crew is called for a one-hundred mile trip, makes a lap-back or doubles back, consuming eight hours, the entire trip including the double. Example does not 432 show mileage, but is paid on an hour basis, presumably where the time is greater than the mileage, paid eight hours for the double. Entire trip consumes fifteen hours. At present crew would receive 230 miles. What would the same crew be paid under your proposition "A" ? Answer: Continuous time or mileage, depending altogether on what that mileage was, whether it ran into overtime. Mr. Garretson : Just simply be paid on the basis of hours or miles, whichever were the greater. The Chairman : That is correct. Mr. Garretson : That might run into a whole lot of money or it might not. The Chairman : I. & G. IST. Schedule, Page 17, Article XVIII, Section B. "At terminal stations, where business does not justify or re- quire regular yard crews, freight train crews will be paid regular overtime rates in their class of service for all switching done, but will not be required to load or unload any class of freight, and such time will be kept and paid for separate from road time." Answer: Continuous time or mileage subject to rule or rules concerning additional service after arrival at final terminal. Mr. Garretson: In other words, it would be paid at final terminal if overtime was not earned. The Chairman : Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson : It would not be paid if overtime was earned. The Chairman: No. Mr. Garretson : That is, I mean, except as overtime. The Chairman : He would be paid in his overtime. Mr. Garretson: And at initial terminal there would be no payment except it ran into overtime. The Chairman : That is correct, Mr. Garretson. Mr. W. G. Lee: Where you have rules now providing for the payment of that, is it your intention or thought to discon- tinue them by this? The Chairman: For your information, Mr. Lee, this yard- stick we presented to the other side yesterday. They asked us to tell them what our proposition meant, if the eight hours and 121/2- mile speed basis, with time and a half for overtime, were in effect. That is, if Special Form 35 were in effect, what would our proposi- tion mean? That is what this is predicated on. 433 Mr. W. G. Lee : Our side asked you to explain that? The Chairman: Yes, sir. Mr. W. G. Lee : And do I understand that your side believes for a moment that if our proposition as presented was adopted, it would do away with these various rules in schedules providing for just such matters? The Chairman: We don't understand that it would, Mr. Lee, but Mr. Garretson and Mr. Stone and the others asked us how ours would apply if yours were in effect. It is a tentative proposition and ours is contingent entirely on some change of base. Understand now that if the present basis of pay is not changed in any way, as Mr. Garretson very aptly put it the other day, if we should withdraw all these things now and go home and sit down and nothing was done at all in this matter and everything stood just the way it does at the present time, then he says, you could tear yours up, I said, "Yes, ours is of no force and effect unless there is some change from the present basis." Mr. W. G. Lee: From the present basis of rates? The Chairman : Present basis. Mr. W. G. Lee: Or calculation? The Chairman : Present basis of miles and hours and over- time, and such things as that. We haven't gone into the question of rates at all — either side. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, while I haven't had an opportunity to hear the discussion or to even read or see the minutes until I sat down at this table, I want to ask here if there has been any dis- cussion along the lines that our proposition meant the abandon- ment of any of the rules in the various schedules providing for j ust such cases as referred to here. The Chairman : I do not know of that. Mr. W. G. Lee : For instance, at a point on the road where a crew is required to do an hour's switching or two hours' switching, and a rule positively provides for the payment of that, has it been discussed or even thought of that that rule would be abrogated? The Chairman : I don't understand, Mr. Lee, that Mr. Gar- retson or Mr. Stone or Mr. Sheppard or Mr. Shea or Mr. Dodge have for one moment admitted any such thing as that. I haven't heard it if they have. Mr. W. G. Lee: Well, for fear they had overlooked some- 434 thing, and admitted it, I want to write it into the records now that I don't go in with such a plan. Mr. Garretson : Jnst merely put him along with the rest of us. The Chairman : I am just bringing him up-to-date, that is all. Mr. W. G. Lee: Eight. Mr. Garretson : He is trying to catch up. Mr. W. G. Lee : I will be on time when the rest of you get there. Mr. Stone : You have just arrived where we have been sev- eral days. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, some 6t these questions would lead me to believe that you have been talking about some of these things, and I wanted to catch up. Mr. Garretson : Well, if we have been talking about it, it was only like the lady that — Mr. W. G. Lee: I don't understand. Of course, I am not spokesman, but I don't understand from our proposition that it could be construed in any way as changing any schedule in ex- istence so far as trainmen and conductors are concerned, yard- men, except in so far as eight hours instead of ten, and the rate of pay that would prevail for overtime. Those are the only changes that I know of, or that I would think were under dis- cussion, so far as this side of the table is concerned. The Chairman : Yes, but you understand. Mr. W. G. liee: There are two sides of the table, I under- stand that. The Chairman: There are two sides of the table, Mr. Lee, and there was a proposition at the time that this was presented to the railroads, that was also presented to the men from the rail- roads. Do you remember that? Mr. W. G. Lee: Yes, I have a faint recollection of that. The Chairman: Yes, that is particularly what we are dis- cussing at this time. Mr. W. G. Lee: Oh, yes. Well, I have no objection. The Chairman : And the other day when we had discussed our proposition and stated in general terms in regard to it, the other side was anxious to see how our proposition would apply 435 in certain cases. The difficulty tliat we had was that ours was rather a general proposition contingent on some change of basis of pay from the present. Then the other side said, take Special Form 35. Suppose that that was in effect, how then would your proposition apply to the questions that were to be asked? Now, those questions were asked and we had them, and we presented to the gentlemen on the other side, Mr. Garretson, Mr. Stone and the others, what our general yardstick was — you might call it a yardstick, you might call it most anything. I don't know what you would call it — but that is what we would call it for want of a better name, and it is in the application of that yardstick to these questions that were asked by the various gentlemen on the other side that we are going through now. I don't understand, Mr. Lee, that either your side or our side have granted the contention of either side. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, no, I don't understand it in that way myself, but if there is any such an understanding in the minds of anyone that our proposition meant to cancel or abrogate any of these special rules on any man's railroad, that may have been made between the officers of that company and the committee, except in just so far as the eight hours instead of ten or the speed basis, and the time and a half for overtime is concerned, why I think we had better clear it up and talk plain like you and I have always been in the habit of talking. The Chairman: Exactly so. Mr. W. G. Lee: You and I have always understood each other, because we spoke plain, but if your side for a moment thought of cancelling any of these special rules, why, it wouldn't — The Chairman: How is that? Say it again. Mr. W. G. Lee : If your side of the table believed that our proposition meant the cancelling or abrogating of any of the spe- cial allowances that have been made from time to time, then it won't take us long to understand each other. If you understood that we meant more than merely changing the speed basis from 10 to 121/2 in freight, and the hours in yard service from 10 to 8, with the payment of time and a half thereafter, why, we want to clear that up and get it right, because I will tell you very frankly, Mr. Lee, there is so little in this, as it appealed to me, to talk about, that I was surprised to find you fellows had been here since the first of June talking about it. 436 The Chairman: Well, we have talked about other things, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee: All right. Mr. Garretson: For the information of W. G. Lee, and to save him a lot of reading, I will just make this clear. This side of the table put in three or four days on the gridiron answering questions as to what the propositions in 35 meant, and the specific declaration was made that it in no sense amended any rule in any schedule except as the text of 35 specifically stated. I think that is a fair quotation. The Chairman: I think that is my understanding at least, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Yes. After the charcoal had run out on the other side under the gridiron, then the three — ^you name them — The Chairman : Then the contingent propositions — Mr. Garretson: Three suggestions — that, I think, was the word you used. The Chairman: Contingent propositions of the railroads, call it. Mr. Garretson: A, B and C, which, as Mr. Elisha Lee has said, are general in their character. We insisted that they should get well done on at least one side, in answering what it meant. They are now in process of answering what their suggestions mean, and we are measuring them with a yardstick which they furnished. Bear in mind, it is their own name, we didn't dub it "yardstick," and as these are answers to a set of queries that were addressed to them, how these would apply to existing sched- ules in the event that a change of speed basis might be arrived at. Mr. W. G. Lee: Then, Mr. Garretson, do you understand their answers as I have heard them so far, to be, that it would do away with, or cancel these special rules that we are talking about? Mr. Garretson : Well, if they haven't waked up, their pipe will go out as soon as they have finished answering, on the can- cellation of rules. The Chairman: Just a minute. In answering that Illinois Central case, Article 23, there has been some question raised as to my final answer on that, as to whether or not it would make a whole lot of money or not. Mr. Higgins wanted to say something about that. 437 Mr. Higgins: I just want to say that under the example given, the time named would yield the man two hundred and thirty-one miles as against the two hundred and thirty that you state. Mr. Garretson: The fifteen hours, with a mileage of one hundred miles, and the eight hours in the lap-back under your computation. Mr. Higgins: You don't give the mileage he made but you do give the elapsed time that expired over all. Mr. Garretson : We give the mileage of the straightaway trip, one hundred miles. Mr. Higgins : You say he was called for one hundred miles but he lap-backed, I take it, from some intermediate point. Mr. Garretson: Undoubtedly, using eight hours therein. Mr. Higgins : Yes, he'd get one hundred miles, seven hours' overtime, at time and a half, yielding a total of two hundred and thirty-one and a quarter miles, as against the two hundred and thirty miles, which you say he got. I just want the record clear on that. Mr. Sheppard: Ten miles an hour basis, that was? Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Sheppard : Substitute twelve and a half. Mr. Higgins : The thought is, there is no interference with the earning possibility of the man. That is all I care to get into the record. Mr. Stone: Would you make that as a general statement for your yardstick? Mr. Higgins: I think general, yes. The Chairman: Not applying to individual runs? Mr. Higgins : I say it is general. Mr. Garretson : That is, when apprehension arose in Lee's mind that we had sold you something, that remark was made. The Chairman: Take the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe conductors and trainmen, page 14. "Where a train crew loads stock for a train other than its own, they will be allowed time for such service, it being understood that the time for which they are so paid will be deducted from total time, which they consume in making the trip, and no overtime will be allowed therefor." Question': Assuming they loaded stock two hours on a trip 438 of 100 miles, made within a minimum day, what would your prop- osition "A" provide? Answer : One hundred miles. Now, for instance, take that — that says a minimum day there. Mr. Garretson : Yes, that will cover either eight or ten. The Chairman : Either eight or ten. Suppose it had taken ten hours, his total elapsed time with this two hours intermediate loading stock. As I understand under your proposition. Special Form 35, he would be allowed 100 miles, and two hours pro rata. Mr. Sheppard: No, it extends the length of the trip; then it is dealt with as an overtime principle. The Chairman : It does. What would he be paid under that rule, Mr. Sheppard? Mr. Sheppard : Ten hours. The Chairman : I mean under the 8-hour rule. Mr. Sheppard: Ten hours. One hundred miles and three hours. The Chairman: And three hours? Mr. Garretson: Where is your three hours? Mr. Sheppard: Time and one-half and three hours. The Chairman: Is there any time and a half in there? Mr. Sheppard: It is overtime. It is a factor in overtime, therefore it is paid on an overtime basis. Mr. Garretson : I think as it reads, not overtime at all. It is time. The Chairman : Just time that would be paid pro rata, as I understand your 35. Mr. Sheppard : But it says, "deducted from time on trip and no overtime will be allowed." Mr. Garretson: Overtime will not be allowed for that amount of time. The fact is, the phrase, that we translate to mean no overtime rate, doesn't occur, that is, the punitive rate, because they will be allowed time for such service. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That would be the pro rata. The Chairman : He would then under your proposition 35, considering the fact that he'd made that run in 10 hours, be paid 100 miles and two hours pro rata. Mr. Garretson: Yes. 439 The Chairman : Under our proposition if he had done that work in 10 hours, he would receive 100 miles and two hours' over- time, that is, 100 miles and three hours pro rata. Mr. Garretson : Sure, because you are basing that on our proposition of eight hours. You will notice the question is the minimum day. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : That embraces both. The Chairman : Embraces both, but I am just enlarging a little bit on it. Mr. Garretson : Yes, under any circumstances the man would be paid under our proposition a day's time and two hours' allow- ance. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Under yours, this being straight time with us, he would be paid if it was done within the limit of the mini- mum day, exactly the same thing. Is that correct? The Chairman : If it was done within the limit of the day, he'd receive one hundred miles. And if he was on overtime he would receive the overtime rate, and whatever time he put in in loading or unloading the stock would be deducted from overtime, and paid at the straight rate. Mr. Garretson : Overtime would be extended that much. The Chairman : In some cases he'd get more under our proposition, in other cases more under yours. Mr. Stone : Isn't your answer to the specific question wrong, or rather misleading, because it says particularly that the trip is made within a minimum day? Well, now, our proposition makes a minimum day of eight hours, and yet he loaded stock two hours in that time. If he made it within eight hours under our proposition and loaded stock, he would be paid nothing for it under yours. The Chairman : That is right, sir, when I answered the spe- cific question first. Mr. Stone : But you said 100 miles and two hours overtime. The Chairman: Wait a minute. I answered the specific question first, 100 miles, and then I assumed that he had done it in ten hours. I went one step further with the question, see? That is perhaps where you misunderstood me. Perhaps I don't make myself as plain as you. 440 Mr. Garretson : Your answer to the question was, "He would be paid 100 miles for the trip." The Chairman : That is it. Mr. Garretson : In the event of being intermediate service, there is no trace of an arbitrary in connection with it. The Chairman: The answer to the specific question, Mr. Stone, is, 100 miles. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway, conductors and train- men's schedule, page 20, Article XL VII. "When trainmen are required to double on grades, ten miles will be allowed as a minimum, over ten miles actual mileage. This mileage will be paid in addition to any other time made on trip and regardless of whether the run is more or less than 100 miles." Question: What does proposition "A" contemplate? Answer: Continuous time or mileage for entire trip with minimum of a day. (Recess.) The Chairman : Mr. W. G. Lee desires read into the record a message that was sent to Mr. Bronner, General Manager of the Michigan Central Railroad. Mr. W. G. Lee, will you please read it? Mr. W. G. Lee: "The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen represents the majority of yardmen west of Detroit River, and in compliance with their desire the undersigned hereby make formal request for right to represent and speak for them before the Managers' Conference Committee now in session in New York. A copy to the Conference Committee. Please answer, care of Woodstock Hotel," signed W. G. Lee, W. J. Babe. Mr. Babe is General Chairman for the Michigan Central for the Brotherhood. The Chairman: And the message is addressed to Mr. E. D. Bronner, General Manager, Michigan Central Railroad, De- troit, Michigan, dated June 13. Wabash Railroad: "Crews required to run for coal or water will receive actual miles made in addition to mileage made on trip." Question : Crew on eighty-mile division makes fifteen miles running for water and makes trip over division in eight hours. They now receive one hundred and fifteen miles. What does para- graph "A" contemplate? 441 Answer: A minimum day. That would malte ninety-five miles — the eighty and the fifteen. Mr. Garretson: I didn't get your answer. The Chairman : A minimum day, the total mileage being ninety-five. Now, we will go ahead — leave that. Oregon, Washington Railroad & Navigation Company : "This rule does not permit the running of crews through terminals on to districts where they are not assigned." Question : What effect would "A" have on such a provision? Answer : It is not our purpose to open this, or similar sen- iority rules. Mr. Stone: Seniority? Mr. Sheppard : That is not a seniority rule, it is a terminal rule. Mr. Stone : It is a terminal rule, that is no seniority rule. The Chairman: Isn't that what we understood? Mr. Garretson : It has no effect on seniority. All there is in it is tills — The Chairman : Wait a minute, now, where is that rule? There is more to the rule than that. Mr. Garretson : Oh, yes, but when I put the rule in, I drew attention to the fact that I only wanted to put in the one effect of that rule, nothing more. The Chairman : Well, you say that is not a seniority rule? Mr. Garretson : It is not a seniority rule, no. It is nothing in the world, but assignment to territory. There is a dividing line. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : A set of crews run here, and a set of crews run there, and they may be on the same seniority list, but thev are assigned to two separate freight districts, that is all there is in it. The Chairman: Yes, well let me see the rule then. Now, we took that to mean seniority. ( Mr. Higgins hands copy of rule to the Chairman.) Mr. Garretson: I drew attention to the fact that it had a bearing on automatic release. The Chairman : Here is the full rule : "A 25 mile zone will be established either side of definite terminals within which zone 442 or radius irregular freight crews may be assigned for a day to make a series of short turn-around trips, provided they are noti- fied of such assignment when called. Article 2 and 9 to be ex- empt, and crews paid continuous time, either miles or hours, whichever is the greater. A minimum of 100 miles plus terminal detention time will be allowed. A crew will not be required to leave a terminal after having been on duty ten hours, or after making 100 miles. This rule will not permit the running of crews through terminals on to districts where they are not assigned." Mr. Garretson : Yes, here is what I said to you at the time when I presented it : The only provision, Eule 38, in its entirety, applies to short turn-around runs. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : The only provision that I care to put into the record is this : "This rule will not permit the running of crews through terminals on to districts\where they are not assigned." That is the only phase of the question I asked on. I said before, that "Here is a schedule provision that provides that they cannot under this rule run creAVS through their terminal on a territory that they are not ordinarily assigned on." And above that I said : "It touches upon the question that you raised a little while ago, automatic release." There is automatic release under that rule for a man coming in and being run off onto a territory on which he is not assigned. The Chairman: Well, do I understand this rule to mean this : Tha:t if you have crews working out of "A" in four direc- tions, that it is permissible to run those crews in all four direc- tions under this rule, 25-mile zone? Mr. Garretson: I assume under that rule that if there are four directions there, that the men are assigned on one or two of those four directions and not on the other two. That road is districted, and they are assigned to territory as between — Ehodes, how do they run out of Umatilla or La Grande? Mr. Ehodes: They run both ways out of La Grande. You can assign them for a series of short turn-around trips either way or both ways out of La Grande, but there are crews assigned be- tween Portland and the Dalles and Umatilla. They can't run them both ways out of the Dalles on a series of short turn-around trips. Mr. Garretson: There it is. 443 The Chairman : Under that 25-mile zone rule in — Mr. Ehodes : Now, another feature in connection with that. If they run them for a series of short turn-around trips within the 25-mile zone, and then call them for a trip outside of 25-mile zone, they get a new day for the outside trip. The Chairman: That would be similar to our short turn- around clause in the East. Mr. Sheppard : The application of it, the way we read that was that they could. That 25-mile zone didn't make any difference. They could run any way out of a terminal within the 25-mile zone, but they could not run them outside the 25-mile zone if it was not on their assignment. Mr. Garretson : At La Grande. You see they can run them both ways. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson: But at the Dalles they can only run them one way because there is the dead line. Crew are assigned be- tween the Dalles and Portland. Crews are assigned between the Dalles and Umatilla. The same question probably arises upon the Spokane Division. Mr. Ehodes : Mr. Garretson, the reason there is that at La Grande the crews work first in, first out, both ways. At other points they do not. The Chairman : That is, they apply at one place and don't apply in the other? Mr. Ehodes : Crews are assigned both ways at La Grande and run first in, first out, both ways, while at the other points they are assigned to districts. Mr. Garretson: He can't get off his assigned territory at La Grande. The Chairman : Do they hold seniority rights over the whole territory at the Dalles? Mr. Ehodes : They do, yes, but they are assigned to dis- • tricts. The Chairman : And also at the other place, too. La Grande? Mr. Ehodes: At La Grande they hold seniority rights over both districts, but not over the Dalles district. Mr. W. G. Lee: At La Grande they run three ways, do they not? Two ways on the main line and one way on the branch ? 444 Mr. W. G. Lee: Exactly. Now, can they assign a crew either on the branch or on either of the main line divisions within that 25-mile limit? Mr. Ehodes: They can run them three ways within the ten-hour period. Mr. W. G. Lee: Three ways, you see. The Chairman : What is the other place in — Mr. Garretson : The Dalles. The Dalles is one freight dis- trict out of Portland. The next freight district is Umatilla. The next is out here at La Grande. While he turns that way also to Spokane. The Chairman: That is the difficulty we have in inter- preting this rule, because we didn't understand just exactly what it meant. We had understood that that meant that was a senior- ity district, that they were assigned to seniority districts, and they could run any place within that 25-mile zone, but they could not run outside of the 25-mile zone on unassigned territory. Mr. Garretson: Seniority and assignment are two entirely different things, the word assignment being applied territorially. The Chairman: I see. The Chairman : If the seniority is not involved, he will be paid continuous time or miles under our present understanding of our yardstick. Mr. Garretson : You mean that you would abolish crew as- signment, then? The Chairman : I am not prepared, Mr. Garretson, person- ally to go that far. The literal application of our yardstick would abolish it. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : And at present, I think I will have to say yes to that. Mr. Garretson : Well, you bear in mind — The Chairman : I am not clear whether there should be some restrictions put on it or not, but under the yardstick, and as we answered your question yesterday, I will have to answer this one, to be consistent, yes. Mr. Garretson : That was your interpretation to the outside application as we interpreted it. The Chairman : That is it. 445 Mr. Garretson : We interpret it on 35. The Chairman : That is the outside. If it develops that there should be some modification of that, and would need certain re- strictions, why — Mr. Sheppard : You have already abolished first in, first out. The Chairman : No, I have not. I haven't said anything of the sort. Mr. Garretson : Well, that would do it right there. The Chairman : That would abolish the automatic release. Mr. Garretson : It would abolish first in, first out. Let me draw your attention to this. (Draws diagram.) Because this line here is the dividing line, the dead line, between those two territories, the men who are assigned East of the Dalles have no right to run a trip West of the Dalles, and the first in, first out rule applies to men West of the Dalles, alone. If a man makes a short turn-around East of the Dalles, and then he runs through to Portland, he has absolutely got the first in and first out rule hanged higher than Haman. You have killed two birds with one stone. Your answer absolutely abolishes assignment of crews to territory, and knocks the first in and first out rule into pieces. The Chairman : Under certain conditions, Mr. Garretson, I tliink that is correct. Mr. Garretson: Y"es. Mr. Higgins : With this qualification, that the first in first out rule applies only when a man has completed his trip. Now, this rule that ^ve are speaking of don't interfere with the first in first out operation, as you interpret it, because it gives the com- fiany the right to run him out within 25 miles, and run him out again within 25 miles, regardless of the number of crews stand- ing there. Mr. Garretson : It absolutely limits the right of th6 com- pany to run him onto any territory that he isn't assigned on. Mr. Higgins : But they have the right to exercise that rule. They can run him out regardless of the number of crews there. Mr. Garretson : Or, regardless of what they have agreed to do. Mr. Higgins : No, sir. That is Avhat you have agreed to do Avith them, to give them the right. Mr. Garretson : Oh, no, we haven't. 446 Mr. Higgins : Excuse me, I would like to refer to this gen- t leman here from the Dalles. Mr. W. G. Lee: Mr. Ehodes? Mr. Higgins : Now, from Umatilla can run both ways. Mr. Garretson : Three ways. Mr. Ehodes : What is that question again? Mr. G-arretson : Umatilla, they can run three wajs. Mr. W. G. Lee: Within the 25-mile limit? Mr. Ehodes : No, only one way in three directions. Mr. Garretson : Not at Umatilla, at La Grande. Mr. Ehodes : At La Grande they can only run one way. Mr. W. G. Lee : They can run three. Mr. Ehodes : At the Dalles they can only run West ; at La Grande they can run three ways. Mr. Garretson : Three ways at La Grande and one way at the Dalles, but the arrangement is specified that they can not run a man from east of the Dalles, west of the Dalles under that rule. Mr. Ehodes : No, they can't do that. Mr. Higgins: But Avhere they have got the right to run three ways, if they run you out one way ten miles and you come back to the terminal, haven't they got a right to start you out for another ten-mile trip in another way, or the same way you made on the first trip regardless of the number of crews that are laying there? Mr. Ehodes: They have under that rule. Mr. Garretson: Yes. Mr. Ehodes : But in a 25-mile zone. Mr. Garretson: But when it comes to the dead line, the company is agreed you will not do it. Mr. Higgins : When you come to the dead line you are on seniority just as we anticipated on that answer. Mr. Garretson : You are not on seniority, you are on as- signment. Mr. Higgins : Assignment is a refinement of seniority. Mr. Garretson : Territory of assignment has nothing to do with seniority, unless a special rule governs it as between two districts, where the older men have the right to choose to go to a certain district. In Mr. Waid's territory (he has two freight districts west of San Antonio), the older man can, to a certain degree, assert his right to go on to the Eastern of those two 447 divisions, but in 99 per cent, of the freight districts in this coun- try men can't exercise seniority for any such purpose. They be- long on the territory they are assigned on, and an older man in the same promotion district can't come over there and invade the right or displace them and their right. First in and first out will take precedence of all the seniority that they have been able to earn. Mr. Higgins : You say on 99 per cent? Mr. Garretson : Yes. Mr. Higgins: Then, you are arguing for the one per cent, here that it might possibly interfere with. I\Ir. Garretson : I am not. I am arguing for the company carrying out and being permitted to carry out a rule which of its own volition it entered into. The Chairman : Isn't "its own volition," a little strong, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : It don't matter whether it is its own volition or not, they assigned — Mr. Rhodes : I would just like to add there that when that rule was agreed to, it was made to cover a specific operation out of Tekoa, Washington, in connection with the building of some other lines where a lot of material was held, and this applied to the whole system after they agreed to apply it to the Tekoa end. Mr. Garretson : A good bit of volition about that. The Chairman : I don't know. Mr. Garretson : I don't think it is very strong. The Chairman: That was in the nature of what might be called "closed pools" ? Mr. Garretson : It is exactly of the same idea that you as- sign men in a given territory to run between two stated points. When you are making a disposition, a new one, then you will al- low men to go there by their age or seniority, but when they are once there, some man on a less desirable territory can't go down there and displace those men, for you have left that bulletin open for a certain number of days for the men to choose. That is the way I say 99 per cent, of that assignment stands as to seniority on a neighboring district, even being in the same promotion district cuts no figure whatever. It is only the exceptions like I noted on Mr. Waid's line, where that is provided for. That constitutes the deadline. Your answer kills first, the assignment of crews, then 448 it kills first in and first out, because this talk about him not hav- ing finished the trip, is absolutely misleading as applied to terri- tory in which he is not assigned, whose rights you have invaded. The men that are assigned there have the right to run first in and first out, and a man from another territory has no right to come onto it after the company has agreed that he won't. The Chairman: Yes. May I ask Mr. Sheppard something? Mr. Sheppard, do you understand that this thing that we are talk- ing about is similar to what are called, "closed pools," with us? Mr. Sheppard : Not exactly, because you could use, perhaps, a crew in another pool in one of your closed pools if you were short of crews. