physical exertion by the engineer, would add to engineer fatigue. Removal of the fireman clearly would impose an undue workload on the engineer. 5. Training of future engineers.-What we have said above under road service regarding the position of fireman-helper as a training for the position of engineer applies equally to yard service. EXHIBIT 2 MARCH 14, 1963. Mr. J. E. WOLFE, Chairman, National Railway Labor Conference. Chairman, Eastern Carriers' Conference Committee. Chairman, Western Carriers' Conference Committee. Chairman, Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committee. GENTLEMEN: Despite your disdainful rebuffing of our sincere efforts to resume negotiations on March 13, including the unprecedented proposal of the president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen to settle the helper (fireman) question, we are writing you to reemphasize our willingness to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. For the record, our March 13 meeting was the result of our efforts, as stated in letters dated February 5 and February 15, to persuade you to return to the bargaining table. While you finally agreed to meet, you conditioned your participation upon the organizations' willingness to deal with the helper (fireman) question. The organizations agreed, on March 13, to place that matter at the top of the list of issues in dispute. In conference March 13, you reiterated the adamant position that you would not negotiate beyond the confines of the Presidental Commission report, even though you admitted that "inequities existed," within the recommendations of that report. Further, you stated the unions had not presented any new proposal on the helper (fireman) question. The organizations, through Fresident H. E. Gilbert, met this last requirement. His proposal clearly asserted that his organization was prepared to negotiate eventual reduction, through attrition, of the roster of helpers (firemen) in certain yard and branch line service, an estimated 20 percent. President Gilbert stated settlement must also include adoption of a training program for engineers and firemen. With great dismay we watched you walk out of the conference, your third such departure, virtually in the midst of President Gilbert's statement. We had profound hope for the March 13 meeting despite your letters of February 11 and February 28 belittling our suggestion for meetings at three levels: 1. Technical data is essential to intelligent and effective agreements, hence our suggestion for meetings at the technical level to analyze and utilize the data compiled by the Department of Labor and not previously available to the parties involved. 2. The determination of issues in dispute is absolutely essential for expeditious bargaining. Your recent handling of this dispute has obscured the issues, therefore our suggestion for meetings at the bargaining level. 3. Procedures for the use of available material and for the handling of the various issues are quite obviously necessary. We suggested meetings at the "summit" level to establish such procedure. Full exposure of all of the facts surrounding your actions in these proceedings will, we believe, convey to the public and the Government the basis of our condemnation of the existing situation. Our efforts to encourage fruitful negotiations in the American spirit of "give and take" have thus far been nullified by your continued evasion and obvious reluctance to negotiate on issues which both sides agree must be settled, and which can be really settled only by conscientious negotiation across the bargaining table. To review briefly, as long ago as June 1962, our representatives submitted to you written proposals covering (a) interdivisional service; (b) self-propelled machines: (c) expenses away from home; and (d) wage structure. Each of those proposals represented modification of a previous position, especially those with respect to interdivisional service and self-propelled machines, two areas which involve demands management has been pressing over a period of years. We could not avoid noting that your termination of the June meetings came literally in the midst of our submission of the above listed proposals. It was evident that you were uneasy when confronted with such constructive proposals by the organizations and a clear effort on the part of the unions to engage in real collective bargaining. However, we thought perhaps you were motivated by a desire to jockey for strategic advantage during the increasing clamor arising from potential crises in other areas of transportation. When you accepted our invitations of February 5 and 15 to resume bargaining, we felt you were at last prepared to shoulder your responsibilities at the bargaining table even at the risk of being confronted with additional organization proposals. Unfortunately we were wrong. We think it incredible that you would prate to the public press about “collective bargaining" while you exert every effort to shift your responsibility to those outside the industry, to a busy Labor Department or an already heavily burdened Congress. We are now forced to conclude that you never wished to hear or receive valid organization proposals or to engage in collective bargaining. Clearly, you are attempting to evade your statutory and moral responsibilities. It would appear that you wish others to solve a problem you are unwilling to solve yourselves. In the event you should awaken to your obligation, our representatives remain prepared to meet with you at your call. Sincerely yours, H. E. GILBERT, President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. C. LUNA, President, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Grand Chief