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Sheppard : But you would use them with the same lim- itation as that crew, and to that extent it is the same. The Chairman : Would the men get into these assigned ter- ritories in the same way that they'd get into our closed pools? Mr. Sheppard: Oh, much the same. Mr. Garretson: They bid in. The Chairman: That conveys to my mind a clearer idea of what this is. Mr. Sheppard: Your pools are within the same geograph- ical limitation. Perhaps these are different pools, divided geo- graphically. Mr. Garretson : On the road where Mr. Higgins used to be I never had as much trouble with any one deadline in my life, as the old Green Leaf deadline on the C. B. U. P., and I haven't a doubt that you have your own troubles over it. The Chairman: Question: Does the Companies' Proposi- tion "A" contemplate the retention of rules similar to Eegulation 50 of the Pennsylvania Railroad schedule for conductors and trainmen? I notice the minute says 15 ; you meant 50, didn't you, Shep- pard? Mr. Sheppard : Fifty is right. I stated fifty. The Chairman: Yes, I will read that rule. "Trainmen performing irregular service in connection with their regular day's work, such as held on duty after completion of their regular day and not used, or required to deliver any part or all of their train to some point other than the designated terminal. 449 will be paid miles or hours, whichever is the greater, with a mini- mum of three hours at the overtime rate, in connection with which the service is performed." "When required to go to some point beyond the regular termi- nal to pick up any part or all of their train, they will be paid miles or hours, whichever is the greater, with a minimum of one hour at the overtime rate in connection with which the service is performed, and time allowed under this rule will extend overtime limits accordingly. '•When* irregular ^^-ork is performed as a separate service, it will be paid for under the minimum day rule." Our proposition would affect that up to the final terminal. Mr. Sheppard : In other words, it would eliminate every- thing preceding the regular trip over the road. The Chairman : It would. Mr. Sheppard: There it will be in on continuous time. The Chairman : Up to the final terminal, Mr. Sheppard. Mr. Garretson: Kill the entire rule? Its provisions up to the point where additional service or trips made after arrival at regular terminal, that is the part that is really affected. The Chairman : Yes, after arrival at the terminal. The Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern, page 312 : "When road crews are required to switch in yard, and a yard crew is laying up at that point with rest up, the yard crew will be paid actual time that is consumed in switching by the road crew if the yard crew is called for service on that day. If not used on that day they will be paid a full day." Question: How would that yard crew be paid under "A"? Answer: Yard crews would not be paid for service which they did not perform, that is, if he was called he would be paid. Just what the exact purport of that rule is we were unable to determine. Mr. Stone: Paragraph "A" provides for no double com- pensation for the same time or service. You have paid a road crew for that time. T\'ould you pay a yard crew for the same time? The Chairman: You mean if the road crew did the work and the yard crew did not work at all? Mr. Stone : That is the question. The Chairman : Well, then this answer is correct. Yard 450 crews would not be paid for service which they did not perform. If he had performed any service on that day, of course, he would be entitled to not less than a minimum day. That is different, Mr. Stone, from your other proposition that you brought up the other day, about a man held off for investigation and found blame- less. In that case they would both be paid, because that is a dif- ferent proposition entirely. I think we got that yesterday, didn't we? Mr. Stone : Then the effect of paragraph "A" would destroy this guarantee for the yard crew for pay, whether they worked or not. The Chairman : It would destroy it to the extent, if he didn't work, he wouldn't get paid. Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern : "When road crews run through a terminal, they will be paid a minimum day." A crew is called to leave "A" at 8:00 A.M., arrives at terminal "B"at 2 :00 P.M., a distance of 100 miles; reach- ing "B," they are sent 20 miles further on the next division, "C." distance 20 miles, and return to "B," laying up at 4:00 P.M. Total time on duty, eight hours. Under present rule would be paid 100 miles for trip from "A" to "B," minimum of 100 miles for trip "B" to "C," and return to "B." Total time on duty, eight hours. What would they get under "A" ? Answer : Now if that is at the final terminal — I don't know how they consider their final terminal there — the rule would not be disturbed. If it was not their final terminal, it would be contin- uous time. Mr. Stone: What do you mean by final terminal? "B" is the final terminal; the first time they arrive there or the second time they arrive there after making the short trip to "C." The Chairman: Why, it depends altogether on how they figure that, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : I have told you how they figure that now. The Chairman : Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. Mr. Stone: I am talking about the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern, and I told you how they figure it now. The Chairman: I know how they figure it now, but where would final terminal delay begin on that man? Mr. Garretson : Wherever the minimum day was paid. Mr. Stone : Well, the minimum day was paid, of course. 451 The Chairman: I don't understand so, necessarily. Mr. Shea : Well, I assume, under that example, that his final terminal would be "B" and when he arrived at "B" at 2 :00 P.M., a distance of 100 miles, he was ordered to make a trip 20 miles to "C." Mr. Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : A new day began a minimum day. Mr. Shea: And under the schedule he would be paid a minimum of 100 miles from "B" to "C" and return. The Chairman : Well, the application, you understand, Mr. Shea, of our proposition might be different in different cases. For instance, if this man went out of "A" and went to "B" and then on to "C," his final terminal delay was considered when he got back to "B." That might be one answer. But if under ordinary conditions his final terminal delay is considered at "B," then my understanding would be he would be paid the same. The rule wouldn't be disturbed. Mr. Stone : Well, forgetting about final terminal delay, are we to understand that you won't recognize the fact that when he arrived at "B" that he had completed a trip and a new day begun, or would you figure it all continuous time? The Chairman : As I say, Mr. Stone, we might or might not. He has completed a day. If he has completed a day and ordinarily he would stop if he picked up another train, then I think he would be entitled to another day, whether he is relieved or not. Isn't that your understanding, Mr. Crowley? (Mr. Crowley whispers his re- ply to the chairman.) Mr. Garretson : Now, going back to that terminal time only for the purpose of determining whether the trips were part of the same thing or not, under a rule for the payment of terminal time if he went out and was paid a minimum day for the first trip, if he arrived at terminal and was used there under the terms of the terminal time rule before going onto the next, terminal time would undoubtedly accrue. Biit if it is the payment of terminal time, this would in itself set up the fact that it was two separate and distinct trips, two doubles, precisely as the payment of two minimum days for them sets it up. The other would only reinforce it. The Chairman : Under those conditions then he would get the additional day, Mr. Garretson. 452 Mr. Garretson: Although that service was virtually con- tinuous. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : I will say frankly I have to refer to some of these schedule men every once in a while, because I am not a sched- ule expert myself. Mr. Garretson: Eeally, I think you would get a lot better answer if you would take our advice on the subject. The Chairman : Well, I don't want it just now. Mr. Shea: Isn't that answer, Mr. Lee, in conflict with your previous answers, where a crew was required to run through their terminal? The Chairman: I don't think so, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : I understood you to say that crews could be run through terminals and paid continuous time or miles, whichever were the greater. Now here I understood you to say that if "B" was his terminal, and after he arrived there, was then ordered to proceed to "C" and return, that it would not disturb the pres- ent rules, and a new day would begin after he left "B." The Chairman: Well, this man, as I understand it, Mr. Shea, has practically completed a day when he gets into that ter- minal "B." He has run 100 miles, and then he is asked to go on some place else. That would depend altogether on his schedule provision. Mr. Shea : Well, that was the point that I wanted to bring out, all the way through, in regard to the recognition of ter- minals as now understood between the officers of the various roads and the employees. The Chairman: That is what I told you I wanted to dis- cuss with the Committee, but I haven't had a chance to discuss that particular feature. Mr. Shea : Because now it is involved in this question here. The Chairman : Exactly. I see it is. Mr. Garretson : Now, while you are discussing it, put your yardstick on that Terre Haute incident. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And then lay it down on that Oregon Eail- way and Navigation incident and see how the two answers meas- ure up on that yardstick of yours. 453 The Chairman: You seem to think there is some inconsis- tency in them, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : If you will just cut out the "seem" part of it I will agree with the rest of the statement, Tbecause I think there is. 1 ; JH The Chairman : I think I heard you say once that "Consis- tency is the religion of a fool," or something like that. Mr. Garretson : Oh, no ; I said that Eugene Debs said "Con- sistency was the religion of fools." Mr. Sheppard : Mr. Lee, in the absence of a rule to the con- trary, does not final terminal delay apply to every objective ter- minal as a general proposition? The Chairman : I can't answer that off the bat, Mr. Shep- pard, explain it a little more — ^^^hat you mean. Mr. Sheppard : I say in the absence of a rule to the con- trary, would not final terminal delay accrue at any objective ter- minal on the arrival of a crew at the objective terminal, having completed their trip? The Chairman : What do you mean by their objective ter- minal — ^where they are going to? Mr. Sheppard : Where they are dispatched to, yes. Then, such being the case, how can you possibly run crews through objective terminals on continuous time, as you say you have the right to do? The Chairman : I don't claim it under that rule. I don't claim that they can do it today, Mr. Sheppard. At the final ter- minal — ^you called it objective terminal. Is objective the same as final? Mr. Sheppard : Yes. Mr. Higgins : In the sense that he used it. The Chairman : We don't disturb the rules there, Mr. Shep- pard. Mr. Sheppard : Some of your answers indicated that you would. The Chairman : Well, then, we have misunderstood the ques- tions. Mr. Sheppard : :Mr. Gan-etson has just called your attention to your inconsistency. The Chairman : On that thirty-mile run, you mean? 454 Mr. Shepparcl : Not particularly that, but in general, from your previous answers. Mr. Garretson : In your answer on the Oregon- Washington case absolutely the objective terminal of the crew who had made this short turn-around was its initial point, of course, for there is only one terminal for a turn-around run. When it arrived there you asserted that it would kill the rule of assignment, and that that crew could be run right on across the next freight division. Now, there the objective terminal or the final terminal under the rule now in effect with the company is the Dalles. They went out of the Dalles, and then returned to the Dalles, that being their objective terminal, when they started, or their final ter- minal (whichever phrasing, because the assumption that the two are the same is correct) . Under the company's rule now in effect, that man could not be run on to Portland, and still you say that your application of it will cancel that schedule of the companies. Now, a few minutes afterward you say you have no intention of changing rules that exist. The Chairman: Mr. Sheppard's question was the objective terminal. Mr. Garretson : Sure. The Chairman : He had that man and ran him out 25 miles to take a train and take it back to Portland. Mr. Garretson : Oh, they couldn't assign him under their schedule to any such a run. They couldn't make Portland his objective terminal. They can only do that by violating the agree- ment that is in effect on the line. The Chairman: I see. Mr. Garretson : On the ground, probably, of emergency. As you know that is wide enough to cover almost anything. The Chairman: What emergencies? Mr. Garretson : Why emergency — The Chairman : You gave me a definition of emergency once. I\Ir. Garretson : I think I did ; if I didn't I overlooked a bet. Mr. Higgins : It is an agreed rule. Mr. Garretson: Sure it is, and you abolish an agreed rule in your answer. Mr. Higgins : Now, this thing you are discussing is the final terminal. Now, you don't say final terminal, yoii say terminal. Mr. Garretson: Who don't? 455 Mr. Higgins: In your question here. Mr.'Garretson: It don't matter an iota. Mr. Higirins: Well, I think it does. I think that is vital to the whole thing. That is where the confusion exists. Mr. Garretson: You can't get final terminal into a thing except on a series of runs. Terminal is the proper phrase for a run and the final terminal is only properly applied to a series of runs. The Chairman : For instance, now, here. Take a run from "A" to "B." Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : On some of the roads, you go from "A" to "B" and are permitted to go on to "C" under the schedule, and come back to "B." The final terminal delay will start when he gets back to "B." Mr. Garretson: That will depend altogether on the cir- cumstances of the run. There are a few schedules where the man would start from here, from "A" for "B." The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: When he is started his objective terminal, or his final terminal, was intended to be "B." The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : But, necessities arose during his transit be- tween "A" and "B," under which you notified him, probably under the terms of that agreement, either on arrival or before arrival at "B," that you would require him to go on to "C," and return. That minute, his former terminal "B" ceased to exist, and through the combination of the two runs "B" became his final terminal after going to "C." In other words, the final terminal of a compound run, that wasn't originally intended at all. In that case "B" Avas just as much his final terminal when he was called at "A" as it was his final terminal after the second call had been issued. The ter- minal is a terminal on a single run and the final terminal would only be used in contra-distinction of that to show the end of a series of runs, just like your shuttle runs in passenger service. There the terminal is always incorporated and it isn't incorporated in the same agreement in regard to the straight-away passenger runs. It is their terminal. The Chairman: Well, in that case, Mr. Garretson, when he got back to "B," he would be back at his final terminal. Mr. Garretson: He would unless, in the meantime, under 456 the term of the agreement they would have given him further orders to go on, in which case he might have gone on to "A," and that would have ceased to be either a terminal or a final terminal, and there would have been the final terminal of the three assign- ments for that day. The Chairman : Well, as I understand, we don't propose to disturb these terminal objective or final terminal rules. Mr. Garretson: Well, that depends on just how you look at your own application. In spite of the fact that the statements made about the Oregon Railway & Navigation — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : When a man goes out on a turn-around run his objective terminal is the point from which he is started, and if when he gets back there, there is time for him to do another, the same point is his final terminal. The schedule says, "If the dead- line is there, you can't run men past it," and still your answer says that you abolish that deadline. You disregard the first in first out rule the other side of that dead-line, and all the assertions that there is no parallel, won't break down the fact that you have to invade those two rules on the answer that you gave us. You can't carry it out without invading them. The Chairman : That is my understanding. Mr. Garretson : Good, and you understand it then, because you made it clear that you did. Mr. Higgins : I want to get Mr. Garretson clear on that last illustration : You say we call a man east of "B" that has rights between "B" and "C." We call him for 30-mile trip on that dis- trict and then run him through from "B" to "A." Is that your understanding ? Mr. Garretson: You mean that example — Mr. Higgins: Oregon. Mr. Garretson: On the Oregon Eailway and jSTavigation in the case that was cited a man was run, we applied it at the Dalles, because there was the dead-line — bear in mind, it is applied en- tirely different at the Dalles or La Grande, because that don't invade the question of assignment in any way. The contract gives the right to run a man a series of short runs, within a given radius of miles, and if it takes place on territory that is assigned, exactly the same run can be made out of La Grande that is made out of the Dalles. For example, without invading either of those 457 clauses of the agreement, but the minute you put it in effect at the Dalles you have invaded both those clauses. There is where it is. Mr. Higgins : It is a general rule then, with specific local application ? Mr. Garretson : It is a general rule with specific limi- tations. It was originally made according to the statement of the men to govern a local condition far away from either the Dalles or La Grande, but extended by the company to universal application subject only to the deadline rule. They themselves recognized that. Tekoa is another of these points like La Grande, up just south of Spokane. The Oregon Short Line goes up there, and the lines come together down here at Hunt- ington. Mr. Rhodes : I would like, also, to call your attention to one fact of that rule, that crews called for short turn-around serv- ice must be so notified when called. Mr. Garretson : Yes, they can't add to it. Mr. Ehodes : And if they are not notified when called for a series of short turn-arounds, and they are run-around crews, they pay for the run-arounds, and pay the full hundred miles for the second trip. Mr. Garretson : The way they did it, Tekoa is way up there, next to Spokane, where the rule was made to apply for the system of branches. It has come down here to La Grande, and through here to the Dalles. But at the Dalles there is this absolute limitation that they can't run the man from here over there. They can do it here without any trouble at all, and with- out violating a rule. But when you apply it at the Dalles, then you have to violate both rules to make your answer apply. Mr. Stone : Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Higgins' attention to the fact that on a large number of roads in this coun- try there are no such short run rules for the enginemen, and you couldn't run the crew through the terminal at all. They run first in and first out on respective divisions. Mr. Higgins : I would go further and say I don't think there is another rule like that in the country, after all I have heard about it. Mr. Garretson: In its exact phrasing, I doubt if there is a parallel for it, but in the way it works out at the Dalles there are a thousand like it. 458 Mr. Stone: That hasn't got anything to do with the reply to the question or to the special rule on the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern, because the question of seniority don't exist there at all. They have system seniority on the whole road, and crews are assigned on certain districts. Mr. Higgins : It is a question whether it is a final terminal or whether it is the terminal of the run that you have placed here. That is all there is to it. If it is, then you don't disturb the existing practice. As they apply the rule today, you will apply it then. Now, that is all there is to it. Mr. Stone: And inside of fifteen minutes after your yard- stick was applied to it you'd find that he hadn't reached his final terminal until he came back after going to "C." Mr. Higgins : If that is the practice today, Mr. Stone, yes ; if it is not the practice today it is impossible under our yardstick. Mr. Stone : Former practice cuts no figure whatever in the application of a new rule from the companies' standpoint. The Chairman : How about the other side, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone: That has been our experience in the West in arbitration. The Chairman : But how about the other side of that? Mr. Stone : We haven't been able to get the former practice applied at all. The Chairman : I think your statement is a little bit broad, Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : No, I don't think I am stating it quite strong enough, because the man won't take it. Mr. Shea: In referring to the other side, the difference is, while the men may advocate it, they have no power to put it into effect, but the company put their ideas into effect regardless of the consequences. The Chairman: As I understand some of those questions in the West, Mr. Shea, required the men to exercise their option. Does that refer to those cases that you are speaking of? Mr. Shea : Oh, no, no. Not necessarily. The Chairman : Yes. Take the I. & G. N. case. Article 19, top of Page 313 : "At terminal points where business does not justify regular yard crews, engineers and firemen will be paid regular overtime rates for all switching done according to class of service, but in 459 no case shall it be less than one hour, which time shall be kept and paid for entirely separate from road overtime. Engineers and firemen will be called to begin switching one hour before trains are ordered to leave, and if delayed getting out, three hours or more, from the time they commence work, road time will start 30 minutes before time ordered to leave." Question : Called at 6 :00 A.M., commence work at 7 :00 A.M., to leave at 8:00 A.M., leaves at 10:00 A.M., three hours' switching time paid for, road time starts at 9 :00 A.M. Answer: Will be paid under the proposition, continuous time or mileage from the time he commenced work. That is, his time was started when he was required to report for duty. Mr. Stone : That isn't the example as read, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: Wasn't it? Mr. Stone: No, sir, it is not. Eoad time don't begin at 9 o'clock ; it begins at 7.30, under the terms of the schedule. Mr. Garretson : That is the way this copy reads, also. That example is printed in the rule, you know. The road time would start at 7.30 A.M., 30 minutes after being called. The Chairman : Very well, we will change that then, to read that into the record : "At the present time road time would start at 7.30 A.M., 30 minutes after time called." Does that mean 30 minutes before he went on duty? Mr. Garretson: [Turns to the audience and calls "Thomp- son."] Mr. Thompson : Yes, sir. Mr. Garretson: Time starts 30 minutes before going on duty, or does it start at the time he was called to go on duty? Mr. Thompson: The example is that the man is called at six o'clock, to commence work at seven. Mr. Garretson : At seven. Mr. Thompson: You see, he is on duty at seven o'clock; he works till ten ; he has three hours' yard overtime, and then if the work is overtime, he makes his start at 7.30, 30 minutes after the time that he goes on duty. The Chairman : At 7.30? Mr. Thompson : Yes, sir. The Chairman : Thirty minutes after he goes on duty? 460 Mr. Thompson: Yes. The Chairman : Not thirty minutes before he goes on duty? Mr. Thompson: No. The Chairman : Just a minute. Mr. Higgins : Does his time commence at 6 :30 or 7 o'clock? Mr. Garretson : 7 :30. Mr. Higgins : His road time commences at 7 :30. I am ask- ing when you commence computing a man's time. Calling him at 6 o'clock to report at 7, when do you start his time? Six o'clock, 6 :30 or 7 o'clock? Mr. Thompson : Where it runs over into terminal time, that way, his road time starts at 7 :30, or thirty minutes after time he goes on duty. Mr. Garretson : But when did his terminal time commence? Mr. Thompson : His terminal time commenced at 7 o'clock. His road time starts at 7 :30. The Chairman : He reports at 7 o'clock. Well, under our proposition his time will begin at 7 o'clock, instead of 7 :30. Mr. Stone: And you would cut out the three hours' ter- minal switching. It would be continuous? The Chairman : It would be continuous time, Mr. Stone. Question: ^Tiat effect would "A" have upon the articles in the several schedules that provide for what is known as a "no- call day'' for helper and work-train service who are paid ever-y day, whether used or not. Answer: Such rules would not be affected except that the companies would reserve riiiht to use men in other service on such days. Mr. Stone: Then yon (^o cliauae llie rule, don't you? The Chairman: I suppose that would have been more cor- rectly stated if it said the rule would not be affected except that it would be added to. Mr. Higgins: Oh, there are lots of places where they have got the identical rule we have laid down here, haven't they, the right to use the man in other service? Mr. Lee : But if they did not have that right in the schedule, would you claim it? Mr. Higgins : Oh, yes, this would extend it ; there is no ques- tion about that. What I mean to convey is that it is not a wholly 461 new proposition, tou know. Yon have it in existing schednles today. Mr. Stone : In a few, but it is the exception and not the rule. Mr. Garretson: They are standardizing down. Mr. Walber : It is a rule in the local freight service. Mr. Stone: That is one of those sKding scales where they slide down in adjnstin« it. The Chairman: Denver & Rio Grande and Colorado Southern. Question: The engineers' and firemen's schedule on the Colorado Southern provides that on cer-tain territory 44 miles is equivalent to 100 miles because of the mountainous sei*vice. and is paid for as constructive mileage. TTnder "A" how would engineers and firemen be compensated? In other words, would this be considered double pay under '"A"'? Answer : Our proposal does not contemplate the opening of a differential in rates of pay where it is allowed on account of grades or mountain service, but we do not thereby subscribe to the equity of the various methods as laid down in the various schedules. Mr. Stone : I suppose that same answer would apply to con- structive mileage also where they have mountain grades? The Chairman : That is what I said, paid for either as con- structive mileage or some other way. Mr. Shea : Or a higher rate. The Chairman : Yes. we didn't propose to go into rates. Mr. Shea. Mr. Garretson : That latter clause about the equities is one form of your saving clause. The Chairman : Well, all that means is, Mr. Garretson, there are a whole lot of different ways, we understand, of paying this additional compensation in mountain territory. Xow. we don't know whether they are right or whether they are wrong. We haven't gone into them to that extent. That is what that means. Mr. Garretson : You don't propose to give them a clean bill of health though, on suspicion? The Chairman: Xo. Denver & Rio Grande do not pay constructive mileage, but at a higher rate according to gradients and the same answer would apply in that case. 462 Mr. W. G. Lee : Northern Pacific is the next. The Chairman : Northern Pacific. Question: Kun of 100 miles, crew called to leave terminal at 7:00 A.M. Their time starts at 6:00 A.M., they are required to coal up two engines prior to leaving, for which they are allowed an arbitrary of two hours for each engine, but it only consumes one hour actual time. They arrive at terminal at 4 :00 P.M., total time including coaling engimes, ten hours. Under rule 9, Article X, they would receive 100 miles for their trip and for coaling two engines four hours additional, equivalent to 140 miles. What does proposition "A" contemplate? Answer: Our proposition does not contemplate including such cases. That is not train service in our understanding. Mr. W.G.Lee: What do you mean? Mr. Sheppard : In other words, the arbitrary will be con- tinued under your proposition? The Chairman : Why, if he is required to prepare cars or shovel coal, or something of that sort where those are special al- lowances, and in certain places and agreements and understand- ings, we didn't contemplate handling such cases as that. Mr. W. G. Lee: Didn't contemplate taking away the rule? The Chairman : No, Mr. Lee. That is a thing that we thought was outside of our proposition entirely. Mr. Shea : And that is one instance where the rule would be preserved. The Chairman : Yes, sir, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea: Well, I am glad there is some consolation some- where. The Chairman : Well, there is a good deal of consolation in this if you figure it out. Mr. Stone : He didn't say for who, though. The Chairman : Question : In your paragraph "B" it reads : "The same classification for the purpose of compensation to be applied to all members of the train and engine crew." Now, for example, we have on the Pennsylvania lines, East, probably three hundred runs — I think perhaps that is a little large, but we will let it go at that — where the train crew is paid the yard rate be- cause it is higher, where the engine crew is paid road rates. What effect would paragraph "B" have? 463 Answer : That would be a matter, it seems to us, that would be determined by the crews themselves, based on the actual serv- ice performed, determining the classification. Mr. Stone : But might I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : When you say crew, do you mean the entire crew together or each class of the crew separately? The Chairman : Oh, I would think the whole crew, Mr. Stone, I think we have one that we will perhaps let you arbitrate. Mr. Garretson: Well, now, I will admit I am curious. The Chairman : Understand, Mr. Garretson, you are all here in a concerted move, the four of you. Mr. Garretson: Sure. The Chairman : And you want the advantages of a concerted move without perhaps the disadvantages of a concerted move. Am I correct? Mr. Garretson : I wouldn't quarrel with you over the phrase- ology, though I might over some other things ; but here you talk about that crew deciding. There are five members in that crew, there are probably five different interests there. The Chairman : Yes, sir. ' Mr. Garretson: The two brakemen are paid — they are the only two men in the crew that are paid uniformly. Conductor is paid the yard rate, probably, but he prefers the road rate for it is higher for conductors. The engineer and fireman are each paid under a different plan, and there you have four diametrically opposed methods or desires, on which it is utterly hopeless to ex- pect to arrive at a conclusion. The Chairman : Well, then, shouldn't the service performed govern the rate of pay? Mr. Garretson : The service performed probably governs the rate of pay that now obtains. The present rate was probably in- serted on account of the character of the service performed, how- ever — The Chairman : iNow, wait just a minute, Mr. Garretson. In practically all of these cases, as I understand, each member of the crew is paid on the highest basis possible. Mr. Garretson: Sure. The Chairman: The brakeman is paid, perhaps, yard rates? 