Engineer, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engincers. President, Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen. President, Switchmen's Union of North America. EXHIBIT 3 MAY 7, 1963. Subject to retention of all firemen on the seniority rosters, adoption of a training program, and generally the conditions identified with the proposal made by Mr. Gilbert on March 13, 1963, we could enter into an agreement permitting the railroads to refrain from hiring helpers (firemen) in the future to fill the following jobs: (a) Daylight yard jobs, except where by reason of conditions such as switching passenger cars and equipment, belt line, transfer, interchange and industrial work, total time on duty exceeds 8 hours, operation of more than one yard engine in the same area during the same period, curvature of track, overhead or other obstructions, close clearances, unprotected crossing, dangers arising out of mainline movements, presence of the public or railroad employees, or nature of commodities handled, or imposition of onerous working conditions on engine or train crew, there is need for a helper (fireman) on the locomotive to relay signals or perform lookout functions. (b) Daylight branch line jobs, except where number of units in the locomotive consists exceeds one, total time on duty exceeds 8 hours, or total miles run exceeds 100, maximum speed on branch line exceeds 30 miles per hour, maximum number of cars in the train exceeds 35, or imposition of onerous working conditions on engine or train crew, continuous movement of the train or engine exceeds 2 hours without relief, there is need for a helper (fireman) on the locomotive to relay signals or perform lookout functions. The railroads will not be permitted to refrain from hiring helpers (firemen) to fill jobs on locomotives which are not equipped with deadman control. Work customarily performed by helpers (firemen) on diesel locomotives will be done by helpers (firemen) taken from the seniority ranks of helpers (firemen). EXHIBIT 4 Revised May 22, 1963. Subject to retention of all employees on the firemen's seniority roster, adoption of a training program, and generally the conditions identified with the proposal made by Mr. Gilbert on March 13, 1963, we could enter into an agreement permitting the railroads to refrain from hiring helpers (firemen) in the future to fill the following jobs: (a) Daylight yard jobs, other than those (1) Engaged in switching passenger cars and equipment; or (2) Engaged in belt line, transfer, interchange, or industrial work; or (3) Which are consistently on duty more than 8 hours; or (4) Whose operations are not confined to an area from which other engines operated without helpers (firemen) are excluded during the period the job works; or (5) On which there is need for a helper (firemen) on the locomotive to relay signals or perform lookout functions by reason of such conditions as curvature of tracks, overhead or other obstructions, close clearances, unprotected crossings, dangers arising out of mainline movements, hazard to the public or railroad employees, or imposition of onerous working conditions on the engine or train crew. (b) Daylight branch line jobs, other than those where (1) The number of units in the locomotive consist exceeds one; or (4) The maximum speed on branch line exceeds 30 miles per hour; or (5) The maximum number of cars in the train may be expected to exceed 35; or (6) The continuous movement of the train or engine exceeds 2 hours without relief; or (7) Onerous working conditions would be imposed on the members of the engine or train crew if a fireman were not used. The railroads will not be permitted to refrain from hiring helpers (firemen) to fill jobs on locomotives which are not equipped with deadman control. Work customarily performed by helpers (firemen) on diesel locomotives will be done by helpers (firemen) taken from the seniority ranks of helpers (firemen). This is intended to mean that where there is need for a man on the locomotive to perform fireman's lookout duties, communicate signals to the engineer and/or perform operational work in connection with the locomotive to expedite its operation, such man will be a fireman. EXHIBIT 5 MAY 24, 1963. We would be willing to modify the May 17, 1950, diesel agreement which modification would permit the carriers to refrain from hiring helpers (firemen ) in the future on approximately 5,500 jobs. The formula for ascertaining the 5.500 jobs is as follows: It is estimated that there are approximately 20,000 yard jobs, about 10,000 of which are considered as daylight yard jobs. Of the 10,000 daylight yard jobs, 5,000 are in passenger equipment switching, belt line, transfer-interchange and industrial service. This leaves 5.000 jobs on daylight yard engines for which new firemen would not have to be hired. This assumes that the effect of other restrictions requiring the retention of firemen positions would be balanced out by carrier ingenuity in the rearrangement of assignments. There are roughly 1,500 branch line jobs, of which about 1,000 would require the hiring of firemen after the seniority rosters are exhausted. This leaves roughly 500 jobs for which new firemen would not have to be hired in branch line service, or a total of approximately 5,500 jobs in yard and branch line service. This total of 5,500 jobs is approximately 25 percent of all yard and branch line jobs. Source: Interstate Commerce Commission Statement M-300 plus inclusion of some 3,000 yard assignments on terminal and switching railroads not covered by ICC M-300's. Senator PASTORE. Mr. Gilbert, first of all I want to compliment you for a very succinct, forthright, and temperate statement. I quite agree with you, and I think I express the sentiments of all of my colleagues, when I say that the Congress ought to deal with this matter only if everything else fails. Speaking with reference to the suggestion you made of the joint committee to supervise this, I think that that should be considered. I understand we will hear testimony along that line. I believe that is the Meany proposal? Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir. Senator PASTORE. I think it would be unfortunate for anything to come out of this committee and hit the floor of the Senate and expose itself to debate, with all the different points of views and the acrimony that may be involved one way or the other, when all of us realize that the real answer here is in collective bargaining. I would hope that all of the parties would review their minds and their souls and their hearts in this situation, realizing all the practicalities and all the repercussions, the implications and ramifications involved, and try to reach a settlement before the Congress of the United States expresses itself in any way on this problem. As you well argue, it could become a precedent for future controversy, and we can't anticipate what the controversy might be. And it would be my further hope that while this committee is proceeding with all expedition possible, because that is the pledge that we made, that before anything happens, before any debates are undertaken, that the parties will get together under the process of collective bargaining and reach a settlement. Now the question I want to address to you, Mr. Gilbert, is this: Am I safe in assuming that the real primary stumbling block-and there are many blocks, and I don't want to say that this is the only one-but the chief, primary stumbling block is the question of the fireman-helper? Mr. GILBERT. I think that, Senator, is one of the large problems. Senator PASTORE. Would I be safe in assuming that if a conclusion could be reached on that through the process of collective bargaining, it would facilitate the agreement on the other factors that are involved? Mr. GILBERT. I am sure it would help. To what degree Senator PASTORE. I don't want you to be too categorical. I merely want to point out, if I may, for the purposes of the record, the primary stumbling block here is the fireman question. Mr. GILBERT. That is one of them. There is no question about it, Senator. Senator LAUSCHE. Mr. Chairman, he said it is one of them. Is it primary or is it not? Senator PASTORE. I don't think that he really wants to be that categorical. I don't want to press the witness too much. Mr. GILBERT. I couldn't speak for management anyway, whether they consider it consonant with my expression. Senator PASTORE. I am merely getting your point of view, and I will accept your answer as you have given it, Mr. Gilbert. I won't question you any further on that. You have been rather laudatory of the President's Advisory Committee and the report that it made. We have had testimony here on the part of the carriers that they accepted the President's Advisory Committee report. Am I safe in assuming that the President's Ad visory Committee in its report recommended that the firemen issue was negotiable by collective bargaining? Is that correct? Mr. GILBERT. I am not sure that I understand your question, Senator. Senator PASTORE. Let me go a little bit further because I don't want any mistakes about this. It could be said that from the recommendation made by the President's Advisory Committee, that the element of the 32,500 firemen's jobs should be discussed in collective bargaining, and not especially by any notice posting eliminating the jobs forthwith? Mr. GILBERT. We have been sympathetic to that, and we have thought that we are carrying out our responsibility in connection with it. Senator PASTORE. Therefore you brought forth a proposal Mr. HEISS. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt, please? There are two bodies that I fear are in here and somewhat confused. There is a Presidential Railroad Commission, which was the body appointed by President Eisenhower and which rendered a report on February 28, 1963. Senator PASTORE. I am not talking about that. Mr. HEISS. Then there is the President's Advisory Committee, or the subcommittee Senator PASTORE. Which was in the spring of 1963. Mr. HEISS. Yes, which just reported a very short time ago. Mr. GILBERT. That is the one I understood you to be referring to. Senator PASTORE. That is the one I am referring to. The one that you are referring to in your statement. Isn't that the one that you are referring to? 13 Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir. Mr. HEISS. There are three bodies referred to in the statement. Senator PASTORE. What is the body that is referred to in March? Mr. HEISS. There was one established in April and reported on May Senator PASTORE. Which one is that? Mr. HEISS. Emergency Board 154. If you please, sir, may we be careful to distinguish between the Presidential Railroad Commission, Emergency Board 154 appointed under the Railway Labor Act, and the Special Subcommittee of the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy. Senator PASTORE. All right. Now, may I ask this question, in order to get the proper predicate. What is the report that initiated your proposal of 5,500 jobs? Which report is that? Mr. HEISS. I want to qualify the answer just a little bit. You are referring to the report of Emergency Board No. 154? Senator PASTORE. No, I am asking this question, sir. As a result of one of those reports, you made an offer of 5,500 jobs to be negotiated. Mr. HEISS. As a matter of fact, our offer preceded the report of Emergency Board 154. Senator PASTORE. It preceded that? Mr. HEISS. And it was revised in its details after Emergency Board 154 reported. Maybe Mr. Gilbert would like to explain that further. Mr. GILBERT. The first proposal, Senator, was made in an effort to |