464 Mr. Garretson : You mean that it is possible for the man to get under his choice. The Chairman : Under the schedule, yes. I will accept your correction. The brakeman is paid brakemen's rate, the engineer and firemen are paid road rates. The train can't be one thing for the front end and another thing for the rear end of the train, can it? Mr. Garretson : It is exactly like the man that couldn't be put in jail. It can't be, but it is. The Chairman: Well, the service performed can't be differ- ent for both ends of the train? Mr. Garretson: I grant you. My question didn't go into the ethics of the case, it went into the method of arriving at a con- clusion. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: Who would you expect to act as a referee lor those five men with four different desires, or would you expect us to referee those individual cases of crews? The Chairman: I would think it would be well, perhaps, for you to referee them. Mr. Garretson: Thank you. Mr. W. G. Lee : Eight there, let me ask you, will you, or can we understand that you are going to permit us to do that in all instances? The Chairman: Paying all members of the train crew on the same classification. Mr. W. G. Lee : Deciding what rates of pay they are to get as to classes of service for the various men we represent? The Chairman : If based on the classification of the road for those rates of pay ; that is, if we pay the crew road rate — all right. If you pay the crew yard rate — all right. I'd be perfectly willing. I haven't asked the committee about that, but I'd be perfectly willing to turn it over to you. The point, Mr. Lee, is to get them all on one classification. Now, as I said before, it doesn't seem to me that in the same crew at the same time one end of the train can be performing road service, and the other end yard service, can it? Mr. W. G. Lee: Then, if we were to assume that responsi- bility accorded by your committee, and rates change in the future as they have in the past, there would be no objection from the 465 companies' standpoint to putting tlieiu bade in the service at the standardized rate, all of them. The Chairman: You mean all the highest rate? Mr. W. G. Lee: Certainly, that was our intention. The Chairman : This wouldn't contemplate putting them at the highest rate at the present time, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : I think you say that they are to decide it and that it is either road or yard. The Chairman : For all members of the crew, yes. Mr. W. Gr. Lee : For all members of the crew. If three of the classes represented have the higher rate in road service than yard, then it is reasonable to suppose that it will be decided as road work, but if, a little later on, it is decided that yard rates are the highest for three of the interests, you will have no objec- tion, I suppose, to putting it in yard rate. The Chairman: Personally, no. Mr. Stone: As chairman of the committee, what? Mr. Garretson : I am afraid you'd plead that your bulletin has been closed, as to the exercise of the option. The Chairman : Well, now^, there are some objections from behind me on that statement. Mr. W. G. Lee : I thought so from some of these gentlemen. The Chairman : Well, then, jjut it on the other basis, I will have to withdraw my personal statement, although I am almost convinced that I'd go along with you, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee: For the Pennsylvania R. E., I am sure you would. Some others that are represented here, I am sure wouldn't. The Chairman: Here is the point, Mr. Lee: The service should be paid in accordance with Avhat is performed ; that is the crews should be paid in accordance with the service performed. That is what our answer contemplates. Mr. W. G. Lee : I will agree with you that the service under discussion should be one or the other. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee : It should either be yard service or road serv- ice and it should be for the entire crew, but we can't get away from the fact that where it has been paid as yard service for years, to the brakemen and conductors merely because the conductors' rate is increased in road work until it is slightly in advance of yard rates, the engineers' and firemen's rate for road service is slightly 466 in advance of yard rates. We have three interests against the brakemen who wanted road rates, not because it is road service. They wanted road rates not because it is road work, but becaiise they have been in the office in the past, fighting that it was yard work, when yard rates were higher, but they have changed and they are really today fighting for road rates because there is a penny or two difference in their favor. Now, then, the brakemen have got to get the brakemen's rate up to yard rates of pay, in order to overcome that, I suppose, and I am here to try to do it. The Chairman : Yes. I didn't know that rates were in- volved in this, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee: Absolutely so on your railroad, and every- where else. I will show you many places on the Pennsylvania R. R. where it was a question of rates of pay only, they took it from the yard service — The Chairman : In your proposition I didn't understand rates were involved. Mr. W. G. Lee: Oh, no, but we were discussing the cause of whether it should be yard work or road work. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee : And not the question — not 35, at all. The Chairman : Y"ou agree with me, I think, and it is per- fectly plain and human nature, I grant you that. The man wants the highest rate of pay he can get, if he can get it. Mr. Garretson : They'd take more than they are getting now, I believe — at least, I would agree to recommend to them that they should. The Chairman : If they can get it. Mr. Garretson : Yes. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone : I Avould like to ask you another question on that, Mr. Chairman. In case this yard crew could not get to- gether and agree, and finally agreed to disagree, how would the company pay it? By applying that yardstick they'd probably take the lower rate, would they not? Isn't it fair to assume that they would? The Chairman: No, I don't think so, Mr. Stone. I think you have got to give consideration to the fact that there is a cer- tain amount of sincerity in this world. Mr. Stone : I am not questioning the sincerity at all. I am questioning how they would act in case the men disagreed. 467 The Chairman: For instance, here I will just explain that a little bit more broadly to you. You perhaps have in mind transfer runs. Mr. Stone: Yes. The Chairman : Say, for instance, transfer runs or belt- line. You remember that we had a good deal of discussion about it, and finally got such rates put in. Mr. Stone: And afterwards discovered that there was not any such animal on a majority of the roads. The Chairman : And I remember also, that the statement was made by somebody to the Arbitration Board, that certain roads had no transfer runs, then it was found that a whole lot of those roads had transfer runs, when the rate was made $4.75. Mr. Stone : On those other rates we accepted a compromise rate of $4.50. The Chairman : Not on all of them. Mr. Stone : Had to on a great many in order to get anything. The Chairman : I have a very distinct recollection of one particular road that was not in your list as not having any trans- fer runs at all, that now are paying the |4.75 rate on some of those runs, that were afterwards agreed to as transfer runs. Now, take the case here that I want to speak to you about, getting back to our mutton for a minute. There are some transfer runs, as I un- derstand, that just pick the cars out of one yard and take them to another yard, and pick up cars in the other yard and run on to a third yard, and so forth, running on the main tracks all the time. They are now paid transfer rate for the engineer and fire- man, and paid the yard rate for the brakeman and perhaps the conductor. Mr. AV. G. Lee: Yes. The Chairman: I think that is a fair statement of many cases. In that case that would be considered road rate, road work. It is road work, I think, Mr. Stone, you argued yourself that it ^vas road work. Mr. Stone : Yes, and we got the minimum road rate instead of getting the rate for c-lass of engine that we would in road service. The Chairman : Exactly. Now here is another case. There is another run that is working back and forward, through these yards doing yard Avork. He is shifting in here for a while and then he is shifting in an adjoining yard for a while and then he 468 shifts in another adjoining yard for a while, purely yard work, all of it ; but today, under certain classifications, on certain roads, the engineer and firemen get the transfer rate while the yard crew are paid the yard rate. I would say that that was substan- tially yard work. That would be what my yardstick would be. Each case would have to be considered on its own merits. You can't lay down any yardstick. You remember we tried to lay down a yardstick. Mr. Stone : I thought you just got through saying you were going to measure it with your yardstick. The Chairman : Wait a minute, now. Wait a minute. That yardstick does not apply to "B" or "0." That applies to "A." You asked us what our yardstick was for "A." Mr. Stone : Do I understand that this same yardstick would not be used for "B" and "C," that you have got another yardstick for that? The Chairman : Why I don't know that there is any yard- stick necessary for "B." It is a perfectly plain thing. The service performed should govern the classification. Mr. Stone : Then are we to understand that this yardstick that you have offered us to measure your propositions with, only applies to "A"? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone: Nothing else? The Chairman : No. Mr. Stone : Has no effect on anything else? The Chairman: That is my understanding of it, unless it would come in combination with something else. Mr. W. G. Lee: Unless you wanted to use it on something else? The Chairman: Now, don't you get mean. Mr. W. G. Lee: No, but seriously speaking, did I under- stand you there, Mr. Lee, to say that there'd be any discussion or reference or agreement or even thought of agreement in ref- erence to transfer service during this conference, changing from yard to road rates or vice versa? Mr. Garretson: That was in a former conference. The Chairman: No, Mr. Lee. I was referring to a discus- sion of a couple of years ago. Mr. W. G. Lee : All right, let's bring it to date. 469 The Chairman : Very well. Mr. W. G. Lee : You said, if I understood you correctly, that transfer service that picks up cars in one yard and takes them to the other, using the high-speed tracks, we will say that that is their work and that very properly that would be considered road service and paid. road rates. That is your position, isn't it? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee : Does your yardstick, if I might call it such, have any tendency towards doing that in this movement? The Chairman : Yes, that is what we are discussing there now, Mr. Lee. Mr. Garretson : Here is what it is on. Mr. W. G. Lee: You mean, then, that you would attempt to make those road-service jobs instead of yard-service jobs, al- though today they are pajdng the yard rates for everybody. The Chairman : And road-service jobs where they are yard- service jobs. Understand, Mr. Lee, I don't know that you have gotten this thing entirely in your head. This is a proposition that we are outlining here, that is contingent on a proposition that Special Form 35 was in effect. Mr. W. G. Lee : I got you on the contingent. Go right on. Mr. Garretson : Contingent on a contingency. The Chairman : Yes, it is, if you want to put it that way. We are assuming without any liability on either side that Form 35 is in effect. We had to get some base on which to indicate to you gentlemen how this other proposition would be affected, or would affect the existing schedules. Now, I don't understand that Mr. Garretson or Mr. Stone have in any way as yet admitted that they go along with us. Mr. Garretson : Thank the Lord I am cleared of suspicion. The Chairman : Yes, I wanted to give Mr. Lee the idea that you were still protecting the rights of the men, as you see them. Mr. Stone : That is kind of you. The Chairman : I wanted to clear up this thing in Mr. Lee's mind. W. G., is that clear now? Mr. W. G. Lee : Oh, yes, .1 have got your contingency, and go right ahead with it, go right ahead with your contingency. The Chairman : Yes, all right. Mr. W. G. Lee : You are going to change those from transfer jobs, paying yard rates, to road jobs, paying road rates? 470 The Chairman : And yon agreed with me a while ago, as I understand it, that the classification of the pay should be based on the work. Mr. W. G. Lee: Either one or the other, yes, sir, and they are one today, and they are standing for that one, whatever it is. The Chairman : You mean so far as the trainmen are con- cerned. Mr. W. G. Lee: No, I mean so far as 'the conductor and brakeman are concerned, or foreman and helper in yard service, for transfer runs are in yard service. So far as they are concerned the rates are established, they are in effect and no yardstick is going to change them if we can help it. The Chairman : Yes, but then you don't agree with Mr. Stone then. Mr. Stone says they are in road service. Mr. W. G. Lee : Oh, Mr. Stone and Mr. Shea are so far away from us now in handling trains that we are not supposed to agree with them. The Chairman : Yes, but you are here together now, Mr. Lee. As I said before to Mr. Garretson, in which he agreed with me, you want the advantage of a concerted movement without the disadvantages that go with it. Mr. W. G. Lee: We haven't asked you in this proposition anywhere to change the rate on a single run whether it be freight or transfer. The Chairman : I know it. Mr. W. G. Lee : Transfer, local or anything else. The Chairman : That is very true. Mr: W. G. Lee : We haven't asked you to change the rate or change the classification of a single run. The Chairman : I agree with you, Mr. Lee, but this propo- sition might bring about something of that sort. Mr. W. G. Lee : Not with our consent. The Chairman : Well, I don't understand that you have con- sented yet. Mr. W. G. Lee: No. Go ahead. The Chairman : I just wanted to make this clear. Mr. W. G. Lee : You know there will be a secret conference between Stone and Carter, Garretson and I or Shea, if the consent to change classifications enters into this in any way, shape or form. 471 The Chairman : Question : On many roads the crew of work trains within certain limits around these large terminals are manned by yard crews, paid the yard rate while the engine crew is paid road rate. What effect would "B" have? Answer: Work train work, will be paid work train rates wherever performed. Now, I would expect Mr. Stone to argue that for me. I can remember that was argued very strongly at one time. That work trains were work trains wherever 'found. Mr. Stone: Well, we discovered afterwards there were no work trains within certain terminals. The Chairman : Yes, wherever the work trains are in yard service today, they are getting a through freight rate, aren't they, in the Eastern territory? Mr. Stone : No, sir, look, even Walber will shake his head at that. The Chairman : That right, Walber? Mr. Walber : Yes. The Chairman: Well, wasn't that Mr. Stone's argument, that work trains were Avork trains wherever they were found? Mr. Stone: Yes, but he didn't get it. At least he thought he got it in the Award, but he has never been able to get it ap- plied. The Chairman : Well, I don't understand as to that — Mr. Higgins : Who contracted for work train rates with the Company? Mr. W. G. Lee : In some schedules, work trains working entirely within yard limits : men are hired as yard men and paid yard rates of pay. Mr. Higgins : I more particularly referred to the fixing of the work train rate. Originally who made it? Mr. Garretson : The conductors originally made it, probably. Mr. Higgins: That is my understanding, that the original contract was made by the conductors. It would naturally follow that the yard man would have no more right to that than he would to passenger service rates. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, that perhaps, is true, Mr. Higgins, but take your former line, the Missouri Pacific-Kansas City and other big terminals, it is written in the schedule very positively, and I think there are many other schedules, where the yardmen handle the service if it is all within yard limits. 472 Mr. Higgius: I know it is done now; I was speaking of originally. I never went along with the idea that a yardman should make rates for work-train service any more than he would for through freight service or for passenger service. And though I grant you that the yardmen have got the work-train rule, I have never, subscribed to it. Mr. Stone : What would you do in these enlarged terminals where yardmen hold all the seniority there, is? Take, for ex- ample, your track elevation in Chicago, or any of these large terminals where the material is hauled from the outside by road crews and unloading is all done by yardmen, and yet it is j)aid the work-train rate for enginemen. Mr. Higgins: Well, originally, Mr. Stone, the road man would have hauled in and unloaded and returned. Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Higgins : That was a question of facilitating the hand- ling of work, I take it, and I think in this case it is all right because it is only switching the train, the same as you'd switch any other. It doesn't include the unloading, of course — merely the switching. The Chairman : Erie Railroad, Rule 13-B : An engineer on a division 100 miles or less, if required to perform any service after completing his trip, will receive an extra 100 miles. What would he receive under paragraph "A" as proposed by you? What would he receive under paragraph "A" if he was required to return to a point ten miles back and bring in another train? Answer: The rule would not be disturbed. So far as the example is concerned, he'd get the same. You see, he has completed his trip. Mr. Shea: Because the service was performed. Mr. Garretson: That is because he didn't run into over- time. The Chairman: How is that, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson: Because he did it in the given time. He didn't run into overtime and the allowance would be the same. The Chairman: Yes, he'd get two days. Mr. Garretson : Oh, he'd get two days. The Chairman : Yes, that is what Mr. Stone quoted. 473 Mr. Stone : He arrived at his terminal, then returned back and made a short trip, and came back to his final terminal. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : You figure that he arrived at his final terminal the first time in? The Chairman: Yes, that is the understanding; the rule requires that at the present time. Mr. Garretson: You ran over into 13-C of the Erie right above 13-B, succeeding paragraph. Mr. W. G. Lee: The paragraph ahead of the one we were reading. Mr. Garretson: Oh, the same page; just a paragraph ahead of 13-B. Now, under Kule 13-C— The Chairman : That is a combination service rule, and we are passing that over until we get your information today, before we can determine just how we would apply ours. Mr. Garretson : That is all right then. The Chairman : Monon C. I. & L. Railway have a rule in their contract that limits to 15 miles distance run through terminals, when a new day begins ; that is running a train through terminal. A crew arrives at South Hammond from the shops with a stock train for the Union Stock Yards. Distance to the stock- yards from South Hammond is 19 miles. At the present time they are paid 100 miles for the stockyard trip. Under Paragraph "A" of your proposition, what would they receive? Answer: Existing rule would not be disturbed. Then there are a whole lot of combination services in there. Go over to page 329, San Antonio and Aransas Pass ; Article LIII of the Conductors' and Trainmen's Schedule regarding runs off of assigned territory, reads as follows: "When a regular crew is run out of its assigned territory, a minimum day will be paid for per class of service performed. This will be paid in addition to any time made on the regular run." Example : A crew is assigned to a run between terminals "A" and "D." At intermediate station "B," they are run over a branch line a distance of 25 miles; they then return to their original track or their regularly assigned territory and proceed to terminal "D." They would receive for this service in their regular assigned territory not less than 100 miles. Now, as I read it — 474 Mr. Garretson : The correction is further down — that they'd receive 100 miles. The Chairman : They would receive 100 miles additional for the service diverging from their regularly assigned track or terri^ tory. I think that was by Mr. Wade. I think he has straightened that out. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : This is another one of those rules we were uncertain about. I think we have not got it cleared up in our minds. Perhaps our answer isn't the proper answer to it. I am not clear. A branch line not a separate seniority district, will be paid continuous mileage and time — Mr. Garretson : There you are using that same phrase. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : You should use "assignment district" to de- scribe it, because seniority has nothing to do with it. The Chairman : Yes ; well, I am not prepared to change that just yet, Mr. Garretson ; let that answer stand. Page 331, second paragraph: The Frisco schedule has the usual provision for the freight service — 100 miles or less, ten hours or less, to constitute a day. It is under heading Article 13, found on page 15 of the Conductors' and Trainmen's schedule, in effect April 15th, 1912, and reads in part as follows : Section I : "Crews deadheading under orders with cabooses shall be paid .418 and .278 per mile, respectively, for conductors and brakemen, with a minimum of 50 miles." For example, a crew is called to leave a terminal, and does leave at 7 A.M., to deadhead 30 miles on a passenger train, dead- heading from "A" to "B" ; returns from "B" to "A" with a freight train, arriving at "B" at 4 P.M. Time period being from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. Under present schedule, crew would receive 50 miles at full rate for deadheading, plus 100 miles at through freight rate for freight movement "B" to "A." What would be the compensation under Paragraph "C" ? That is a combination of the deadheading and service. The answer is: Our proposition does not contemplate dis- turbing deadheading rules. Mr. Garretson: Then where it is the rule to i^ay a man a minimum day if he deadheads 80 miles and runs a train back 80 475 miles, where that is paid for as two minimmn days jour rule would be to pay the two minimum days? The Chairman: That practice would not be disturbed, Mr. Garretson. On the Aransas Pass road, under- the heading of Article 52, you will find an allowance that brings out this question of double compensation more strongly than most rules that I have seen. The company is obligated not to release crews between terminals under ordinary conditions. When it does so the rule reads as follows : "\Mien so tied up trainmen will be paid a min- imum of one hour putting a^ ay and a minimum of one hour mak- ing up trains." There are other modifications to the rule but that stamls by itself as a minimum two hours" allowance in the case of every tie-up. Xow, this can readily arise : A train arrives at a point where the line is Inoken ahead of them. They are released from duty; they put their train away on the siding. On account of faulty communication or for other reasons it is immediately ascer- tained within the course of half an hour that the line of traffic can be resumed. They are ordered out, forty minutes after they were tied up. Their allowance was two hours — aljsolutely arbi- trary. What effect would the double compensation clause have on an occurrence of this kind? Answer : Does not contemplate disturbing rules bearing on release of crews between terminals. There would be no change in that rule. Mr. W. G. Lee : Thank you. The Chairman : You are welcome, Mr. Lee. Mr. Garretson : You know, that sounded heartfelt. The ( 'hairman : Didn't it ! Question : Would your interpre- tation of "A."' '-B," or "C," or "A." "B."' and "C" in any way afEect monthly guarantees? Through freight men have a guarantee of earning a definite sum. You Avill find that on the vSouthern Pacific, Houston Texas Central, Chicago and Northwestern, and all local freight in the Eastern territory — and I believe the Southern. It is just a gen- eral question as to whether or not, singly or collectively, they affect that question. 476 Answer : Monthly guarantees would be affected by our propo- sition. Mr. Garretson : Would? The Chairman : Would be. Mr. Shea: In what way? Mr. Sheppard : I understood it to be that they are elimi- nated. The Chairman : Yes, would be affected to that extent — that they would be eliminated. The qiiestion was whether they would be affected or not, and they would be, under this proposition. Mr. Garretson : At any rate, I may not have the gift of prophecy, but I have a certain amount of foresight on that thing. The Chairman : Very well, then. Mr. Dodge : Mr. Lee, on page 305 of Book 6, that Kansas City Southern proposition there, where a yard crew performs eight hours in yard, and then goes out on road service. The Chairman : That'is a combination rule, Mr. Dodge, and we were not able to work out our rule until we found out just exactly how the present rules would apply in case 35 was adopted. We expect to work that out and be able to answer those at our next meeting. Mr. Garretson : Have you worked out an answer yet to the question on page 303? The Chairman : What is on 303 ? Mr. Garretson : That was one of the questions I asked in regard to the brakeman running a trip as brakeman and then immediately called as conductor. Mr. Stone : That was answered yesterday. Mr. Garretson : No, this was one problem left unanswered. You said that he would get a day as a brakeman, he would get a day as a conductor. But the thing you left in the air was, you quali- fied that afterwards with the statement that if he was released between, that is what he'd get ; and if he wasn't released, it might have an effect on the answer. The Chairman: Well, the question was specifically that he was released, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Oh, sure. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: But you volunteered the statement follow- 477 ing, that if he was not released, I said he was released with his crew. The Chairman: Yes? Mr. Garretson : But you said if he hadn't been released it might be a different answer. The Chairman : Yes, I have not talked with the Committee about that particular phase, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Well, you remember the occurrence? The Chairman : Yes, I do. I remember it now. There was one other thing that somebody asked that I have made a note of. I didn't talk with the Committee about anything last night. Mr. Garretson : I wondered if you'd disposed of that yet or not. The Chairman: No. Now, we have a good many of these combination things that I suppose you will want to know how they work out in view of our going through these questions. I suppose you will want to know just the answer to all of them be- fore we get through. Mr. Garretson : Why, we might as well make it complete. The Chairman : Well, we will have to after getting the in- formation we got from you this morning. That was necessary be- fore we could work out just what the yardstick would be, and I suppose when we adjourn we will adjourn until tomorrow morn- ing then. Adjourned until 10 o'clock Wednesday morning. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING. NEW YORK JUNE 14. 1916 No. 10 The Master Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kotots, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry. C. L. Bakdo, H. W. McMasteb, Gen'] Manager, N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. E. H. CoAPMAN, N. D. Maheb, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. Vice-Pres., N. & W. Ry. 5, p „ James Russell, n rrf ' ^r u ,. T, Gen'l Manager, D. & R. G. R. R. Gen'l Manager, Wabash Ry. A. M. SCHOTBR, P. E. Ckowlet, ResidentVice-Pre3.,Penna. Lines West Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. w t o ' W. L. Seddon, G. H. Emeeson, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. A. J. Stone, C. H. EwiNG, Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. G. S. Waid, Vice-Pres. and Gen'l Manager, Sunset E. W. Grice, Central Lines. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. j. -w. Higgins. A. S. Gkeig, C. p. Nbill. Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. j. (j. Walbeb. Representing the Organizations A. B. Gabbetson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. W. G. Lee, President, B. of R. T. Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppabd, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. James Muedock, Second Vice-Pres., B. of R. T. G. H. Sines, Third Vice-Pres., B. of R. T. 479 New York, N. Y., June 14, 1916. Met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 A.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman : I would like to say that I have a communi- cation here from the Peoria Ry. Terminal, regarding authoriza- tions, and it says : "Wire twelve. Authorization Engineers, Fire- men, Conductors, Trainmen, Flagmen, Yardmen and Hostlers." I don't know whether any other classes or not. Mr. Shea : Good. The Chairman : That cleans up the Peoria. Mr. Stone : Peoria Terminal. The Chairman : Peoria Railway Terminal. Mr. Shea : Very large system, too. Mr. Garretson : If it had gone any farther, we would have got on Mr. Wheeler's ground. The Chairman : Mr. Shea, I think in fairness to you we will have to take this position for the present. You desire to enter a formal protest against some of the roads not including '•■he hostlers. While we are still in communication with them, ind have not exhausted all our efforts to get the thing ironed out one way or the other, and while there are some uncertainties in our own minds as to whether or not certain of these roads in- clude or exclude hostlers, I think in fairness to you, so that you will have something on which to base your protest, it would be well to consider that that last list tliat we gave you is the present status, on which you can base your protest, regardless of whether or not there is some change in those conditions later on. You see I put it on that basis so that you can have something on which to base your protest. Now, if you want to make a formal protest, we will consider that if you make it in writing, just the same as though it were here in the minutes, or you can handle that in any way you desire. Mr. Shea: Well, I would rather, Mr. Chairman, make a verbal protest. The Chairman : That is just as you please, Mr. Shea. Would you care to confirm that in writing or — Mr. Shea : Not necessarily. The Chairman : Not necessarily, very well. Mr. Shea : Because I think I can cover it all. The Chairman : We can get it out of the minutes then. With 480 the understanding that there may be yet some changes in that list Avhere some are now excluded as shown. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman : There may be some changes, but in fairness to you I think we should give you that chance. Mr. Shea : Do you want to take up that first? The Chairman : Whenever it is satisfactory to you. We can do it later on or any time. Mr. Shea : We may as well take it up now. The Chairman : Very well, sir. Mr. Shea: Mr. Chairman, I will take this subject up by Federated Districts. First, I will refer to the Eastern roads, then the Western roads, and the roads involved in the South- eastern territory. I am basing my contention largely on the de- cisions, or rather the different arbitration awards, wherein the hostlers were involved. Prior to our Eastern Arbitration Award, during the years 1912 and 1913, there were very few roads in the Eastern territory where the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen legislated for hostlers. What I mean by legis- lating for hostlers is that there were very few roads where this organization fixed the rates of pay or rules of employment. The Eastern concerted movement was started and in the proposal to the railroads, it included firemen and hostlers. Negotiations con- tinued for several weeks, which later culminated in the Arbitra- tion. I find the following covered in the Arbitration Agreement between the Eastern railroads and the Brotherhood of Locomo- tive Firemen and Enginemen, dated at New York, February 18, 1913. "These articles of agreement, made and entered into this, the 18th day of February, A. D. 1913, by and between the Eastern Kailroads, so described, a list of which is hereto annexed, and which are represented by a Conference Committee of Managers, of which Elisha Lee is Chairman, hereinafter designated and re- ferred to as the Employers, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, of which W. S. Carter is President, rep- resenting the employees, hereinafter referred to as Employees, WITNESSETH : "First: The parties hereto, acting in pursuance of an Act of Congress of the United States of America, known as Public Act Number 115, approved June 1, 1898, entitled, 'An Act Concerning 481 Carriers engaged in Inter-State Commerce, and their Employees, as amended in 1911/ do hereby submit to arbitration under the terms of said Act, the questions hereinafter set out and specified. "It Being Understood and Agreed that both parties hereto invoke all of the provisions of the said Act for the purpose of procuring a final determination of the questions hereinafter spec- ified and set out as fully and completely as if all of the terms and provisions of said Act were written into and made part of this agreement. "Second: The questions to be submitted to arbitration are as follows, viz : "The requests of the employees as stated and set forth in the second amended proposition of Locomotive Firemen in Eastern Concerted Wage Movement, 1912, dated December 18, 1912, a copy of which is hereto annexed and made part thereof. "Third: The employers hereby appoint, etc., etc." (That part of the second amended proposition referring to employees, is as follows. I am now getting up to the real question. ) " 'C Eoad hostlers, road hostlers' firemen and hostlers ( other than road hostlers ) . The following wages per day will be paid to road hostlers, road hostlers' firemen and hostlers (other than road hostlers), road hostlers per day of ten hours or less, |3.T5. Road hostlers' firemen per day, ten hours or less, $2.50. Hostlers (other than road hostlers), per day of ten hours or less, 12.50. "The term 'Road Hostlers' will be understood to mean such hostlers as are employed in handling engines between passenger stations and roundhouses or yards, or on main tracks. "The term 'Road Hostler Firemen' will be understood to mean such men as are employed to assist road hostlers and to fire such engines as may be in charge of the road hostlers. "The term 'Hostlers other than Road Hostlers,' will be under- stood to mean such men as are employed in handling engines in and about the roundhouses, ashpit or storage tracks." Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it will be seen by this agreement that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen had authority and did represent the hostlers employed on the roads parties to the Eastern Arbitration Award 1912 and 1913. There- fore, with this proviso incorporated in an agreement governing an arbitration under a federal law, and there can be no question, but 482 what this organization or the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire- men and Enginemen, did represent the hostlers in this Arbitration and was so recognized by the Railroads or the Conference Commit- tee of Managers who represented the Railroads in the Eastern Arbitration Award. The Chairman: To the extent of the questions, Mr. Shea, that were arbitrated. Mr. Shea: You mean to the extent of the rates of pay and rules of employment as embodied in the proposal? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea: That is right. It will be further noted by re- ferring to the Arbitration proceedings that the question of hostlers regarding their rates of pay and rules of employment was dealt with generally. Every phase of that question was gone into most thoroughly. After all of the testimony bearing on this arbitra- tion was in, the Board of Arbitration went into executive session, and they awarded so far as it applies to hostlers : " 'C Hostlers. Hostlers per day of ten hours or less, |2.40. If hostlers are em- ployed in handling engines between passenger station and round- houses or yards, or on main tracks, they will be "paid per day of ten hours or less, |3.25. If men are employed to assist hostlers in handling engines between passenger stations and roundhouses or yards, or on main tracks, they will be paid per day of ten hours or less, 12.50." This Award became effective April 23, 1913. The Award, so far as it applies to hostlers, was accepted by the railroads. It was put into effect and it became part of the schedules governing the Locomotive Firemen and Hostlers on roads that participated in the Eastern Arbitration, and is in effect today precisely the same as any other provisions of the Award which may be appli- cable to firemen, fixing their rates of pay and rules of employment, or any provisions embraced in the Award. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we take the position that we repre- sent the hostlers on all roads embracing the Eastern territory that are now parties to these negotiations. I might say, right here, however, and I think it is proper for me to say, that so far as the Eastern Railroads are concerned, there is but one road now that has not authorized the Conference Committee of Managers to rep- resent hostlers. The Chairman : Which one is that? 483 Mr. Shea : That is the Buffalo & Susquehanna and the Wells- ville & Buffalo, embraced in one property. The Chairman: You understand, Mr. Shea, that they were not in the last arbitration? Mr. Shea : I understand that this road was not in the Fire- men's Eastern Arbitration. The Chairman: That is right. Mr. Shea: But inasmuch as the hostlers employed on this road are members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and they have signified their willingness to come into this movement, we take the position that we represent the hostlers on that line and the^ shall be included in this settlement. The Chairman : Regardless of whether or not the road wants to include them? Mr. Shea: Yes. I M'ill now take up the Western Roads. During the latter part of the year 1913, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen in- augurated a concerted movement involving railroads in the West- ern territory embraced in the original submission to the individual railroads by the Committees representing the engineers, firemen and hostlers. They included hostlers. Arrangements were made for negotiations between the representatives of the railroads and the representatives of the two organizations involved, and in list- ing the roads that had agreed to participate in the movement there was only one that did exclude hostlers; namely, the St. Louis & San Francisco of Texas Railroad. All other roads involved in the movement, included engineers, firemen and hostlers. In fact, so far as I can recall, there was no protest on the part of the Managers' Conference Committee, as to including hostlers, with the exception of the road mentioned, the Frisco Line. I Avill make a correction on that. It was the Frisco proper instead of the St. Louis, San Francisco of Texas. The St. Louis & San Francisco of Texas did agree to include hostlers. Negotiations continued for a period of several months, and finally it was agreed to ar- bitrate the questions at issue under the Jfewlands Law, and on August 3, 1914, an agreement to arbitrate was entered into. The first paragraph of the agreement to arbitrate is as follows : "This agreement made and entered into this third day of 484 August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, between certain Western Eailroads, so-called, a list of which is hereto annexed, marked 'Exhibit A' and made a part thereof, and which railroads are rep- resented by a Conference Committee of Managers, of which Mr. A. W. Trenholm is Chairman, parties to the first part, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive I^^ngineers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, representing engineers, fire- men and hostlers in the service of said railroads, parties to the second part, Witnesseth." It is unnecessary for me to say at this time that during our Arbitration proceeding, which was held in Chicago, beginning November 30, 1914, that the question of the rates of pay and duties of hostlers had been gone into most thoroughly, and there isn't a single instance that I can recall where the Eailroads or the repre- sentatives of the Eailroads held that the Brotherhood of Locomo- tive Firemen and Enginemen did not represent the hostlers on all roads that agreed to participate in the movement, with the excep- tion of the Frisco Line as heretofore referred to. After all evidence was taken, the Board of Arbitration went into Executive Session and they awarded the following, so far as it applies to hostlers : "Article X. Hostlers. The minimum pay for hostlers will be .|4.20 per day of 12 hours or less, overtime pro rata. Only roundhouse employees who, in handling engines, are required to have a knowledge of main line train movements, will come under this designation. Engineers and firemen will have preference for positions as hostlers. This will not operate to disqualify those who now hold such positions in order to prevent same being filled from other classes of employees who may be eligible thereto, who can qualify. All other roundhouse employees handling engines during 2.5 per cent, or more of their daily assignment will receive |3.00 for 12 hours or less, overtime pro rata. On roads where the right to legislate for hostlers has been conceded by the Company to the engineers or firemen, such right as specified in individual schedules shall not be affected by the adoption of this Article." This award was made on the 30th day of April, 1915, and be- came effective May 11, 1915. Under the saving clause of the agreement to arbitrate or under the saving clause of the Award, the employees on individual lines would have the option to select the whole or any part of the Award, and when such selection is 485 made, same should be incorporated in the agreements between the engineers and firemen and the different railroads and become a part of that agreement, and to remain in fnll force and effect for a period of one year and thereafter until the usual 30 days' notice was served by either party as to any contemplated change. We find that the Committee representing the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen on every Kailroad that participated in the Western Award, accepted Article 10 of the Award or a portion thereof. Therefore, Article 10 of the Award is today a part of the agreements between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the EaUroads on all roads in the Western territory. Therefore, we hold, and justly so, and basing this statement on the agreement to arbitrate, that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen represent engineers, fire- men and hostlers on all of the Eailroads that participated in our Western Arbitration Award. So with this plain statement of facts, we feel justified in taking the position that we shall insist upon representing the hostlers on all Western lines that partici- pated in the Western Arbitration Award, and in addition thereto all other roads in that territory that you have been authorized to represent in these negotiations, and which were not included in the Western Engineers' and Firemen's Arbitration of 1914 and 1915. So far as the Southeastern roads are concerned, the Broth- erhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen have never nego- tiated, or rather had a concerted movement involving the roads in that territory, as the schedules or agreements between the fire- men and hostlers and the Southern Eailroads have been negotiated individually in the past. We find that on several of the Southern railways that have agreed to participate in these negotiations, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen through our Committee have legislated for hostlers on these lines. We find some of these schedules where they make a distinc- tion between the color, white and black, but inasmuch as the roads have agreed to come into this movement, and because of the fact that the hostlers employed on these roads in the Southeastern territory are members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and have agreed to come into these negotiations, we shall take the same position so far as the hostlers are concerned on the Southeastern railroads that we have taken on the roads in 486 the Eastern territory and in the Western territory. This state- ment can be summed up by briefly stating that we shall insist upon the right to represent hostlers on all roads parties to these negotia- tions, and we hope that these railroads will give further considera- tion regarding this matter and extend your authorization to cover hostlers on these lines. Now, to show you the inconsistence of the position of the Managers on many of the Western Eailroads, I find by checking the list of roads that there are twenty-one lines in the Western territory that have excluded hostlers from these negotiations, nine- teen of which were parties to the Western Engineers' and Fire- men's Award of 1914 and 1915, and the Award of the Board of Arbitration so far as it applies to hostlers is now embraced in the schedules governing the firemen and hostlers on these roads in the Western territory. Now, their position regarding this matter seems to me to be very untenable, and I don't know whether you have any infiuence with the managers of these properties, but I am going to make this request, that the matter be taken up with them again with the hope that we may get them to extend your authorization to cover hostlers on these lines where they have been excluded up to this time. The Chairman : Mr. Shea, you are basing your statements, I understand, on this last list we presented to you. Mr. Shea: Yes, sir, so far as the Western roads are con- cerned. The Chairman : So far as the Western roads are concerned. I wanted to get that clear, because I personally have been very much interested in what you say, and I want to send practically a complete copy of your statement to all these roads, so that they can understand just exactly what your position is in the matter. Mr. Shea : I wish you would, Mr. Lee. The Chairman : Will be very glad to indeed. Mr. Shea : And you will find the roads which I referred to, wherein they have excluded hostlers, in your last revised statement to me. The Chairman: Yes. Have you finished, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman: Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: I only want to draw your attention to the 487 fact that we concur in Mr. Shea's assertion of the right to deal for the class. Bear in mind that we have nothing to add to his statement except that the attitude assumed is perfectly in accord- ance with the desires of the other three organizations. The Chairman: You understand, Mr. Garretson, what I said to Mr. Shea? Mr. Garretson: Oh, yes. The Chairman: That we would be very glad to forward a complete transcript of his protest to these roads in question, and of course, you understand if they still decline after hearing Mr. Shea's side we can represent them only in so far as they give us authority. Mr. Garretson: We are taking all reservations into con- sideration. We are simply saying that the contention of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen as presented by its representatives has the approval of the other three organi- zations. The Chairman : Yes. I think that is all of this preliminary. Mr. Shea : Now, before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, there is another subject that I wish to take up. In referring to your list, involving the roads in the Southern District, we find 31 roads, in checking these different lines. I find that they exclude firemen and hostlers on 10 or possibly 11 of them. I assume the reason the managers in the Southeast Terri- tory have taken the position in excluding firemen is because of the fact that on these roads we have no established committee. That is due to the fact that these roads employ a considerable per cent, of colored firemen ; but there is quite a per cent, of white firemen, and on these lines we have no committee to represent the firemen. So far as this organization is concerned that is why we haven't taken the position on that phase of the question, but Mr. Stone has something to say and I assume that he will cover that question as far as these negotiations are concerned. Mr. Stone : Now, Mr. Chairman — The Chairman : Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone : In what I shall say, thereby simply repeating what I said the other day, on a number of these roads in the South the percentage of white firemen is small and it is impossible to keep an organization, because, in some instances, the committee- men are discharged as fast as elected, and on other roads a man 488 is discharged the minute it is found out that he has joined the organization, regardless of whether he is a committeeman or not. In a few of those schedules the rates and working conditions are already in the engineers' schedule. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers will take the posi- tion on those roads, where the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen have no organization, and where white firemen and hostlers are employed, that we legislate for them and represent them. The Chairman : Is that all you care to say, Mr. Stone? Mr. Stone : That is all. The Chairman : My answer to that, Mr. Stone, will be the same as I made to Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : Before we take up the regular order of business, there is one more question, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask — Mr. Garretson : Before Mr. Shea enters the record again, I simply want to enter there that the other organizations concur in that attitude. Mr. Shea : I notice in your list of roads, Mr. Chairman, in- troduced on the first day of our meeting, you included the New York Central Lines as one property. The question has arisen as to whether the following lines are covered in the New York Central Lines West, viz. : The Dunkirk, Allegheny Valley & Pittsburgh E. E., now the Valley Division of the New York Central E. E. West. Second, the Lake Erie Alliance, Wheeling E. E., now the Alliance Division, New York Central E. E. West. Third, the Detroit, Toledo & Mackinaw Ey., now a portion of the Michigan Division of the New York Central Ey., West. I understand that these lines which I have named are covered in the Engineers' and Firemen's schedule, the New York Central Lines West. Mr. Lott ! Mr. Lott: Yes, sir. Mr. Shea : Did you hear me read those names? Mr. Lott : All right, it was the Detroit, Toledo & Milwaukee. Mr. Shea : Should it be the Milwaukee? Mr. Lott : My understanding is that it is the D., T. & M. Mr. Shea : I have it here listed the Detroit, Toledo & Mack- inaw Eailroad. Mr. Lott : All right, it is the same railroad. 489 Mr. Shea: Are these lines covered in your schedule? Mr. Lott : They are. They are under the New York Central West schedule. Mr. Shea: You negotiate the rates of pay and rules of em- ployment for the firemen? Mr. Lott : They haven't been negotiated for since the settle- ment in the 1913 Award. It was the first time. Mr. Shea : Mr. Lott, where does that road run to and from, the Detroit, Toledo & Milwaukee, which you refer to? Mr. Lott : It runs through Adrian. We only operate one end of it. I understand that the AVestern was sold and turned over to an interurban line. Mr. Crowley : The territories you mention, Mr. Shea, are all included in the New York Central Line, West, including such por- tions of the D., T. & M. as are operated by the New York Central. Mr. Garretson : Well, Mr. Crowley, let me ask right there : The other portion of that is operated by the Michigan Central, isn't it? Mr. Crowley : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And it is undoubtedly included in the Mich- igan Central authorization. You will remember we disposed of ■ that as between these two organizations in the Managers' Associa- tion in the Eastern matter. Mr. Crowley : As I recall it the question was up, I think. I am not familiar with just how it was disposed of. Mr. Garretson : Well, the authorization covered the property, one-half of it through Lake Shore, then another portion through Michigan Central. Mr. Crowley : I understand that then. Mr. Garretson : We had more trouble over the name, you re- member, than we had this morning. Mr. Shea: I have been just informed that the Award of 1912 and 1913 covers that property. Mr. Crowley: All right. The Chairman : Just a minute. It does so far as the Lake Shore end of it is concerned. Mr. Crowley : Yes, I don't know about it. The Chairman: So far as the Michigan Central is con- cerned — Mr. Shea: We have — 490 The Chairman: Have the Michigan Central, Mr. Laughlin? Mr. Laughlin : Yes, right here. Mr. Shea: Can you give us any information on this sub- ject as it applies to the Michigan Central? Mr. Laughlin : Michigan Central operates that road from Oshkosh to Battle Creek. Under the award of 1912 and 1913 that is covered from the Michigan Central standpoint. Mr. Shea: Now embraced in your schedule? Mr. Laughlin : Yes. Mr. Shea : That covers it. The Chairman : I think, Mr. Shea, that our authority covers that, but to make sure I will get wire confirmation of that state- ment. Mr. Shea : Thank you. The Chairman : I want to return to the Oregon, Washing- ton K. E. & Navigation Company question on top of page 310; that is the one we discussed yesterday, that we had answered. Mr. Garretson : Page 310 is dealing — Mr. W. G. Lee : It is in Book 6. That is the one in regard to the double and the run past dead line. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone: Do we have that again today? The Chairman : Yes, I want to get our attitude straightened out on this thing. We desire to give you a further answer on that question. The rule reading as follows : "This rule will not permit the running of crews through terminals on to districts where they are not assigned." Under such provisions we would only hold that the company would have the right to run the crews through terminals in short turn-around service onto districts where not assigned, but not onto districts of other seniority. You see, that is in line with the short turn-around clause of the East- ern conductors and trainmen. Mr. Garretson : You would only assert the right to make the series of doubles on territory covered by the assignment of the crew making the doubles? The Chairman: We would assert the right to make short turn-around service onto districts where the man had seniority. Mr. Garretson: Seniority regardless of assignment? The Chairman: Yes. 491 Mr. Garretson : Oh, well, there is no change in your answer of yesterday. The Chairman: Yes, there is. Mr. Garretson: In what respect? The Chairman : We do not propose to interfere with senior- ity rights, and it is this further, Mr. Garretson, as I requested, you put it up on the broad principle of whether we had the right to run through those terminals in any direction. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : We would only hold that the roads would have the right to operate such service in short turn-around service. Mr. Garretson: And not in combination with a straight- away run? The Chairman : No. This other will bring that out that I want to talk to you about. Mr. Garretson : Well, in other roads — The Chairman: Aransas Pass case. Mr. Garretson: Well, let us get you straight on this. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : For I want to know whether it is fourteen miles, Wittleton to Wattleton, and fifteen from Wattleton to Wittleton. The Chairman : It is the Walla Walla— Wallula. By the way, if we get across Umatilla, that is farther south. Mr. Garretson : You would assert the right to run the man on a series of short runs, then further east of the Dalles, and then west of the Dalles regardless of that dead-line, provided the men on the two territories were in a single promotion district. The Chairman: Now, I understand, I was told last night that if the seniority split directly at the Dalles — Mr. Garretson : I think it does. The Chairman : Is that correct? Ask Mr. Ehodes? Mr. Garretson : Rhodes, is the territory between the Dalles and Portland a separate promotion district or does the promotion district extend from Portlan'd to La Grande? Mr. Ehodes : The promotion district extends from Portland to Umatilla, but the crews are assigned between Portland and the Dalles and assigned between Umatilla and the Dalles. Seniority rights govern their assignment. 492 The Chairman : Mr. Rhodes, would the men east of the Dalles have the right to make runs west of the Dalles? Mr. Rhodes : Yes, under their seniority rights. Mr. Garretson : They are bulletined. The Chairman : Yes. "Well, our thought, Mr. Garretson, was not to extend that any further than that covered under the Article "I" of the Eastern award. We thought that was a fair proposi- tion. We wouldn't want to interfere with seniority. Well, then the only real modification of the answer is this : You would only assert — Mr. Garretson : Well, then, the only modification of the an- swer is this : You would only assert the right there to a series of short runs and not to a combination of a series of short runs, long runs and straightaways. The Chairman : Not unless that right was already existing. Mr. Garretson : Moreover, what in regard to that proviso that exists there as modifying these runs that a man must be as- signed to the series of short runs when he is called? The Chairman : Well, if that is in existence, if there is a short turn-around clause in the schedule today, why, I would say that that would govern it. Mr. Garretson : There is and such a proviso accompanies it. I say proviso, that is the accepted practice. The Chairman : Yes, whatever that practice is. Mr. Sheppard : Mr. Chairman, as one of the arbitrators who subscribed to the second paragraph of Article "I," I wish to place myself on record as absolutely dissenting from the idea that the second paragraph of Article "I" permits any railroad to make short turn-around trips in a district to which the crew is not as- signed. The limitations on the short turn-around trips are, as to districts as assigned just as they are on straight-away trips. The question has never been raised before as to the right of railroads to make short turn-around trips under the second paragraph of Article "I" in a territory in which the crew could not be called for a straight-away trip. Mr. Walber : My recollection is that that very question came up under the final decisions of the Board on Appeal. The ques- tion was then raised as to this assignment of crews to the terri- tory covered by their assignment. The argument was made in the Board that crews might' have rights to run both ways out of 493 a terminal, the terminal being the middle of the division, say. They conld run either east or west, and, therefore, the answer of the Board was, as the record shows, "Roads may order a crew, or an individual, for short turn-around service within 50 miles of a terminal, or through a terminal in any direction, provided the combination of short trips does not exceed 100 miles," and further provides that, "A crew shall not be started out of terminals after having been on duty 10 consecutive hours, and that such assign- ments do not interfere with the seniority rules." That is the part of the answer of the Board that applies to this specific question. They recognize the right to run through terminals in calling for a day's work of short turn-around service. The entire divi- sion runs from "A" to "C," "B" at the center. Crews may work in either direction from "B." Crews may be called for short turn- around service in either direction from "B" with the limitations of the rule itself, 100 miles in actual mileage, no succeeding trip to be started after 10 hours. Mr. Sheppard : Mr. Chairman, the second paragraph of Article "I" has exactly the same limitations as the rule for a straight-away run. The second paragraph of Article "I" only ex- tended the rights of railroads in getting more than one turn- around trip in the territory or territories in which the said crew could be originally used. It is only for the purpose of getting around the first in and first out rule, and also to escape paying 100 miles for each short trip. They did not extend beyond that, the claim never was made and I never heard it before this morn- ing. I have never been up against it anywhere. I have no knowl- edge of any railroad claiming that they could use a crew in short turn-around service both sides of the terminal unless the same crew could be called for either direction on a straight- away. The railroads never claimed it, all the right the railroad rep- resentatives asked for was the right to assign crews for short turn- around service, presumably in the same territory in which they would run straight-away. The Chairman : Well, I would take this position on that : We based our conception under the provisions of Article "I," the second paragraph. We desire to answer this question under the provisions of that. There isn't any desire as I understand the 494 Committee's feeling in the matter, as expressed to me, to go any further where we find these provisions that you mention in this particular case, than what is allowed in the second paragraph of Article "I" of the Eastern Award. Mr. Stone : May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? Do I understand from that then, that in your answer or the measure of your yardstick that you are going to take a rule that was lianded down in the Eastern Arbitration for the Eastern territory, comprising less than forty per cent, of the mileage, and now apply it to sixty per cent, of the mileage where it never was in effect before? The Chairman: Mr. Stone, I am endeavoring to tell you how we would interpret our proposition as affected by your prop- osition and as affecting these particular rules that you speak of, that you call attention to. That is the way we would consider our proposition to apply to a rule of that sort. Mr. Stone : In other words, if all these things that we sup- pose came to pass and that question was put up to this Board, that is what their decision would be — that it would apply that way? The Chairman : That is, if we took all of yours and took all of ours and applied them just as we each say. Is that right? Is that what you mean? Mr. Stone: Yes, I am simply taking all estimable things that are going to come to pass before your yardstick applies. The Chairman : Well, you asked me what would happen if these were all put up to a Board. How would it be applied? Mr. Stone: In case the qiiestion came up? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Stone : On 60 per cent, of the mileage, where no such rule is in effect today, and it came back to this Board for inter- pretation — that is the interpretation they would place on it. The Chairman : Came back to us? , Mr. Stone : Yes. The Chairman: In interpreting our proposition? Mr. Stone: Yes. The Chairman : I think so, sir, unless there was some other rule negotiated. Mr. Garretson : In other words, you would place an interpre- tation on the second paragraph of Article "I" which applies not 495 only as Mr. Stone says, to engineers of the Eastern territory, but to conductors and trainmen of that territory, and you would give it an extra territorial meaning that it never has possessed even for the conductors and trainmen. The Chairman: Are you through, Mr. Garretson? But you are asking us how we would apply our thoughts to this second paragraph of "I." Mr. Garretson: Yes, but you say you are founding on the two paragraphs of "I," and you are proceeding to apply a right that has never been asserted under "I." The Chairman: Well, my dear Mr. Garretson — Mr. Garretson: Thank you. The Chairman : I will just say this. I will just have to repeat what I said to Mr. Sheppard. Whatever is the proper interpre- tation of that second paragraph of Article "I" we would not as- sert the right of going any further than that. Mr. Garretson: Oh, you wouldn't assert extra territorial rights. In other words, you wouldn't assert that a man could be called for turn-around service on territory he couldn't be called for regular service — that is straight away. The Chairman: If that is the interpretation under this second paragraph of Article "I." Whatever is the proper inter- pretation of it. There seems to be some question here, and I don't think this is the proper place to settle just what is Article "I," but whatever is the proper interpretation of that, and Mr. Sheppard says it is one thing and perhaps Mr. Walber doesn't agree with him and perhaps he does, they should get together and decide it. Mr. Garretson: Now, see where we would be now. See where you would put us. Assume for a moment that 35 with the modifications suggested by you was accepted. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: I am even willing to go into the outside limits for illustration. The Chairman: Supposing, always. Mr. Garretson : And the question arose from the Dalles as to a man who doubled both ways out of there. You had taken the position that your answer depends upon the application of the second clause of Article "I," and we met you, your Committee, in the settlement of the disputed question from the Dalles, then this 496 gathering would have to make a pilgrimage to the original arbi- trators in "I" to learn what "I" meant. The Chairman: I don't think, Mr. Garretson, really that there is very much difference on the roads where that is applied today. Mr. Garretson : I don't think there is any. The Chairman : No. very well then, why should there be any in our answer here? It is just a question of fact, isn't it? Mr. Garretson : Now let's follow your sequence — The Chairman : I grant you — a minute, but let me say this : Our proposition here this morning is a little bit different from what it was yesterday. After hearing the discussion yesterday and the interpretation that you put on that assignment that was not clear to my own mind, we did make a change there. Mr. Garretson : Yes, but you only took out half of the sting. In other words, yesterday you asserted the right to make a man make a short turn-around east of the Dalles, then run through across the deadline on a straight-away to Portland. The Chairman : I think I did, yesterday. Mr. Garretson : This morning you modified that to this ex- tent, that the man can make the short turn-around east of the Dalles, then invade the deadline and make a short turn-around west of the Dalles. Therefore you have invaded in the same de- gree both the law of assignment as it exists on that road, and the first in and first out rule as it exists on that road. The Chairman : Yes, to that extent. Mr. Garretson : And only modified to the extent that they can't combine long runs and short runs. The Chairman : That is correct, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Now, here it is only asserted, and there isn't a record to show that the question has ever arisen under "I," only for the performance of a series of short runs on territory where the man is legitimately employed, without the invasion of any rule. Therefore, in the interpretation which says that you are basing on the second paragraph of Article "I," and still as- serting the right to go onto unassigned territory, you are putting an extra territorial interpretation on the second clause of "I," that has never existed from our standpoint. The Chairman : Then you assume, Mr. Garretson, that the roads have not the right under the second paragraph of Article 497 "I" to run out there? If correct, we would not assert it, that is all there is to it. Mr. Garretson : And the continued existence of that dead- line for the purpose of applying a series of short runs would de- pend upon the interpretation that might be placed on the second clause of "I" by the men who wrote it, won't it? The Chairman : Welly I understand, Mr. Garretson, that there isn't any question on the roads where it is in operation. Mr. Garretson : There isn't. The Chairman : Very well, then, it is a question of fact. Mr. Garretson : You will bear in mind, Mr. Walber at- tempted to uphold the idea that it had been raised and so de- cided. His missionary zeal carried him beyond the dead-line. Go on. The Chairman: Wait a minute, now. If that dead-line is a seniority wall, or a dead-line, it stands in the East the same as it would in the West. Mr. Garretson : Why I think when Mr. Walber got to in- terpreting the second clause of "I," there, what he confused was this : An opinion or ruling that he had made with the decision of the Board of Arbitrators and it wouldn't be wholly without precedent. Mr. Walber : I might be able to find an* old manuscript of a decision on Article "I." Mr. Garretson: How is that? Mr. Walber : I might be able to find you the original draft of the decision on Article "I." Mr. Garretson : Good. It will save me any trouble hunting, if you will. Mr. Higgins : I want to ask for information. I understood Mr. Garretson to say that the Committee had changed its position with respect to the short run before the long run, as stated yester- day. Mr. Garretson : Oh, no ! I said it had changed its position in regard to combining a short run with a straight-away. I didn't say before or after. Mr. Higgins : In what respect, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : What is it? Mr. Higgins: In what respect have you changed? I want to be clear on that. 498 Mr. Garretson: Your chairman — bear in mind I am only going to interpret what your chairman said. You won't call that presumption — The Chairman: Go to it, Mr. Garretson; it isn't the first time. Mr. Garretson : The Chairman said that we desire to make further answer to this question of the Oregon Washington Eail- road and Navigation Company's rule, on page 310. Mr. Higgins: Which is a short turn-around rule? Mr. Garretson: Yesterday his answer was that the Com- mittee would assert the right to let a man make a short turn- around east of the Dalles and then run him through to Portland, west of the Dalles. I am not misquoting, am I? The Chairman: I think that is correct in substance, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: This morning he said he wished to make further answer, and the Conference Committee now circumscribes their answer to this extent, that instead of combining with a short run west, a straight-away trip, they would confine it to a series of turn-around runs. Am I right? The Chairman: In connection with such rules? Mr. Garretson: In connection with another turn-around run, that is a series. Mr. Higgins : Now, here is a rule provided in the engineers and firemen's schedule of the Missouri Pacific, Article XXXII, Paragraph "B." If after arrival at terminal points on runs of less than 100 miles, engineers and firemen having such runs are called or ordered out again, either one or more times, and last departure is within 12 hours from the time of first departure, they shall be paid for a mileage of 100 miles or more as the case may be, and in addition will be paid overtinie earned while on the road. Time laying over at terminal not to be counted in computing overtime unless held on duty. Am I to understand that that rule is affected in any way by the answer made this morning? Mr. Garretson: By the answer made by who? Mr. Higgins : By the Chairman in respect to the case of the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company. Mr. Garretson : I haven't made any application of the Chairman's answer, except to the O. W. R. & N. 499 Mr. Higgins : Very good, then. Mr. Garretson : Eule in question. I haven't followed it any- further than that one rule "I" that came in. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : As furnishing the basis. The Chairman : Page 329 of Book 7, bottom of the page, San Antonio and Aransas Pass, next to the last paragraph on the page : "When a regular crew is run out of its assigned terri- tory, a minimum day will be paid as per class of service performed. This will be paid in addition to any time made on the regular run." Example : A crew is assigned to a run between terminals "A" and "B." Mr. Garretson: "D," isn't it? The text here is "D." The Chairman : "A" and "D." At intermediate station "B" they are run over a branch line a distance of 25 miles. They then return to their original track, or their regularly assigned terri- tory, and proceed to terminal "D." They would receive for this service in their regular assigned territory not less than 100 miles. They would receive 100 miles additional for the service diverging from their regularly assigned track or territory. Now, that brings out sharply in this case the man would be paid under the existing rule. You see that does not partake of the short turn- around service. Mr. Sheppard : Notwithstanding it is intermediate service? The Chairman: Notwithstanding that, Mr. Sheppard, we run up against that provision in that schedule and we did not care to go into that except in short turn-around service. You understood, Mr. Sheppard, why it was that we didn't go into that on continuous time and service, because it is ofE his assigned district is the reason why the rule stands. Mr. Sheppard : I had understood that, I also understood you to limit your claim to short turn-around service. The Chairman: Where this rule appears in the schedule, or its substance. The rule on the Oregon Washington, or this rule on the San Antonio and Aransas Pass. Mr. Sheppard: Where such rules do not appear then, your proposition is generally applicable? The Chairman : I would say so, Mr. Sheppard. Mr. Garretson : You virtually had to abolish the combination 500 of a long with a short run in the other proposition to make your position here tenable? The Chairman : How is that? Mr. Higgins : I want to again rise to ask if you insist that rules similar to the one I read in the Missouri Pacific engineers and firemen's schedule, and similar rules found in other schedules were abandoned by this Committee in the answer they made with respect to the Oregon Eailway and Navigation Company's short turn-around example. Mr. Garretson : I am uncertain yet, but I will say this : If you abandoned anything that you counted desirable, you did it without knowing it. Mr. Higgins: I have abandoned nothing, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : I think that is right. Mr. Higgins: In my answer the other day, I confined the discussion to a short trip made before a long trip, and I insist we have still got that right. I said nothing about going off as- signed districts, or off seniority districts in connection with the discussion, nor did we yesterday say anything so far as I can find about going off seniority districts in connection with short turn- around service on the Oregon line. You keep injecting that into it all the time. Our position yes- terday was that if you had contracted with the Oregon Ey. and Navigation Company for a short turn-around run, the general rule, if you please, to perform that service on the railroad and then it had specific limitations at certain points, or had a specific local application, that the rule did not disclose, you only dis- closed that here in your argument across the table. That was our position yesterday. Mr. Garretson : Sure. Mr. Higgins : We couldn't get the fact because the rule stated one thing, while your position stated another, and I have no doubt you are right. We didn't question that. Mr. Garretson : I usually am. Mr. Higgins : But when we came to the Eastern Territory we found this condition that is cited here this morning. Now, when Mr. Walber states the application of that rule in the Eastern Territory, he is disputed by Mr. Sheppard. Mr. Garretson : And by me. f 501 Mr. Higgins : And by you. 'Sow, I claim that that argu- ment in no way affects the combination of a short trip with a longer trip in existing schedules, because those trips are con- tracted for, and, in making the contract, you didn't give the railroad the right, of course, to run men off their assigned ter- ritory or seniority territory, and I hold that assigned territory is merely a refinement of seniority. The first step is that a man has got a right to select his run on a seniority district, and the second step is that he's got the right to select his district, if you please, or any run on that district within a seniority territory. 2^ow, there was nothing said at any time in these proceedings from this side of the table that insisted we had the right to violate that; you kept injecting that yesterday, I will grant you, into a rule that is silent on the question, absolutely silent. Then we come down into Eastern Territory, where there certainly can't be any question, it seems to me, because you are operating under it, I understand, hundreds of runs every day, and still we find a dis- pute here about it. Mr. Garretson : Now, there was nothing said yesterday. Let me say this in answer to your attitude about what was said on the other side. It don't matter an iota what was said; the result of it is demonstrated by its application to the territory. My old class motto was : "Actions speak louder than words." On that account I have indulged largely in words since, but the interpre- tation comes on the act, and I draw your attention immediately to the condition that existed on that very property and to see whether assignment or seniority is the real determination of this question. Don't get away from the fact that no matter by what Xjrocess the men between the Dalles and Portland are there, that they are the men affected by the first in and first out rule, and by the assignment rule, and if your answer invades that right, it abolishes that contract provision as it exists. The Chairman: Yes? Mr. Garretson: And as for what was said, here is the record of what was said yesterday from the other side of the table. On page 444 I said to the Chairman, "You mean that you would abolish crew assignment, then?" and the Chairman an- swered : "I am not prepared personally to go that far. The literal application of our yardstick would abolish it." That is the record, page 444. Now that is about what was said. 502 Mr. Higgins : Now, vou were still on the short line question when that statement was made. Mr. Garretson : No, I was very noisy on it. Mr. Higgins : Well, you were still on the Oregon Railway & Navigation. Mr. Garretson : I was feeling well. Mr. Higgins : Well, now, won't you admit that your Oregon Railway & Navigation rule is silent on the exception at the Dalles? There is no exception in that rule that says you can't run both ways out of the Dalles, is there? Mr. Garretson : Why? Mr. Higgins : In the rule it is — Mr. Garretson : In the rule it is the language that I quote which says that it will not — I haven't the text here of that one rule, now. Mr. Higgins : I know, but it don't mention the Dalles specifi- cally, that is what I mean. Mr. Garretson : While it don't name the Dalles ; it says that it can't be done off its assigned territory. Mr. Higgins : Well, in your question to us there was noth- ing said about The Dalles. The Dalles was introduced here, yes- terday I should say. Mr. Garretson: This rule will not permit the running of crews through terminals onto districts where . they are not as- signed. Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And The Dalles came into it because it is the dividing line between tAvo territories where men are assigned. That is how The Dalles got in here. Mr. Higgins : But on which both have seniority rights. Mr. Garretson : And on which each have assignment rights. Mr. Higgins : Yes, now, is there any reason, taking the Chair- man's answer, why you couldn't assign a run, a short turn-around run out of The Dalles? In other words, divide the mileage be- tween the two districts the same as you would if you ran a crew over both districts. Mr. Garretson : There is. Mr. Higgins : Where is the rule, if you please, that prohibits your running from Portland — through run I am speaking of now — from Portland to Umatilla, taking men from each district 503 and pro rating the mileage between men of each district. Why would that rule not apply to a short turn-around run that was on regularly, provided the men on each district got their pro rata in mileage? Mr. Garretson : Because the rule provides that where joint runs exist — that is, existing carded runs in service, that the men will be drawn from the territories proportionately. Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Garretson: And those are accepted assignments. Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Just as passenger runs, the most of them are built that way. To call a crew at the discretion of an officer has been the purpose of the creation of agreements to limit that discretion, because it was unfairly applied as a general proposi- tion, and that isn't attacking the intent or purpose of any officer. It didn't work out, and the men took it into their own hands to insist on the right to a voice in the creation of such things, and took the discretionary power away and vested it. This is purely unassigned, and there is no warrant for anything of the kind, and the whole tenure of practice forbids it. Mr. Higgins : Our reply, you know, our first reply, didn't con- template getting a man off his seniority district, but when you expounded the rule on which you had based your question yester- day, you introduced the Dalles, first relay point out of Portland. Mr. Garretson : First division point. Mr. Higgins : Junction division point, junction of the coast lines. Mr. Garretson : No, it is just an ordinary freight district. Mr. Higgins : I know, but the Coast Line to California comes into the Dalles, is that not a fact, Mr. Ehodes? Mr. Garretson : It used to come into Leuva. Mr. Higgins : Well, the first division point out of Portland, you say, there is an arbitrary line there; go on to the second division point, there is no arbitrary line there. They go in both directions out of there. Mr. Garretson: Sure, there is. Mr. Higgins : Well, the point I am making, Mr. Garretson, is that that explanation didn't accompany your question. You asked a question on a general rule, as I said yesterday, that it developed had specific local application that differed at different 504 local points. That is what the discussion yesterday disclosed, but that disclosure was not made in your question of the day before. Mr. Garretson : It is not a general question, it is a specific question. Mr. Higgins : It is a general rule. Mr. Garretson : I beg your pardon. This brought out the fact that there were certain special things in that portion of the rule that was quoted that were not general in their character. The object of these questions, you bear in mind, the questions that you asked us, nine-tenths of them were not general in their character; they were the extremes in one direction or another, or to know how it would affect a specific rule existing here or there or a specific condition existing here or there. Our questions to you are largely based on the specific instance and there isn't repetition of the general rules. They are brought out in many cases, but the bulk of the questions are founded on a specific instance because the specific is an illustration of what we want to know. The Chairman : While some of our questions, Mr. Garret- son, I must admit were perhaps hypothetical, most all of them were cases that had actually arisen, and we want to know how it would affect them. Mr. Garretson : Yes, had arisen here or there or elsewhere under the terms of the agreement existing on that property and that is what they were all based on. Mr. Higgins : Now, going back, Mr. Garretson, to your state- ment that there are runs covering more than the assigned dis- trict of men on which the mileage is pro rated — that is a common practice — Mr. Garretson : It is. Mr. Higgins : Yes. Mr. Garretson : It is, but you never saw it on an unassigned run. Mr. Higgins : Now, you have got a short turn-around run, if you please, at The Dalles. I grant you, under your explanation, that the man can't be run off his assigned territory there today, but here is a rule in a schedule to cover that very point. Mr. Garretson : May I call your attention to one thing. You may have made a mistake. You said his assigned territory. 505 Mr. Higgins : Oh, I didn't make any mistake. Mr. Garretson : Do you mean that. Good. Mr. Higgins : As I have used the thing from the beginning.. Mr. Garretson : Well, you have been using assignment and seniority. Mr. Higgins : If you will go back to the record, you will find that I said assignment was merely a refinement or a second step of seniority. I said it yesterday. Mr. Garretson : Sure you said it, you said it this morning, too. Mr. Higgins: "When a turn-around run continues for a time sufficient to provide enough work to make an acceptable run for a regular engineer and fireman, such run will then be classed as a short run." Under the rule that permits the pro rating of mileage is there any reason why that shouldn't be applied at The Dalles, and the mileage pro rated between the men of each dis- trict? Mr. Garretson : That is an engineer's rules. I will let Mr. Stone answer it. Mr. Stone : Under the rule that you have read, you wouldn't attempt to apply it on the road where it was made, or they never did apply it in that way. Mr. Higgins: We have never had occasion to, I will grant you, because the run, bear in mind, can be made only on assigned territory. Mr. Stone: Yes. Mr. Higgins : Yes, but assuming now that it was necessary to embrace two territories and it became a regular run, there was work there for a man to bid on it under that rule. Couldn't it come under the pro rata rule the same as the other? Mr. Stone : Not under the unassigned service that we have been discussing here. You have established a carded or a class- ified run and have assigned a certain crew or a proportion of crews from each territory, and under that rule that you read in the Missouri Pacific, wliich is the old rule, they kept it instead of taking the award. You never did attempt to run crews through a terminal if there were other crews there. Mr. Higgins: We have never made the claim here that we did so unless the rule gave us the right to do it. Now if those men ran both ways out of a terminal midway on a division, there 506 isn't any question about what they'd do. They could go both ways out of it. Mr. Stone : That is perhaps true. Mr. Higgins: Yes. Mr. Stone : If they didn't run and were assigned to certain territories between "A" and "B," and between "B" and "C," al- though holding seniority between "A" and "C," you wouldn't at- tempt to run them through that terminal in either direction. Mr. Higgins: Under that rule, we could not. Mr. Stone: Sure. Well, it has been our contention all the time that you could not. Mr. Higgins : We have never claimed from this side of the table that we could, except as provided in this paragraph "I" of the Eastern Award. Mr. Stone: And I want to call your attention to the fact that Paragraph "I" don't exist in the Engineers' and Firemen's schedules anywhere in this country, and we hope it never will. Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Higgins, the railroads operating under the second paragraph of Article "I," recognize limited seniority, in your language, the refinement of seniority. The Chairman : Now we will adjourn for a few minutes. It is past our adjournment time. (Kecess.) The Chairman: Take page 392, in Book No. 8. The ques- tion was asked by Mi*. Shea, on page 392, about half way down the page. Question: "Take on a certain railroad where they have a rule which provides for running crews first in, first out. At 'A' they have five pool crews. A crew is called, goes out, we will say, makes 25 miles. They have an engine failure. They are re- quired to return to their terminal. Under the present practice they could not use that crew again if there were other crews in the terminal ready to go out, or if they did, they would have to pay them another day. Now, under your proposal, could they use that crew again, and pay them continuous time or continuous mileage?" Answer: We believe that there should be such a modifica- tion that would permit them, under those circumstances, to use that crew on continuous time and mileage. Mr. Shea : Eegardless of the rules? 507 The Chairman : In that case, yes, sir. Mr. Shea : Regardless of first in, first out? The Chairman : Yes, sir. He has run out 25 miles, his en- gine broke down, and he has come back into the terminal, and takes another engine and goes out and picks his train up. Mr. Shea : That would applj' according to your answer, Mr. Lee, to any number of miles ruii, if they were required to return to their terminal. The Chairman : Oh, I won't go quite so far as that, Mr. Shea, but I should say, if you only went out twenty-five miles, and came back in, had a broken down engine, and came back and picked up another engine, and then went and picked up his train — Mr. Stone : Mr. Chairman, what effect would that have on men assigned to regular engines in pool or irregular freight serv- ice? There are no extra engines, but there is another engine there ready to go on another run. The Chairman : Well, I wouldn't like to answer that off the bat, Mr. Stone, for this reason, because there are so many rules, as I understand, governing the use of assigned engines. Do I understand that a road that would have assigned engines wouldn't have any extra ones? Mr. Stone : Yes, they do. They have got them white leaded. They are not in service. The Chairman : Yes. Well, unless you could give me some specific instance, I wouldn't know just exactly where. Mr. Stone : Oh, on a great many of the roads. It has been the latest idea the last year or two, because they believe they can operate the engines more economically, if they have regular as- signed engines, although they run first in and first out in pooled or irregular freight service. The Chairman : Well, then, certain rules on certain roads would be different in regard to the assignment. For instance, you might have one rule where a man would stay right with his engine all the time. You would have a qualification on another road where he could take another engine. It would depend a good deal on what their practices and regulations are, governing the use of assigned engines. Mr. Stone : You say he would take another engine and go on with his run. 508 The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Stone : You realize, of course, that on a majority of the runs he would take an engine that some other crew is assigned to, and, therefore, they would be knocked out of the trip, and they would be paid for the trip. The Chairman : Now, wait a minute, Mr. Stone. I did not say that in connection with an assigned engine. I told you that I did not know what the regulations were governing the use of assigned engines. Mr. Stone : All right. The Chairman : And I wouldn't attempt to answer it off- hand. Mr. Shea : Then we understand by your answer to this ques- tion, Mr. Chairman, that it would be necessary to revise all schedule rules that now have provisions governing terminals, that are in conflict with your answer. The Chairman : I would say so, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : Well, that would necessitate, then — The Chairman : As a general proposition. Mr. Shea: Well, that would necessitate, then, a general re- vision of practically every schedule, because nearly all of the schedules have rules providing for crews to run first in and first out, also not permitting crews to run in and out, or through terminals when there are other crews ready for service, and in many instances where there are no crews. If the crew is used again a new day will begin. The Chairman : Wherever those exist in the schedules, Mr. Shea, it will be necessary to revise them in accordance with this proposition. Mr. W. Or. Lee : Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question right here? A man sitting on the outside, and listening to this discus- sion today might be excused, in my opinion, for believing your side of the table had accepted our 35, and that we had accepted your "A," "B," and "C," and we are now about to apply it. Now, if that isn't correct, hadn't we better get an understanding here whether or not you have accepted our 35, and then we will tell you whether we have accepted your "A," "B," and "C," and we will go ahead and work out these rules. ^ ^ The Chairman : Mr. Lee, for the information of some of those that may be on the outside that don't understand it, I will just 509 state again to you what I stated yesterday. The men presented special form 35 to the railroads and the railroads presented their reply to the men. Mr. W. G. Lee: Declining. The Chairman: Declining? Mr. W. G. Lee : Declining 35. The Chairman : I don't understand. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, now, then, we are getting close to- gether. Will you say, then, that you have accepted 35 contingent on "A," "B" and "C"? The Chairman: Now, wait a minute, wait till I tell you what we are doing first. Mr. W. G. Lee : I think I know what you are doing. The Chairman : We are in the position that the gentlemen on the other side, before you came in here — Mr. W. G. Lee: They were gentlemen before I came in? (Laughter.) Go ahead. The Chairman : And so remain since you have come in, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee: All right. The Chairman: Asked us how we would apply our base, and desired to ask us certain questions as to how it would apply. We told them that our proposition was contingent on a change of base. "Well," they said, "suppose ours is in effect," a supposi- tion, "then how would you apply yours to the existing schedules, and to special Form 35, provided both were in effect," and that is what we are attempting to do, to indicate to you gentlemen what our thoughts are in conection with these answers. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, I have heard you apply a portion of Article "I" of the Conductors' and Trainmen's Eastern Award. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee: To the West and Southeastern territory? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee: And I haven't heard you apply Article 35 to either the Eastern, Western or Southern territory yet. The Chairman : Well, that is what we have been doing right along, supposing it was applied, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee: Well, let us quit supposing and say it is, or it is not. What do you say? 510 The Chairman : Well, we are not in that position, we haven't reached that point yet, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : Oh, we have revised schedules now all morn- ing. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee : Mostly at The Dalles. The Chairman: Is it your desire, it is your thought then, Mr. Lee, that we have answered enough of these questions? Or don't you want these questions answered? I was under the im- pression that you would like to have these questions answered. Mr. W. G. Lee: Oh, I thought you had them all answered, and were coming back with a few new ones. The Chairman : Oh, no, there are quite a number in the mill yet. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, I might have been in Detroit yet, but I had four weeks there, and I don't propose to have it here. The Chairman : I don't think you will, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : Because, first of all, let us try to reach an agreement. Can you in any way accept 35 if we can accept "A," "B" and "C"? The Chairman : That is not the point. Do you want to hear how our proposition will apply? Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, if it applies as I have already heard it, if that is your idea of applying it, why I don't believe that there is much use of going farther because I will assure you that if it is going to take away any of the rules that these men have made on their individual lines, agreeable to their management, and their committees, if it is going to cancel those rules all over the terri- tory, then there isn't any use of our talking further, because, per- sonally, I wouldn't accept anything of the kind. I didn't under- stand your proposition to mean that, but if it does mean that, if it means a revision of all these schedules, we are uselessly using up the time here of all of us. The Chairman: We are simply answering these questions, Mr. Lee, that the other side asked, and if there isn't any desire to hear anything further on it, we haven't any desire to take up any time needlessly. Mr. W. G. Lee: How many more of these questions have you, Mr. Lee? 511 The Chairman: I suppose there are about 30 or 40 or 45 more, perhaps. Mr. W. G. Lee: More to answer? The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, if there isn't a change from this fore- noon it means revise these schedules, doesn't it? That is what the answers to all of them seem to mean so far. The Chairman : In so far as they are affected, Mr. Lee, by the two propositions. Mr. W. G. Lee : Well, go ahead with it. The Chairman: Shall we go ahead and answer the ques- tions? We can do just as you like; it is immaterial to us. Mr. W. G. Lee: I think you are just as positive as we are that it won't make any difference in the end. I believe you are because I believe just as positively now that you are going to refuse 35 in its entirety, as we are that we are going to refuse any propo- sition from you, that takes away from these men their rules that they have been a quarter of a century making at home, that fit their local conditions. The Chairman : Then, I understand, Mr. Lee, that you can't consider our proposition at all? Mr. W. G. Lee: Oh, we have considered it. We are con- sidering it equally as much as you have considered 35. Isn't that correct? The Chairman: We have only asked you questions in con- nection with 35. We have stated no reasons why that 35 should not go into effect. Mr. W. G. Lee : We could work out these schedule differ- ences very quickly, Mr. Lee, if we could first, in my mind, find out whether, when we have worked them out and spent all this time, we were in the end going to say that we are further ad- vanced than when we started. I am ready to put up a proposition, put it flat to you on 35, and on "A," "B" and "C," if you are ready to meet it half way with a proposition. The Chairman: Well, I won't say right off the bat that I am going to flip a coin with you or anything of that sort, Mr. Lee, but if I understand your attitude is that you can't consider any of these things that we have been talking about, then we have got to take under consideration what the next step is to be, even provided that 35 was in effect. 512 Mr. W. G. Lee : Even provided that "A," "B" and "C" was in effect. If it means taking from these men the rules from the East to the West, and if it means applying your now interpreta- tion of the second paragraph of Article "I" to organizations where it has never been in effect, to territory where it has never been in existence, if that is what it means, why we will know that there is no use of our talking very much on that, because that would be making an entirely new proposition, while our proposition did not propose, never, to change a rule in any way, shape or form other than the overtime and the mileage or speed basis. The Chairman : Very true, but our proposition did, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : Yes. The Chairman : That is what we are trying to explain to you now. If it is your desire, if you only feel — Mr. W. G. Lee : If it is the desire of the other gentlemen to go on with this talkfest and hear all that, all right. What I would like is, in going over it, Mr. Lee, to either have your word as Chairman, that we can probably get together by "accepting 35, if you will accept 'A,' 'B' and 'C,' " and then we will try to find out what they mean, but I haven't heard anything of that kind. The Chairman : What we have gone on here, Mr. Lee, is on the assumption, right straight through, that neither side had offered or extended or accepted anything, in order to see how these things would apply, in order, also, that we could determine in our own minds, what we wanted to do on it. Mr. Garretson : I don't think that Mr. Lee is altogether aware of one phase of these questions and answers. After we had answered or made an exposition of what, from our standpoint, 35 meant, if you will bear in mind, then the request was made to you for an interpretation of what "A," "B" and "C" would mean, ap- plied on the basis of a possible acceptance of 35. At first there was — ^well, I want to describe it correctly — a sentiment on your part that the explanation as to how it would apply, could not or should not be given in detail. You remember that came out after the first question. The Chairman : Yes, the first discussion. I remember there was quite a little discussion on it, Mr. Garretson, and we finally came down to this: I think I took the position (as I remember it, I haven't the notes before me) that our proposition would not go into effect unless there was a change of base. 513 Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: And our proposition was dependent on what that change of base was, what the new base was. We dis- cussed and talked for quite a while on that and then you said, as I remember it, "Suppose ours was in .effect, we will suppose it is in effect" — Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: "How would your proposition apply?" Mr. Garretson: And we said to you that unless you were prepared to furnish an exposition of what effect those suggestions of yours, as contained in "A," "B" and "C" meant, that there was no need for going farther, because we felt that we were entitled to your interpretation of what you suggested, precisely as you'd be entitled — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : - — to the explanations that we had given of 35. The Chairman : And as you remember, I agreed with you. Mr. Garretson : Yes, and you took a recess for the purpose of preparing the reply as to those. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garreton : There is a chapter of it that Mr. Lee wasn't altogether familiar with, ifow, it seems to me that those ques- tions — the answers to those qiiestions — ^properly became a part of the record. I assume, as Mr. Lee does, that being prepared by the measure that has prepared the replies to the others, that those replies will be right in line with those that we have re- ceived, but to make the record more complete "on the answering of all the questions, it seems to me that we should have the other answers. The Chairman : Understand, we have no desire to burden the record, or to delay this thing in any way. Mr. Garretson : Xo. The Chairman: And we have the answers prepared, and we will be very glad to put them in the record if it is your de- sire. It is entirely your proposition. Mr. W. G. Lee: Take the last question, Mr. Lee, the one raised by Mr. Shea, on page 392, where an engine breaks down after making 25 miles ; sent back to terminal, I understood, and made the notation on my copy to the effect, while I didn't 514 get your exact language, it is to the effect that you would claim the right to disregard the rules in effect in that schedule. The Chairman : We'd pay them continuous time and mile- age under a case of that sort, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : But you'd disregard the rule that is now in effect? The Chairman : To a certain extent. I suppose that is cor- rect. Mr. W. G. Lee: Well, those are the points that I have in mind. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G. Lee : If that is true that your proposition means to disregard the rules on these various roads governing these things, it seemed to me that we have so many of them now that we knew what your answers would be to the others. That is my point. The Chairman : Well, it is perfectly agreeable to us, what- ever the other side wants. Mr. W. G. Lee : Perfectly agreeable to me. The Chairman : We are in a very receptive frame of mind as to putting them in, or leaving them out. Mr. W. G. Lee : Yes, perfectly agreeable to me. If your other answers are based along the lines of the ones that I have heard yesterday and today, why I have no objection to your go- ing ahead, but I already, I believe, know what your other answers will be, because you have practically answered the most of them. The Chairman: What is your desire, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson : Why, as far as I am concerned, it seems to me that when we propounded the questions that, of necessity, we would receive the answers. The Chairman : I am ready to give them to you. Mr. Garretson: Good. Mr. W. G. Lee : Go ahead. The Chairman: Now, I might say we have come down to the combination service rule. Mr. Crowley : Mr. Lee, bottom of page 302, book No. 6. The Chairman: Here is one that we have amplified to a certain extent, No. "C," in order that it may be plainer to you as to how we would apply it: "Two or more differently paid classes of service performed 515 in the same day, or trip, to be paid proportionate rates according to class of service, with not less than a minimum day for the combined service at the rate applying to the regular service of the man or crew." Mr. W. G. Lee: That is in answer to the question by Gar- retson at the bottom of 302 in reference to a brakeman making a short turn-around trip. The Chairman : No, Mr. Lee, that is just the general propo- sition that we would use in applying, in answering the question. The Chairman : "At the rate applying to the regular service of the man or crew." Mr. Shea, did you want to ask something? Mr. Shea : How would you apply that, Mr. Chairman, to combination service where the minimum day is involved, but where two different rates of pay are allowed? The Chairman : I am going to amplify that a little further. Perhaps it will make it clear to you, Mr. Shea, to this extent: "Crews required to perform two or more differently paid classes of service, during the same day or trip, will be paid at the rate and according to the rules governing each class of service for the time or miles engaged in each, but will be paid for combined service, not less than a minimum day at the rate applying to the regular serv- ice." It is the application of a portion of the Western Award rule to combination service, to all combinations. As I understand that Western Award, it did not apply in the case of yard service. Mr. Shea: No, sir. The Chairman: Just road service. Mr. Shea : The question I wanted to bring out was, assuming that an engineer made 50 miles in freight service on an engine that paid five cents per mile, he then went into the passenger ser- vice and made 50 miles on an engine that paid four cents and a half per mile. An answer to that question would bring out the information that I desire. The Chairman: Is there any overtime involved in that? Mr. Shea : No overtime involved. The Chairman: What is this on? Mr. Shea: Minimum day, made 50 miles in freight. The Chairman : Was he a regular freight man or a regular passenger man? Mr. Shea: It doesn't make any difference. He may be 516 an extra man. He made the first 50 miles in freight, consuming five hours, and then went into passenger service and made 50 miles in three hours. The Chairman: Yes. Well, these questions probably will bring out some of these points. That would come to |4.75, but he'd get the minimum day of whichever was his regular service. Mr. Shea : But he won't get the minimum day at the high- est rate applicable to either service. The Chairman : Highest? Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. The Chairman: Not under this proposition, no. Mr. Shea: As I understand it — The Chairman : It might, you know, but it won't necessarily. If his regular service was the freight service he'd get five dollars as a minimum. If he was a passenger man, he'd get four dollars and seventy-five cents because that would be greater than his minimum day of four dollars and fifty cents. Now, at the bottom of page 302, we will answer that question of Mr. Garretson's. "A brakeman makes a short turn-around, total of forty miles in five hours; is released. Allowance now is one day; one hour thereafter he is called, being an extra conductor, to run a train one hundred miles from that terminal, making such trip without overtime being earned." Mr. Garretson : You answered all of it except one — The Chairman : Here was the other question as I remember you put it. If he had not been released — Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : And called, but was properly sent out under schedule, and ran forty miles. Mr. Garretson : It would be just the same service. All the question is, if release didn't intervene, formal release? The Chairman: Yes; he'd be paid under this combination rule. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman : Page 304. Oregon Short Line, Mr. Dodge's question. Down about the third from the bottom paragraph, where it says, Mr. Dodge, Oregon Short Line, this is a yard ruling by the General Superintendent. "Yard crews required to perform serv- ice outside of yard limits will be paid for actual time in addition 517 to all other time made on that day. Yard crews loading stock outside yard limits for four hours receive, under this rule, one day of ten hours in yard service and four hours loading stock, total of 14 hours." He would be paid under this principle laid down, Mr. — Mr. Garretson : There is a misprint, evidently in that ques- tion. They received under this rule, one hour in yard service — ^it should have been one day, shouldn't it? Mr. Dodge: No. Where is 0. S. L.? Davis? Mr. Davis: Yes, sir. Mr. Dodge : Under that proposition they receive one day in yard service and one day in road service? Mr. Davis : No, sir, they receive one day in yard service and four hours — Mr. Dodge : Four hours overtime? Mr. Davis : Total time 10 hours on duty. The Chairman: How long did they work in yard? Mr. Murdock: Six hours. Mr. Dodge : He is six hours in yard and four hours on the road. Some schedules would give him a minimum day in each class of service. The Chairman: That is true, Mr. Dodge. Mr. Sheppard: What is the answer, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : I have just gotten the figures. Mr. Sheppard : Oh, pardon me. The Chairman: He is six hours in yard — Mr. Dodge : ■ — and four hours — The Chairman : — on the road. Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir. The Chairman: Yes, sir. Mr. Dodge : Loading stock. The Chairman: He'd be paid six hours in yard and four hours on the road if he didn't — ^you will have to tell me the miles on the road to find out just what it will be. Mr. Dodge: Loading stock. Made only ten miles, but he was four hours, or 40 miles. The Chairman : Say, ten miles. Mr. Dodge : Yes, and worked four hours. The Chairman : And worked four hours. 518 Mr. Dodge : My contention has always been that he is en- titled to two minimum days. Mr. Garretson : He would get a day's time and two hours' overtime, measuring with your yardstick. The Chairman : Say 10 miles — ran 10 miles. Mr. Sheppard : Have you finished with that, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman : I am just figuring it. He would get, it is figured on the Western rule, freight service, six hours on the road, three hours in yard — Mr. W. G. Lee : You have* got it on the eight-hour basis, haven't you? The Chairman : That is on the eight-hour basis. Six hours in yard, 10 miles on the road, and three and two-tenths hours' overtime, freight service. Mr. Davis : He is paid yard rates. Mr. Dodge : He is paid yard rates. Mr. Davis : Outside yard limits, he would receive yard rates. You can't pay it under road rates. Mr. W. G. Lee : Mr. Davis, this is the company's yardsticli. Mr. Davis : Yes, sir. Mr. W. G. Lee : This is what they can do under this propo- sition. So don't forget that your schedule is still in efEect out there, don't worry over that. Mr. Davis : Yes, sir. Mr. Sheppard : Mr. Chairman, have you finished with that? The Chairman : That particular question, yes. Mr. Sheppard : How do you reconcile this answer with that given in the Aransas Pass case, Avhere they were allowed a mini- mum day when they worked outside of assigned territory. I call attention to the fact that the yard crew has worked out of assigned territory. The Chairman : Why, Mr. Sheppard, I don't think this is a similar case, or an analogous case in any way. I can't see any analogy between the two at all. Mr. Sheppard: Well, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that both services were outside of assigned territory where the regular service was usually performed. The Chairman: Well, don't you recognize that yard crews work out of yard limits today, Mr. Sheppard? 519 Mr. Sheppard : When they do, they are outside of their as- signed territory, just like the man who went off of regular division. The Chairman : Well, I wouldn't understand it that way. Mr. Sheppard: All right. The Chairman : Page 305, middle of the page. Question: Kansas City Southern: Yard crew performs eight hours' Avork in yard service, required to go outside the yard and perform five hours' road service, total thirteen hours on duty. Kansas City Southern pays a day in yard service, and one day in road service. Eule reads: "When road crews are not avail- able, yard crews may be used for road work, when they will be paid not less than a minimum day for the road trip or trips, and not less than a minimum day for the yard work. Time so paid will cover the yard day of ten hours, plus the time or mileage on the road, but in no case to exceed thirteen hours' work for two days' pay. Eight hours in yard, miles and overtime, at twelve and a half miles per hour — in freight service. Mr. Dodge : That is, he'd get one day in yard service, eight hours, miles or hours for the last work of the day in the road service. The Chairman : With overtime, if his hours exceeded his miles, why, he'd get the overtime. Page 321, Book N^o. 7. Mr. Garretson : That would abolish the two minimum days. The Chairman: Yes. First page of Book No. 7, Erie Eailroad case, under rule 13-C: "An engineer now working in the yard eight hours, and then required to perform three hours' road service, would receive eight hours, or eighty miles yard rate, and one hundred miles road rate." What would he get under "A"? What would he get under our proposition? Answer: Eight hours at yard rates, miles and overtime if any. on a speed of twelve and a half miles per hour, road rates. Mr. Sheppard : You are modifying your statement of yes- terday in regard — The Chairman : Well, we didn't answer that one question. Mr. Garretson : Didn't answer that one yesterday, answered the one below. 520 Mr. Sheppard : Oh, I beg your pardon. The Chairman : That is 13-C, Mr. Sheppard. Page 322, Chi- cago, Milwaukee & Gary case. Article IV. "When an engineer performs two classes of service in one day, he is to be paid upon the basis of the highest rate for either class of work for entire day or trip. What effect would para- graph 'C have?" Then, Mr. Shea, I think you gave an example under that. Mr. Shea : Yes. The Chairman : As applied to firemen. "Crew called, made fifty miles in passenger service in two hours on an engine that pays two and a half cents per mile. They then go into freight service, and make a trip of fifty miles in five hours on an engine that pays four cents per mile. Under the schedule the fireman would be paid four dollars, which is the highest rate applicable. This would also apply to engineers with the exception that, of course, the rate would be higher. How would they be paid under Paragraph 'C "? Answer : Fifty miles on passenger at two and one-half cents, would be |1.25; fifty miles, and one hour overtime, at the time and a half would be two dollars and seventy-five cents. He would be paid $4. Mr. Shea : You computed overtime at a speed of twelve and a half miles per hour? The Chairman : Yes, sir. Mr. Shea: As applied to the 50 miles? The Chairman : In freight service. Mr. Shea: That he made in freight service? The Chairman : Yes, sir. Page 323, first large paragraph on the page. "Crew called for switching service, works 3 hours on an engine that pays the fireman f 2.50 for 10 hours ; they then go into freight service and make a trip of 25 miles in 3 hours on an engine that pays the fireman four cents per mile; they then go into passenger service and complete that trip, a distance of 50 miles, in 2 hours on an engirie that pays the fireman three cents per mile. Under the existing schedule the fireman would receive 3 hours in switching service, 3 hours in freight service, or equiva- lent to 60 miles, 50 miles in passenger service at the highest rate applicable for entire day's work, which is four cents per mile, or equivalent of 110 miles, or |4.40. What would he be paid under 'C of your proposition?" 521 Answer: Three hours, or three-eighths of a day switching at two and a half, for eight hours, ninety-three and three-quarters. Twenty-five miles freight and one hour overtime at time and a half, four cents a mile, |1.75. Fifty miles passenger at three cents, 11.50, or |1.18%— 14.19. Mr. W. G. Lee : Do I understand your proposition correctly, Mr. Lee, that it means that where schedules have rules providing an employee will take the highest rate of pay, where several classes of service are engaged in during the day, those are all to be dis- continued, and they take the actual hours at the rates provided for the different service? The Chairman : Well, that is our thought, Mr. Lee, that under the application of this proposition with the 8-hour day, 12% -mile speed basis, time and a half for overtime. Same page, a little further down : Missouri Pacific case. "When an engineer performs two classes of service in one day, he shall be paid upon the basis of the highest rate for either class of work or service." Under that rule if an engineer switches 5 hours in the yard, and then per- forms 5 hours' road service either in freight or work-train service, how would he be paid under your article? At the present time he would be paid the highest rate for the entire day, 5 hours or five-eighths of a day at switching rate, miles and overtime, if any, at 12% miles per hour speed basis in freight. It depends alto- gether on what miles he runs or how long he is out on it. If he is out there and does not make sufiicient miles to equal his hours, why he runs into overtime the same as he does in the Western Award rule. Mr. Shea : In other words, it is based on the same answer as preceding questions. The Chairman : Yes, sir. The Chairman: Oregon, Washington R. R. & Navigation Co., Article 7, Section 3. "In case of mixed service of any kind performed in same day, entire service will be paid for at freight rates, in no case will less than one day be allowed. A man worked three hours in switching service and four hours in road service, loading or unloading material. Total of seven hours. What would he be paid under 'C ?" Mr. W. G. Lee : The same answer, I suppose* The Chairman: Three hours or three-eighths of a day at switching rate, miles and overtime if any, at 12% miles per hour at 522 the road rate. These answers are all based on that same system of figures. Mr. W. G. Lee: Same system of figuring? Mr. Shea : I don't understand by that, Mr. Lee, in that ques- tion that the aggregate time for combined service would reach the minimum day. In such cases, how would your proposal apply? The Chairman: We understand, Mr. Shea, from your ex- planation of the application of the Western Award rule and time and a half, that, as I remember it, there was a case where the man had not consumed eight hours, yet had gotten an hour at time and a half, and this was based very largely on your explana- tion of that Western Award rule. Mr. Shea: I understand that, but they could not pay less than the minimum day at the highest rate applicable for any service performed. The Chairman : Yes, well, we have changed that to that ex- tent. Mr. Garretson: You abolished, then, the existence of the minimum day in those combined services? The Chairman : Oh, no. Mr. Garretson: Well, your answer seemed to outline that. The Chairman: Oh, no, no. Mr. Shea : Well, that was the question I asked. The Chairman : Gets a minimum day for the combined serv- ice at the rate applying to his regular service, regular service of the man or crew. Mr. Garretson : That is, he'd get a minimum day composed of three hours switching service and three-sevenths of a minimum day for switching and four-sevenths of a minimum day for road service? The Chairman : No, I don't think you have got it right, Mr. Garretson. Now, wait a minute; take, for instance, yard brake- men. Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: Now, paid what? Mr. W. G. Lee : Thirty-five cents. The Chairman: Thirty-five cents. It is a little hard to di- vide 35, but we will take 35. His rate would become, under your proposition, about 48 cents. Mr. W. G. Lee: Approximately. 523 Mr. Garretson : An eighth of |3.50. The Chairman: About 48 cents; we will take 48 cents for easy figuring. Mr. W. G. Lee : All right. The Chairman : He works three hours in the yard, 48 cents ; is on the road four hours. What is his rate now on the road? Mr. W. G. Lee: It differs in the territories, $2.78 in the West. The Chairman: Two seventy-eight. That is easy to divide. Make it thirty-five. Mr. W. G. Lee: Yes. The Chairman : What is his mileage rate, Mr. Lee? Mr. W. G. Lee : Mileage rate is the same. I think it is 28. The Chairman : We will call it two eight. Mr. W. G. Lee: It is different in different districts. The Chairman : Yes, and he runs 16 miles, eight miles out and eight miles back, consuming four hours in doing it. He would get three hours, yard, 48 cents. We will make it 12% in- stead of 16, then, because it is easier to figure. I get mixed up on these the same as you do. One ninety-five added to the three hours in yard makes |3.39. That would be three hours at yard, 48 cents, |1.44; 121/^ miles at two and eight-tenths cents per mile, with three hours overtime, making |1.95, or a total of |3.39 with a minimum day of $3.50, which was his regular service. He would get 13.50. Mr. Sheppard : The rule you are using is to put the actual fractions together; if they exceed a minimum day you get the actual figures; if they do not come up to the minimum day, you raise it to a minimum day? The Chairman : That is it. Mr. Dodge : Now, Mr. Lee — The Chairman : Mr. Dodge. Mr. Dodge : You made a statement this morning that it was not your intention to change any seniority rule, and the schedules state or read that roadmen have no rights in yards, and yardmen have no rights on the road, but in combining the yard and road service together, and allowing a yardman to perform road service, you do violate the seniority rule. The Chairman : In this question that I have just answered? Mr. W. G. Lee : In some of the ones you answered. 524 Mr. Dodge : In the one before that. I thought I could ask you the question under this because — The Chairman: Well, here is the question that was asked us, Mr. Dodge : In case of mixed service of any kind performed in same day, entire service will be paid for at freight rates. In no case will less than one day be allowed. I suppose this was a case that could actually happen? Mr. Dodge: Yes, a yardman might perform the service, and I wanted to just ask you the question. Perhaps I am a little ahead of time, but I thought I'd ask you if that wouldn't be chang- ing the man's seniority? . The Chairman : We have no desire, Mr. Dodge, to invade the seniority question. Mr. Dodge: Then as long as a yardman has no rights on the road and you use him on the road while other crews are lay- ing at the terminal, then you are changing the seniority rule. The Chairman: We are just answering this question, Mr. Dodge. Mr. Dodge : Well, I just asked you. The Chairman : Yes, suppose that was a yard crew. Mr. Murdock: Mr. Chairman, in the Oregon Short Line an- swer you gave, the rule recognized the fact that yard men have no road rights and road men have no yard rights. The Chairman: Which one, Mr. Murdock? Mr. Murdock : The one you have on page 302. Mr. Dodge: 304. Mr. Murdock: But there is also a provision there that if yard men are of necessity used outside of yard limits they will be paid an actual yard rate per hour for the time so occupied in addition to their minimum day in yard service. Now, in your answer I understood you to propose to pay them at road rates. If so, you'd be invading the seniority rights of the roadmen. The Chairman: We are merely answering these questions, Mr. Murdock, as I said. I have said it before, we had no intention of invading seniority districts or rights, but we have answered the questions as we find them regardless of what the balance of the schedule might contain. Mr. Murdock: These several answers invade the seniority rights as between road and yardmen. 525 The Chairman : I don't understand that we are attempting to do anything of that sort, Mr. Murdock. Mr. W. G. Lee: Well, Mr. Chairman, your answer to some of those yard questions where yon were combining service — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. W. G Lee: Did without question interfere with sen- iority as between road and yard men. I noticed it because, per- sonally, I understand your yardstick, as you call it, to do what- ever you care to do in the Avay of figuring time. And I wasn't bothering you with that very question. The Chairman : Well, Avhatever the yardstick would per- mit in figuring time, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : Yes, but when you take yard rates of pay, and yard seniority where the rules provide plainly and positively that they hold no rights on the road, and vice versa, and then combine four hours of yard service at road rates of pay, as you did in one of your answers, with six hours of road work, I'd quit asking questions as to that. The Chairman : Well, shall we proceed? Top of page 324. Southern Pacific System, Article 14, Sec- tion 4-A: In case an engineer performs service in passenger and freight, under the provisions of this section, full freight rates for the entire service will be allowed. A man runs forty miles in freight service and forty niiiles in passenger service, under the present schedule he will be paid a full day at freight rates, with a minimum of one hundred miles. What would he be paid under Paragraph "C"? Answer: He would be paid forty miles and overtime, if any, at twelve and a half miles per hour in freight, forty miles and overtime, if any, at passenger overtime speed basis in pas- senger with not less than a minimum day, where not less than a minimum day is provided for the entire service. Mr. Shea: Well, a minimum day at what rate? The Chairman : Whatever his regular rate was, Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : Assuming that he was a pool man. The Chairman: Freight man? Not less than through freight rate. Next one, Wabash: "When two classes of service are per- formed in one day or trip, the engineer will receive pay for trip 526 at the Mgher rate when not otherwise provided for." What effect would your Paragraph "C" have on a rule of that kind? The principle as laid down, I think ; shows there is no specific example. Baltimore & Ohio Railway, Article 27- A: "When an engineer performs two or more different services in one day or trip, he shall receive the higher rate for the entire service." That is only a part of the rule. That is all that is applicable. Under that rule an engineer switches five hours and performs road service of some kind for five hours at the present time ; he would receive a full day of ten hours at the higher rate for the entire service. What would Paragraph "C" do to him? Answer: Five hours or five-eighths of a day switching at switching rate, miles and overtime if any, at 12% miles per hour in freight service, at freight rate. The example isn't extended enough to answer it definitely. The Big Four, Article 3 : "When two or more classes of ser- vice are performed in one continuous trip or day's work, the en- ginemen will be paid for the trip or day's work at the highest rate applicable to any part of the service performed. Would that article still remain in effect if Paragraph "C" was adopted or what effect would it have upon that article? Answer : The article speaks for itself. Mr. Stone: You mean the yardstick speaks for itself? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : The rule would be eliminated. The Chairman: Superseded. Mr. Garretson : Superseded, that is a good word. The Chairman : That would be a better word. Mr. W. G. Lee: I have been using "kill," as a rule, I will take yours now. The Chairman : Yes, I think it is a better word. Delaware & Hudson, Article IV : "Engineers and firemen in mixed service or doing different classes of service in one day's as- signment will be paid freight rates according to class of service and engine used. A man switches for three hours, works in short pas- senger work for two hours with a minimum of 40 miles work, four hours in freight service, making 40 miles. Answer : He will be paid a minimum of 100 miles for day's service at the freight rate according to class of engine. Three hours switching — 527 Mr. Stone: I think that is wrong. I am not sure, but I haven't got the notes here. Go ahead. I think the computation is wrong. The Chairman: That is one that we were a little in doubt about, and we have to answer that with a qualification as to just how your proposition would apply. Three hours switching, three- eighths of a day, at switching rate, 40 miles at passenger rate, 40 miles in freight and 48 minutes overtime, at time and one-half at freight rates. That undoubtedly would make it more than a minimum day in any class of service. Pennsylvania Lines West, Article 35. "Unless the rates of pay so specify, engineer assigned to two or more classes of service in one day will receive the highest rate of pay for the entire period. A man switches for 4 hours in yard service, does construction work for 2 hours, is 4 hours in freight service, a total of 10 hours. Will be paid the highest rate for the entire service. What would he be paid under paragraph 'C?" Answer: Four hours or four-eighths of a day switching at yard rate. Miles and overtime, if any, at 121/2 miles per hour in construction service. Miles and overtime, if any, at 12% miles per hour in freight service. That is assuming that the construction work is differently paid from freight service. Queen & Crescent, North, Article 9. "Engineers required to perform different classes of service in one day or one trip will be paid for all work done during the entire day or trip at the high- est rate applicable to any class of service required. If an engi- neer is in construction work or work-train service for 4 hours, is in wrecking service for 2 hours, and in freight service for 3 hours, he would be paid a minimum day at the highest rate for that serv- ice now, and on some divisions he would be paid an hour's over- time, because time would begin one hour before time called to leave. What effect would paragraph 'C have?" Miles and over- time in work-train, A^-recking service, miles and overtime in freight service. Seaboard Air Line. "Engineers in two classes of service on same trip, straight-away or turn-around, will be paid higher rate. Here we have a man working 3 hours in each class of service dur- ing the same day. Under this rule he would be paid a minimum day at the highest rate. How would 'C affect him?" There is no example there, so we just have to quote the rule. 528 Southern Eailway, Article 13. "Engineers working in two or more classes of services on the same trip between terminals, will be paid for all work done at the highest rate applicable to any class of service in which they have been engaged. Time on such trip to be continuous from the time engineers are ordered to re- port at terminal until they are relieved at terminal on arrival. I think that ought to be at arrival — Mr. Garretson : On arrival at terminal. The Chairman : On arrival at terminal, or in accordance with other provisions of the agreement. Overtime to be computed on the highest speed basis or the shortest daily basis, applicable to any class of service performed in that trip. Mr. Garretson: That is another case of supersede. The Chairman: Yes. 76. Virginian. Article 14, para- graph 9 : "In road assignments, when an engineer performs two or more different classes of service in one day or trip, he shall receive the highest rate for the entire service. Under this rule a man works three hours in freight service, making 40 miles; he works four hours in construction service, or work-train service, and he would receive a day at the highest rate according to class of engine, for the entire day at the present time. What would he receive under paragraph 'C'?" Forty miles in freight service, four hours and overtime, if any, at 12i/^ miles per hour in con- struction or work-train service, with a guarantee of a minimum day at rate provided. Assume construction service is differently paid from freight, if not, combined. On the International and Great Northern K. E. the schedules provide the following rule: "Switch engineers and firemen in yard service will be allowed 100 miles at through freight rate for going outside of yard limits. This is in addition to ten hours for yard service." Example: Switch crew works in the yard from seven A.M. until three P.M., exclusive of dinner hour. They are then ordered to go out of the yard limits a distance of ten miles round trip pulling in a train that had been tied up under the hours of service law, which consumed two hours, making a total of ten hours from the time they were called until final release. Under the schedule rule above quoted, crew would be entitled to 100 miles at through freight rates and ten hours in yard service. How would they be compensated under paragraph "C" of the Company's proposition? 529 Eight hours at switching rate, ten miles and one hour and 12 minutes' overtime at time and one-half at freight rate. El Paso and Southwestern : "Crew called at six A.M. for turn-around passenger service of 50 miles, making trip in four hours. At arrival at terminal same crew called to make a turn- around trip of 50 miles in freight service, using four hours. At completion of trip — freight trip — same crew called for work- train service, tying up at six P.M. Total time on duty, 12 hours. Under the present schedule they would be paid 100 miles pas- senger, 100 miles freight and one day work-train. What would they be paid under paragraph "C"? Fifty miles and overtime, if any, under the schedule at passenger rate; 50 miles at freight rate. Miles and overtime, if any at 121/2 miles per hour in work- train service. It assumes work-train service is differently paid than freight; if not, combine freight and work-train for compu- tation. Page 329 : Wheeling & Lake Erie case. Mr. W. G. Lee : Did you answer that yesterday? There are two paragraphs in the printed minutes. The Chairman : Well, it is the latter half of it, of the para- graph, where it says Wheeling & Lake Erie schedule, page 23, gen- eral rule No. 5: "When crews in local freight service are used in other service before starting or after completing a full day or trip, it will not be classed as combined service, and time will be allowed for each class of service performed. Under this rule a crew used in two services, although the time period may not cover more than 15 hours or a lesser number of hours, would re- ceive not less than a minimum day in each service, and each service computed and paid for separately. Mr. W. G. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I have that answered in my notation. The Chairman : Well, that was answered, then ; we got it mixed. Mr. W. G. Lee : In this, what would be paid under existing rule. The Chairman : That is the lower one, Mr. Lee. Mr. W. G. Lee : That is where I have got the mistake. That is what I wanted to correct here. The Chairman : Yes, that is not a combination proposition; that would be paid under "A"? 530 Mr. W. G. Lee : All right. All right, I had the wrong page. Mr. Sheppard: Paid under "A"? The Chairman : Yes, under "A," under the yardstick of "A." Mr. Sheppard : That is if it was before, it would be con- tinuous; after finishing the day, they'd get another day? The Chairman : Yes. Page 330, Baltimore & Ohio, page 7 in pamphlet issued, and in effect August 1, 1915, is found the following : 5-d : "If crews in freight service while en route are withdrawn from the service for which they were originally called, or assigned to, and placed in any other class of service between or for the balance of the day or trip, will be paid for such additional service on the basis of miles or time, whichever is the greater, at the highest rate applicable to the two classes of service, performed, added to the actual miles or time in the original service. First service to be not less than minimum day separate and apart from the other service. This does not contemplate the payment of double time. Mr. Garretson: It would cancel the rule in regard to the minimum day for the first service. The Chairman: How is that, Mr. Garretson? Mr. Garretson: It would cancel that portion which paid a minimum day for the first service in which they were engaged. The Chairman : Separate from the other? Mr. Garretson: Yes. The Chairman: You see that rule doesn't contemplate pay- ing double time, either. Mr. Garretson : But what it does is to cancel that rule. The Chairman: Yes, it supersedes it. I like that word better. Mr. Garretson : You put it into future tense. It will super- cede it, if adopted. The Chairman: True. Mr. Garretson: Another example follows it. The Chairman: Another follows right on it? Mr. Garretson : Yes. Just in the middle of the paragraph. Second one starts — The Chairman : No. 3, found on page 8 of the same pamphlet. "Local freight crew on run 'A' to 'D'; time on duty from term- inal to terminal, 12 hours, distance 90 miles, arrived at C (yard en route where yard engine is stationed all or part time each week ) , 531 perform four hours' yard switching, handling cars other than those in connection with their own train. Crew works eight hours on road and is entitled to one minimum day at local freight rates, plus one hour for yard service at 45 cents per hour for conduc- tors, and yard rate paid at that point for brakemen. May be seen here also that it is recognized as two services and not as com- bined service." That would come under yardstick "A," not under "C." Page 331. Mr. Sheppard : Starts on 330, doesn't it, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman : That is what I was trying to find out. Mr. Garretson : It starts just following the second line from the other. Another instance where yardmen are sent out of yard to bring trains to terminal (found on page 6 of the same pamph- let), where a yard crew is required to pull in train to terminal "A," the crew will receive not less than minimum day for bringing train to terminal "A," plus not less than a minimum day in yard service for the yardman, except as provided in General Manager's ruling of Jan. 8, 1915. Mr. Sheppard : Should be yardmen, Mr. Chairman? Yard- men? The Chairman : Yardmen. Then the exception is quoted. That would be paid under this proposition. Mr. Sheppard : Your proposition? The Chairman : Yes, sir. Kansas City Southern, page 331, bottom of the page. Article IV, Section 4-E, reads as follows : "Freight crews performing more than one class of service on one run, will be paid the high- est rate for all work done on the run." Same schedule, page 15, Article IV, Sec. 5-A, is found this language : "More than 12 hours in combination through freight and work-train service performed, not less than a minimum day in each class of service," in that case after 12 hours not less than 2 days' pay would be paid under paragraph "C" ? The Chairman : The principle would apply in that case. I think that cleans them up, doesn't it? Mr. Stone : No, there is one, a question of Mr. Garretson, two questions. 532 Mr. Garretson : No, that was answered. Mr. Stone : Oh, was it? Mr. Garretson : That was not combined service ; that was that Aransas Pass question. The Chairman : The question has been answered. Mr. Garretson : It leaves the rule in effect. There is a ques- tion on 335 that I have no record of having been answered. It is in regard to a freight man running a certain distance and then displacing a passenger conductor, who, for any reason, is unable to proceed with his train, and for the method of payment that will obtain. It only involves the payment of two classes of service, and it really is not of special importance in the face of the other answers that have been given. Many of the others cover the same point, exactly. The Chairman : One hundred miles and overtime, if any, at 12% miles per hour in freight service ; 200 miles and overtime, if any, under passenger schedule. How he would be paid for pas- senger in the West depends on the individual schedules. You mentioned the other day there were a whole lot of different ones. Mr. Shea : Before you get off that question, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman : Mr. Shea. Mr. Shea : In view of your definition of the minimum day in combination service, I'd like your answer on the following ques- tion : We have regular pool service on certain railroads where they have regular assignments, and use Mallet or Mikado engines, Mallet engines paying the firemen |4.25 per 100 miles and the Mikado paying $3.75 per hundred miles. One of the firemen in this pool is called to fire a passenger train of 50 miles, consum- ing 3 hours at two five-tenths cents per mile. He then goes into freight service for 50 miles, consuming three hours on an engine that pays the fireman two and seven-tenths cents per mile. What would he be paid under your proposal? The Chairman : He runs passenger for 50 miles — Mr. Shea: In three hours. The Chairman: In three hours. Mr. Shea : At two and five-tenths cents per mile. The Chairman : And he runs freight — Mr. Shea: Fifty miles. The Chairman : Three hours at two and seven-tenths cents. Mr. Shea: Yes, sir. He is a regular pool man, mind you. 533 where Ms regular assignment is on an engine that pays him f4.25 or $3.75, respectively. The Chairman: Yon mean he is taken off that? Mr. Shea : Yes, he is taken out of his pool service. The Chairman: Well, that seems kind of complicated, Mr. Shea. I thought I could answer that right off the bat. Can you give me the road? It would depend on what the rules were. Mr. Shea : Well, take practically all of our Western roads in the Western Arbitration. The Chairman : Take Western Arbitration. Mr. Walber : How does this regular freight man get put on this passenger run? Mr. Shea: Sir? Mr. Walber : How is this regular freight man taken off of regular freight train service and put on passenger run? Mr. Shea : Well, he is a regular pool man, and at his terminal there is a temporary vacancy in passenger service and he is called to fire this engine in passenger service that pays two and five- tenths cents per mUe ; but during his trip over the road, after he makes 50 miles, he goes into freight service and completes his trip, 50 additional miles, on an engine that pays two and seven-tenths cents per mile. Now, in view of your definition of the minimum day in combination service, it occurred to me to ask just how you would apply it to this particular case, which is liable to occur at any time. The Chairman : What would he get today, Mr. Shea, under that? Mr. Shea : He would get, under the Western Arbitration Award, the highest rate applicable for either service, which would be $2.70 per 100 miles, and overtime, if any overtime accrued. The Chairman : Yes. Well, you say any road in the West- em Arbitration. Don't they have different rules governing their promotions and as to going from passenger to freight, and such things, Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea : Oh, no. In a case that I have cited it is an emergency case. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Shea : In the case that I have cited it is an emergency case, and, of course, they would have the right to call a fireman to perform emergency service. 534 The Chairman : Oh, I understand. Any road would have that right. The question that arose in my mind was as a general proposition, what those would pay. You say he would be paid $2.70 ; that is my understanding of your proposition. Mr. Shea : Yes, sir. The Chairman: Well, I wouldn't like to answer that right off the bat because there are some complications to it. Mr. Shea : I understood your definition was that in a case like that, where the combined service did not equal or exceed the minimum day, he would be paid a minimum day at the rate gov- erning the class of service in which he was regularly assigned. The Chairman : Yes, that is the wording of it, Mr. Shea, and I can see where a complication might come in. We will have to straighten that out for you. Mr. Garretson : Well, does that end your list of answers, Mr. Lee? The Chairman: That ends the list of answers, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson: Well, now we would like information on this: We have explained to you in detail from our own stand- point the widest interpretation that could be put upon the proposi- tions embodied in 35. We have received your answers to the various questions that were propounded in regard to how your "A," "B" and "C" would apply to existing schedules on the as- sumption of the possibility that 35 might be accepted. Therefore, we have both elicited all the information that is virtually possible in regard to a tentative condition that might arise, no matter how remote the possibility. Therefore, we are saying to you because this becomes necessary in the face of the declaration tjiat was made some days since, that we wouldn't assume your application of anything there until there was a specific declaration in terms to that effect. We are nt)w asking you for that declaration and terms as to whether or not you are ready to accept and apply the propositions contained in 35, modified by your application of your tentative proposition or unmodified by them. The Chairman : Are you prepared, Mr. Garretson, to make that offer? Mr. Garretson : Make what offer? 535 The Chairman: Offer to accept a modification of special Form 35 as outlined here. Mr. Garretson: We are not, and if I had been, I would have phrased it differently. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson: I said, were you prepared to accept them modified by, or unmodified by — The Chairman : Then, I understand your position to be this : That even if we told you that we would accept your proposition, modified by ours, you couldn't accept it? Mr. Garretson: I will go along with you on that by the substitution of one word, that if you made that proposition we would not accept it, for I want it distinctly understood we could. The Chairman: Yes. Very well, that brings up then this situation as I see it. Mr. Garretson : Bear in mind, I am bringing this up. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : To demonstrate the question of authority. The Chairman : Exactly so. I understand you to be in this position, that you cannot accept the modification that we propose of special Form 35 Mr. Garretson : There is no man — bear in mind I will make it definite, there is no man on this side of the table who would accept the application of 35 with the modifications explained by you as necessary to an interpretation of the three tentative sug- gestions, I am describing them in your own language, that is what I want to make plain — there is no man here, who would recom- mend their acceptance with those limitations. The Chairman: Well, that brings us, Mr. Garretson, then to a pretty serious position, doesn't it? Mr. Garretson : It does. There is no — The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : And there is no use mincing the matter. The Chairman: And there is no use delaying the matter any more than is absolutely necessary. Mr. Garretson : No, neither of us want that. The Chairman : No, we are both under considerable expense ; we realize that. Mr. Garretson: We are. 536 The Chairman : And there is no use playing with the thing any more, when we have come to the point where we have posi- tively made up our minds that we cannot possibly agree. Mr. Garretson : There it is. The Chairman : Yes. Now, I will say this to you. This thing is, to our mind as well as to yours, quite a serious propo- sition. It involves the conductors, the engineers, and the fire- men and trainmen of this whole great country of ours. It in- volves substantially all the railroads in this same country and it seems to me, Mr. Garretson, that we cannot break until we are definitely prepared to say to each other, "We're done." Now, what I want to do is this. I am going to adjourn today, and we will definitely tell you whether or not we want to modify our proposition any, in view of your statement, and we will definitely tell you how we stand on the whole business. Mr. Garretson: Well, when, Mr. Lee? The Chairman : Tomorrow morning, I think. Mr. Garretson: I want to make this perfectly apparent. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : I am absolutely in accord with your own statement that when it has become reasonably apparent that there is no possible convergence of our lines of procedure in regard to these propositions, or as to our conclusions on these propositions of ours and yours, that it is an utter waste of time for us to spend it in conference until it has gotten to a stage where authority in both directions is equal — I don't mean in both directions as applied to you and us. I mean to ourselves and very probably to yourselves in your own relation with those you represent, and in our relation with those we represent. We have an immense settling power on this side of the table. The power of initiative lies altogether with our rank and file. You bear in mind, we can't declare war, no matter how radical or how misled we may be; we can't declare war without the consent and ap- proval of that rank and file. We can settle at any stage of the game, but a settlement would be absolutely valueless that was counter to the desire of that rank and file, and if it went suf- ficiently counter to it, it would be within the range of probability that they would repudiate it, and that is the last thing you want, as well as we do. The Chairman : Absolutely. 537 Mr. Garretson : We don't mind the fellow to say "Hari-kari" in back of us, but a settlement that is not a settlement, is utterly undesired from both standpoints. The Chairman : Valueless, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : When we put these things back to the mem- bership, then we have the power in both directions that now we only have in one. We can then speak authoritatively. We are not more unmindful than are you of the gravity of this situation. The men who sit on this side of the table have carried those re- sponsibilities for many years, and through many crises similar in character to the one that is now before us. Because this is a preliminary crisis, not the final one, but it is one that no man who takes his responsibilities seriously either to himself or to those that he represents, or to those against whom he is pitted — ^because we are not unmindful of the fact that we have responsibilities to you just as you have to us. The Chairman : Absolutely, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : And we are further mindful of this fact : You and we are both parts of this great public that was so feel- ingly referred to yesterday. We are a factor in it, and we stand in a dual relation to it. We are not only representatives of these two interests, but we are parties of that body. The Chairman : Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : And as those parts we hold a responsibility to them that we are not losing sight of by any means. But we owe this to them, and now I use the "we" collectively, for you and us, that this be disposed of with the utmost promptness that we can avail ourselves of, without being charged with intemperate action. Now, we will be glad to meet you at ten tomorrow morn- ing. The Chairman: I did not want you to misunderstand, Mr. Garretson, my remarks in any way. When I spoke of the respon- sibilities I was not only speaking of our own; I included yours as well. Mr. Garretson : I know, I realize that. The Chairman : Yes. Now, I will say — I will say this, Mr. Garretson, I will say at 10 o'clock to- morrow morning, tentatively. If we would desire a little bit more time, we will let you know. Mr. Garretson: Undoubtedly. Bear in mind, in a matter 538 of this kind we are not accepting a hard and fast rule. We are open to the same rule — ^well, to quote from a very distinguished authority, "We are open to a rule of reason." The Chairman: Yes, well,, the only thought I had in mind was, we want to go over this thing very carefully before we say finally to you that we are done, and with 18 men to line up and two or three additionals, you perhaps can't get them together as quickly as you can three or four. The Chairman : We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, subject to confirmation. MINUTES OF MEETINGS held between the NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE of the RAILWAYS and the BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Held at the ENGINEERING SOCIETIES BUILDING, NEW YORK JUNE 15. 1916 No. 11 The Masteb Reporting Co., Official Reporters, 220 W. 42d Street, New York Representing the National Conference Committee of the Railways Elisha Lee, Chairman. P. R. Albright, C. W. Kotjns, Gen'l Manager, A. C. L. R. R. Gen'l Manager, A. T. & S. F. Ry, C. L. Babdo, H. W. McMastbb, Gen'lManager, N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Gen'l Manager, W. & L. E. R. R. E. H. CoAPMAN, N. D. Mahbb, Vice-Pres., Southern Ry. Vioe-Pres., N. & W. Ry. Q -p, r' Jambs Rttssbll, Gen'l Meager, Wabash Ry. ^^^^ ^ ^'^^^''' ^- ^ ^- «• ^■-^- A. M. SCHOYEB, P. E. Ckowlbt, ResidentVice-Pres.,Penna. Lines West Asst. Vice-Pres., N. Y. C. R. R. ^_ ^ g^^^„^^ G. H. Emerson, Vice-Pres., S. A. L. Ry. Gen'l Manager, Great Northern Ry. A. J. Stone, „ „ „ Vice-Pres., Erie Railroad. C.H. Ewtng, Gen'l Manager, P. & R. Ry. ^- „ ^ '^' ,^ „,, Vice-Pres. and Gen 1 Manager, Sunset E. W. Gbice, Central Lines. Gen'l Supt. Transp., C. & O. Ry. J. W. Higgins. A. S. Greig, C- P- N^"^- Asst. to Receiver, St. L. & S. F. R. R. J- G- Walber. Representing the Organizations A. B. Gabbetson, Pres., O. R. C. W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E. W. G. Lee, President, B. of R. T. Timothy Shea, Asst. Pres., B. of L. F. & E. (Representing W. S. Carter, Pres., B. of L. F. & E.) L. E. Sheppard, Senior Vice-Pres., O. R. C. T. R. Dodge, Asst. Pres., B. of R. T. James Mtjhdock, Second Vice-Pres., B. of R. T. G. H. Sines, Third Vioe-Pres., B. of R. T. 539 New York, N. Y., June 15, 1916. Met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2.30 P.M., Mr. Elisha Lee in the Chair. The Chairman: At our meeting of yesterday, we told you that we would go over the thing and consider it and advise you of any proposition or give you an answer on the whole affair this morning. I have got some papers here — it is a regular form, a regular letter — and I will read it into the record. [Reading.] Messrs. A. B. Gakretson, President, Order of Eailway Conductors; W. S. Stone, Grand Chief Engineer, Brotherhood of Locomo- tive Engineers ; W. G. Lee, President, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Timothy Shea, Assistant President, Brotherhood of Locomo- tive Firemen and Enginemen, representing W. S. Carter, President of Brotherhood of Locomo- tive Firemen and Enginemen : Gentlemen : The National Conference Committee of the Railways has carefully considered your proposals and your explanations of their meaning and intended application. In our judgment, no reasons developed during our conferences to justify the extraordinary changes in operating methods and practices and the large expenditures for additional f acilites which your proposals involve ; nor was anything presented to justify your requested radical revision of the established bases of compensation for men in engine, train and yard service. The present rates and rules are largely the result of recent arbitration awards and, in our judgment, now provide for the men liberal compensation and favorable working conditions. Moreover, the best obtainable esti- mates indicate that to accept your proposals would increase- the cost of operation of the railroads approximately |100,000,000 . a year, all of which must eventually be borne by the public. We are confident that you and the men you represent appre- ciate the responsibilities of this Committee to three substantial in- terests, viz : 540 I. (A) To the employees here involved whose efficient service is acknowledged and with whom the railways have no differences which cannot be considered fairly and decided justly by some impartial body. (B) To all other employees of the railways whose material welfare should not suffer because of the preferment of any par- ticular group of fellow-workers. II. To the owners of the railways who have a right to par- ticipate in the earnings of their business on a fair and equitable basis. III. To the public who are vitally interested in the main- tenance of an uninterrupted and efficient transportation service, and whose ultimate control of the situation we all recognize as fundamental. We reiterate the statement given by the railways to their men and repeated by you to this Committee, that the railways have no desire to change either the existing rates of pay or work- ing rules, nor to reduce the earning possibilities of the employees under their existing schedules ; but your proposals, in connection with the interpretations given during our conferences, are so inherently and fundamentally opposed to the views of this Com- mittee, that we feel constrained to decline, and do hereby decline them. Our conferences have demonstrated that we cannot harmonize our differences of opinion and that eventually the matters in controversy must be passed upon by other and disinterested agencies. Therefore, we propose that your proposals (consisting of Articles I to IV inclusive, referred to during our conferences as Form 35) and the propositions of the railways, viz : "That in connection with and as a part of the consideration and disposi- tion of your proposals there shall be open for consideration and disposition those provisions in the schedules or practices there- under governing compensation in the classes of service affected by your proposals or those in conflict with the following prin- ciples as they apply to such classes : "A. No double compensation for the same time or service. "B. The same classification for the purposes of compensa- tion to be applied to all members of a train and engine crew. "C. Two or more differently paid classes of service per- 541 formed in the same day or trip to be paid proportionate rates, according to class of service with not less than a minimum day for the combined service" be disposed by one or the other of the following methods : 1. Preferably by submission to the Interstate Commerce Commission, the only tribunal which, by reason of its accumu- lated information bearing on railway conditions and its control of the revenue of the railways, is in a position to consider and protect the rights and equities of all the interests affected, and to provide additional revenue necessary to meet the added cost of operation in case your proposals are found by the Commis- sion to be just and reasonable; or, in the event the Interstate Commerce Commission cannot, under existing laws, act in the premises, that we jointly request Congress to take such action as may be necessary to enable the Commission to consider and promptly dispose of the questions involved ; or 2. By arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law, entitled "An Act Providing for Mediation, Con- ciliation and Arbitration in Controversies between certain Em- ployers and their Employes," approved July 15, 1913, and com- monly known as the Newlands Act. This Committee urges the most careful consideration of the proposal herein made for submission of the controversy to a federal tribunal to the end that a peaceable and equitable ad- justment may be brought about. Very truly yours, The National Confbkence Committee op the Railways^ By Elisha Lee^ Chairman. Mr. Garretson : The declination of the National Conference Committee to grant the propositions contained in "35" is noted and accepted as a refusal. In regard to the propositions that are made as to a method of settlement, we will say in re- gard to the first one, that following the choice of a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission as an arbitrator by one of the prominent railways here represented, that Commission itself took action that for the future prohibited its members from acting in that capacity, on the ground that a member of the Com- mission — now I am not attempting to quote verbatim— The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Garretson : But I am attempting to quote the reason 542 that thiey based their action upon, that they, being the' rate fixing body, assumed a responsibility in connection therewith, in determ- ining questions of increases of compensation that seemed to attach to them in their opinion, a second duty, namely, to consider it in connection with rates, and that was what they declined to do. Therefore, the Commission as it stands under its present or its past declaration, would, I have no doubt, consider itself incompetent, and if it did not, there would be no tendency on our part to make that a tribunal that would dispose of a question of wages, which we had under consideration with your Committee, for one reason, at least, that we have always combated the idea that a government tt'ibunal was empowered to fix wages any more than it was em- powered to fix the price of an ordinary commodity. Therefore, we do not favorably look upon Proposition No. 1 as a means of settlement. As for arbitrating the questions, the question of arbitration does not need to be dealt with further than its present phase. The attitude of the membership of these organizations, as long as arbitration was an untried fact, not a principle, was largely favor- able to arbitration. Our experiences with arbitration have driven a very large proportion of the membership of these organizations into an attitude of opposition to that method of settling the ques- tion, largely growing out of inability to secure neutral arbitrators who are able to grasp the intricacies of the questions that neces- sarily come before them for decision. The experience of various men behind the table is as wide as our own, that is, the combined experience in dealing with ar- bitrations that are of recent occurrence, and you have been im- pressed as fully as we have with the inability of men who have been chosen, first, to grasp the details of the problems that were put up to them, and their application as they would occur practi- cally ; and second, their inability to incorporate in language what their actual intent in many cases was. You have seen instances where, under the method of arbitra- tion that is proposed, arbitrators of undoubtedly honest intents men of as high intellectual and moral standing as exist, actuated only by the desire to do the right, found themselves confronted^ after they had written it in, what they believed, perfectly intelligi- ble language, with a lack of power to apply that language with the meaning that they intended it should convey ; counsel, which 543 they employed, told them that it was an impossibility to right what they believed was a wrong that they had done. Growing out of all these varying experiences, that sentiment to which I be- fore referred, has become more than common or general among the members of these organizations, and I say to yon very frankly, speaking for myself, my associates being free to subscribe to or to differ from that view, that until a condition has arisen which threatens the interruption of traffic (and that condition cannot arise until the rank and file have spoken, regardless of all ideas that may have been maintained or been formulated to the con- trary), until that condition arises I, as the representative of the men behind me, will never agree to arbitrate at this stage of the game. You will bear in mind that that sentiment has become so strong in the membership of these organizations that they have only been induced to abandon going on record as inexorably op- posed, through the personal influence of the men on whose behalf I am now speaking to you. Only the strongest effort that could be put forward has in- duced the men to abandon expressing in set form a positive in- struction to their representatives not to again engage in an arbi- tration of those questions. We recognize as fully as you can, that a condition coxild readily arise where the existence of an instruction of that kind would be deadly dangerous to all inter- ests involved. In the efl'ort to subvert any such condition aris- ing, to make it impossible, it has been necessary on the part of some of these men to give their personal pledge that questions of that character should be referred to the membership. Therefore, you can readily understand that even if the offer appealed to us, it would be impossible for us to accept a proposition at this time, when no man can truly say that the interruption of traffic is threatened, because no man sitting at this table can decide these things. If, in a moment of heat, he threatened that this or that would result, it would be an unwarranted expression, until such time as the necessary majority of the men, themselves, had made the declaration that warranted such utterance. As I said to you yesterday, we have at the present time im- mense settling power. When that is exercised in a way that it carries Avith it the adherence, the obedience of the men whom we represent, it can have the beneficial aspects. There is no initiative vested in us, nor are we justified in assuming that such means 544 would even be tolerated by the membership, until they have had their opportunity of expression thereon. You will remember that the terms of the Newlands Act, that is referred to, only justifies interference when that is threatened, and no man has the right to assume that it is threatened until the authoritative voice has been given, becaiise the secondary sanction of the officers of these organizations can only follow after they have so been authorizedP by the men. Therefore, we do not recognize at this time that method as a solution of the problem that we can become a party to. If the attitude of the Managers' Committee is absolute declination of the propositions that we have submitted to you, there is nothing left for us to do but go back to those men with an absolute statement of facts as they are, and make apparent to them, first, that we have presented, in its broadest form, full expo- sition of the meaning and the application of the propositions which they had formally endorsed and made theirs. Second, that we had received from you an interpretation of the suggestions which you presented, measured by a yardstick of your own crea- tion, and to present to them our conclusion as to the result of what would be the application of those propositions. I say this to you in all frankness, the men at home will never go into an arbitration in which are embodied principles that will deprive them of the ability to sell time. That they now sell to their com- panies as an offset to the propositions that we have presented to you in the event that they were accepted. You bear in mind, I don't want you to misunderstand that phrase. Had a proposition come from you that, in our opinion carried with it elements of equity, that made possible the recommendation on our part for the relinquishment of certain of those things, then the power was vested here to have recommended that form of settlement either to the body behind us or to the body of the men at home, but when the tentative proposition came in a way that we could not give it that recommendation, you take from us the power to use the good offices that we would gladly use, because we cannot put them (those good offices) behind a proposition that appears to us utterly untenable. The Chairman: I can readily understand that, Mr. Gar- retson. We all recognize that there is bound to be difference of opinion on many, if not all, subjects. What you might con- 545 sider fair and equitable under certain circumstances, we might not, and vice versa. What we would consider fair and equitable under certain circumstances, you would not. That is why we say in that letter that it looks to us as though our differences of opinion cannot be harmonized between ourselves. Mr. Garretson: There is what we are up against. Now, frankly, I will say this to you : It is due to you ; it is due to us. One of the unfortunate factors that enters into dealing of this char- acter is this : Growing out of the prevalence, the late prevalence, of a resort to arbitration, there is a tendency, naturally, and in- herent in both sides to fail to take a step toward rapprochement for fear of injuring their own tactical position before a Board that may be invoked. It has been too often the case. My own ex- perience with collective movements is wide. There is not one that was carried on in behalf of conductors and trainmen of which I was not a party. I \\'as present at the birth of the first collective movement and acted as midwife. From then until now I have been a party to every one, and only once in the history of those movements have we ever been able to elicit from a Conference Committee a specific proposition until it became necessary to vote the men. The trouble is, it has grown into a habit, and it is an unfortunate habit. There have been many times when, without taking that vote, we could have gotten on the common ground that we could not get after taking it, because each feared to yield on the ground that it might be said he'd been coerced into yield- ing. Free dealing is far better than pressure dealing whenever it can attain anywhere near to the desired object. Only once in all this time has a proposition ever come to us until that vote of the men has taken place. Once in the Western Association, it only took three days to attain common ground, upon which set- tlement could be made between these two organizations and that Managers Committee, but that was brought about by a peculiar condition in that they were at the breaking point, after a vote had been taken with another organization at the same time. To get us out of the field, they abandoned their former policy and made a flat-footed offer, after we'd been three days in conference. And we accepted it dependent upon a settlement with the other organization whose settlement was then hanging in the balance. If that was done under more conditions, and without that in- centive, it would furnish a better ground of approach between 546 us, to a pacific settlement in which none of the elements of co- ercion entered into it. If you could have seen your way to have made what seemed to you then the limit of an equitable offer, that might have robbed the proposition which we'd made of what seemed to you a portion at least of its most objectionable fea- tures, when applied under existing agreements. Then we might have gotten on to a ground that would have narrowed the gulf between us to a degree — that it could not be narrowed to by any other means, and personally — to me it is a misfortune, I think in the face of the record of the dealing you will at least give me credit for honest expression in that — it is a misfortune that we could not, in a degree at least, have removed some of these points of difference that are between us. If we haven't the only thing we can do is to accept your declination, prepare the statement to the men, and our further action be guided by the verdict that they render. The Chairman : I agree with you, Mr. Garretson, that it is a misfortune that we can't get closer together. There are many things that surround these movements that tie, more or less, all of our hands as you have stated. For instance, you have to make an agreement that is agreeable to your men. We have to make an agreement that we can justify to ourselves as representing the railroads and all the interests that are with the railroads and with the other employees. We felt that there should be some decided change in the practices under the existing schedules, aS now laid down, if there was a decided change in the hours and the miles required for a day's work, or in the question of paying time and a half for overtime. I think we went to a pretty equitable basis, it seems to us. You say it doesn't seem so to you, and that is where I say that our difference is. Our opinions are so different that there is a very grave question in my mind, and I am almost certain that we could not get together on this proposition, and we dis- cussed this thing thoroughly yesterday afternoon, last night and this morning, and we came to the conclusion that our point of view was so divergent, that it was an impractical proposition for us to attempt to get together with you, when the opinions were so far apart, apparently. Mr. Garretson : Here is what might readily have taken place. Now, bear in mind, I am not talking for my associates, I am going 547 to talk for myself for a moment. I have said before outside of the one exception that I made, I am speaking naturally for the four. What I am going to say now is purely personal. When I took the time yesterday to further consider what your attitude would be. Here was what seemed to me might have been read out of one of the statements that you made. That was, that you might be able to further modify a purely tentative proposition so far, what was up until that time a purely tentative proposition. You will bear in mind that the yardstick that you furnished and the interpretation of the effect of that yardstick that you accepted from me, was of such a sweeping character in regard to arbitrary allowances that you didn't leave me or any man fixed as I am, with an iota of ground upon which to stand in defense of it. I hoped that you might be able to have modified that propo- sition and put it in a definite instead of a tentative form, on which we four could have taken the matter back to these men in- stead of to the men at home, and possibly arrived at some con- clusion as to a common ground upon which we could stand. I read something in reply, a statement (bear in mind, this wasn't a premeditated statement, it was only my interpretation of certain language that was used) to see whether you could modify the proposition that had been made, or the yardstick. The Chairman : Mr. Garretson, we have been going along here and in the course of the discussions we have had — on various statements that were made at the various times, it has appeared that you had no authority to iron out ; that your proposition was not modifiable. Mr. Lee stated, I think, pretty distinctly that he would not stand for any elimination of any of these arbitrary allowances. Mr. Garretson : True. The Chairman : I think that was pretty clearly brought out. Mr. Garretson : It was. The Chairman : Also that you wouldn't — you could, but you wouldn't — stand for any elimination. Mr. Garretson : No. The Chairman : And we have based our proposition on that and on the general declination of your proposition as it stands today. Mr. Garretson : Note, we could, but would not recommend. The Chairman : That is right. 548 Mr. Garretson : That is it. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : There is what that was applied to. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : That attitude is exactly what we were on. You bear in mind we were fighting the intangible just as you were. Frankly I hoped when you came back you'd come with a definite instead of a tentative statement. You haven't. Therefore, the statements that were made from this side of the table in regard to our attitude must of necessity go as the declaration, and you leave us only the one thing to do. If you had been in a position to make a positive instead of a tentative declaration, then it would have gone back here and — The Chairman: I don't understand your proposition. Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: It isn't a proposition, it is a statement of a fact. The Chairman: We told you what our proposition would be, if applied to yours, Garretson. Mr. Garretson: Sure, and your proposition as applied to ours was so sweeping in its character, you bear in mind, it didn't leave a shadow of anything in the line of arbitraries except allow- ances, except the one under consideration that overtime wasn't named. The Chairman : Why, we didn't disturb the arbitraries at the final terminal except when overtime was made, Mr. Garret- son. Mr. Garretson : I beg your pardon, Mr. Lee. The Chairman: I say we didn't disturb the arbitraries at the final terminal except when overtime was made. Mr. Garretson : I said except when overtime was made. That is what I intended to say, if I didn't. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : There is no doubt whatever that the decla- rations, as you put them in general, were just what we made. The Chairman: I didn't hear, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : I said that the declarations that you quoted were in substance declarations that you made. I want to call your attention to Mr. W. G. Lee's utterance. He asked if you were 549 prepared to accept Form 35 with the application of your rulings thereon. The Chairman : Yes, and I told him that we hadn't reached that point. Mr. Garretson : No. When you did reach that point, then it only came in the form of a question to me, was I ready to accept it, and I promptly answered, "No." The reasons therefor I have explained to you as near as I could today. If that had been in the form that it could be considered by these men as even reasonably acceptable, then it would have put a different face on the proposition, but you bear in mind everything that each of us have said, has always been contingent upon a contingency. The Chairman : Very true, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : There is where we were. The Chairman : Yes. Mr. Garretson : Well, if we have arrived at the time where we have to go back, we have to go back. The Chairman : I am afraid it is so, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Well, that being the case there is only this : We will transmit to you the formal letter which can appear as a part of the record in addenda to it, that in taking the vote and in whatever proceedings may follow, where the auxiliary properties of those lines represented are dominated and controlled by the parent company represented, we shall follow precisely the same line of procedure on those properties that we do on the parent l)roperty. In other words, we will vote the men on those prop- erties just as we will on the parent property where there is no question of control by lease or ownership. The Chairman : We won't attempt to limit your voting, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson: No, I believe not. I am only confirming now what was said the first day, owing to the fact that we haven't yet furnished that list, because while the Conference is on, we had a few other troubles. The Chairman: Yes, I realize that, Mr. Garretson, and if there is any list that you desire to present, why we would consider the same. Mr. Garretson : That will be very largely the list of excep- tions that were made on your authorization. 550 The Chairman : Yes, we don't desire to limit you in time in any way at all. Mr. Garretson: Now, in regard to a further conference, it will take, considering the extent of territory that has to be cov- ered in the taking of the vote, it will, of course, be necessary to take a somewhat greater amount of time than would be the case if we were only covering one of the associations heretofore dealt with. The Chairman : That is right. Mr. Garretson : That being the case, it will take us some little time, and conference with the men. The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Garretson : It will be difficult to determine the small- est compass of time within which that duty can be legitimately performed and the vote canvassed; but I judge it will take in the neighborhood, that is tentatively — The Chairman : I understand. Mr. Garretson : That it will take somewhere in the neigh- borhood of forty days, at least. The Chairman : Well, we could leave it in this way, then, Mr. Garretson, that it is estimated it will take about forty days, but you will let us know about ten days or two weeks before you desire another meeting. Mr. Garretson : That is perfectly satisfactory to us. The Chairman : Perfectly satisfactory to us. Mr. Garretson : Well, I will tell you for your own guidance within a period of five days, probably. I mean, we can tell you be- fore we leave here, within a period of five days, when that will take place because you want all the opportunity to shape your own movements in the interval. The Chairman: Exactly so. Mr. Garretson : And we will give you the fullest benefit of that and. we will probably be able to send you a communication before we leave town, that it will be within an approximation of five or at the outside, ten days of a given period. The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Garretson : And then we will confirm the accurate date, ten days ahead, or fifteen. The Chairman: I see. Mr. Garretson : We shall assume that there will be no in- 551 terference with the men in any way who are engaged in taking the vote from the membership. The Chairman: Why, I would assume the same thing, Mr Garretson. Mr. Garretson : That is the assumption we will go on. We have in a few instances had to interfere on behalf of men under those circumstances where local officials attempted to harass men engaged in performances of that kind. The Chairman : I don't think it has been done recently, has it? Mr. Garretson: I don't think we had any trouble the last time. I think 1910 or 1911 was the last that we had. I don't know what occurred in the other years. The Chairman : Well, I would assume the same thing is true, Mr. Garretson. Mr. Garretson : Well, then, all we will have to do at present is to bid you an affectionate adieu. The Chairman : Same to you, Mr. Garretson. Adjournment. Cornell Ui HD 5325.R2 191 Ui^^sity Library Minutes of meetings held between the Nat 3 1924 002 405 524