Senator ENGLE. Will the Senator yield to me because he mentioned my name. I don't want to imply that the Congress is incompetent. What I said was that we had less competence, probably, than the ICC in this particular field.

Senator CANNON. I'm glad to get the record straight on that. Senator ENGLE. I can't ever say that Congress is incompetent. Senator CANNON. Mr. Gilbert, do I understand from your testimony commencing on page 20 that you made a proposal of settlement of the fireman-helper issue in March of 1963; that the proposal was later confirmed on March 14, 1963, and that a detailed proposal was later presented on May 7, 1963, which proposal was presented to the carriers, and that you have never as of this time received a counter proposal or attempted negotiation of that issue?

Mr. GILBERT. We have not, as is the usual custom, received a counterproposal to our proposition in writing. The only thing we have in writing from the carrier representatives is their promulgation that was first supposed to go into effect on July 11, and reiterated for the 30th. That is what we have in full substance received from the carriers.

We have in response to their request, we have identified what our proposal contemplated. In the last assurance that we meant what we said, we gave them a third proposition which contemplated continuation of the first. And nothing as yet has been received from them in counter to it.

Senator CANNON. Was there anything in your proposal to indicate that that proposal was fixed and absolute, or that you were willing to collectively bargain on those issues?

Mr. GILBERT. We have established guidelines to be followed, Senator, in which we even indicated that once an agreement was reached on this material, we would refer for final adjudication to a tribunal which would indicate that any disputes that arise over the application or the implementation of the agreement

Senator CANNON. What you are in effect saying, then, is that you are willing to negotiate on this issue and the carriers are not? Mr. GILBERT. That has been our experience, Senator, up to now. Senator CANNON. Senator McGee could not be here this morning and he asked that I present this question for him: Why did your organization reject the Presidential Railroad Commission report in its entirety?

Mr. GILBERT. I have already made a rather extended remark about that, Senator, I believe before maybe he was present. It is in the record. I do not believe it will be necessary to repeat it. But I did

say the primary reasons why we did not accept it.

Senator CANNON. I say I was asking that for Senator McGee at his request because he could not be here.

Senator PASTORE It is in the record, Mr. Cannon.
Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 27 of your statement you say:

While the report of the special subcommittee contains no recommendations or conclusions, it appears to me that there is in that report implicitly, if not expressly, a finding that negotiations have been productive on practically all of the issues in dispute which were stated by the subcommittee to be eight in number.

Do you agree with the implications that you referred to there? Mr. GILBERT. There has been some bargaining on those; yes, sir. Senator CANNON. And do you feel that there is the opportunity to resolve these issues further?

Mr. GILBERT. That's right. I have a very strong feeling that if collective bargaining is resumed, and there isn't a promise that someone will relieve the carriers of their responsibility in this, they may resume an attitude more akin to collective bargaining than that which they have thus far displayed.

Senator CANNON. I am sure that every member on this committee, although I can't speak for the others, I am sure that every member would prefer that this matter be settled through collective bargaining. But I am wondering if you have any guidelines as to where you would put an end to collective bargaining, assuming that the matter cannot be resolved in that fashion.

Mr. GILBERT. Practically every dispute that we have had in my years of experience has been disposed of as it relates to changes in rules through collective bargaining, and that is the premise on which I base the statement that if we enter collective bargaining in the spirit that we understand it to be in our obligations under the law, to make and maintain agreements, that we shall reach an agreement on this as we have in the years gone by.

Senator CANNON. Would you simply leave that open from the time standpoint? Would you say that we must bargain forever, if need be, on this issue? Or could a time be fixed beyond which you would agree that collective bargaining would not be meaningful?

Mr. GILBERT. That was one of the premises on which the suggestion was made that the committee from Congress serve as a sort of a watchdog, and once they have witnessed what has been taking place, unless it changes, they will soon know who is responsible; and with the reports given to them periodically the committee would then know when that time had been reached, rather than one of the parties involved making the decision.

Senator CANNON. When that time is reached, what is your solution then?

Mr. GILBERT. That is a determination I think that should be left to the people who have witnessed what has taken place, an understanding on their part of who is responsible for the failure. When that comes about, I hope that-I hope this doesn't ever come-I hope we get the agreement as the chairman has mentioned. And I think we can if we approach it in what we understand to be our responsibilities in collective bargaining.

Senator CANNON. But once that point were reached, isn't it a fact that you would be just as opposed to Congress stepping in and taking mandatory action of some sort at that time as you are right now?

Mr. GILBERT. The opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 102 comes primarily because of our understanding of its purpose, being the same as that of compulsory arbitration. It doesn't read anything different than that to me when you give to some other party the right to make your decisions. Whether we like it or not that is what this contemplates, that the ICC make the decision as to how these rules should go into effect.

Senator CANNON. I understand that. Assuming that you go to the point that the joint committee or some other committee determines that this matter cannot be resolved through collective bargaining, then isn't it a fact that you would be just as opposed at that time as you are now to the solution suggested in Senate Joint Resolution 102?

Mr. GILBERT. That won't change the opposition to the solution. But I am not convinced from my experience in these negotiations-while I have not attended every session I have attended as many as my other commitments would permit-I am not convinced that we have yet entered true collective bargaining, and therein lies our trouble thus

far.

Senator CANNON. I join in hoping that you will be able to resolve this matter among yourselves in true collective bargaining without Congress having to take action of any kind.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Monroney?

Senator MONRONEY. Isn't it a fact that the fireman issue is the keystone of this whole threat of a national railroad strike, and has held up the progress of all of the collective bargaining?

Mr. GILBERT. Not alone, Senator, because in the promulgation the cut in wages, which is very serious, the elimination of jobs other than that now held by the firemen, is in evidence. They extend the runs, the carriers are given the right to abolish terminals as their promulgation determines. Not only will the people presently working be furloughed, even though they may be presently in service as an engineerthey may either be reduced or some of the men that are now holding regular jobs would be furloughed. Not only in the group that is represented in these proceedings, the five transportation organizations, but with the elimination of the many terminals contemplated by the right the carriers want to preserve unto themselves, many of the nonoperating employees presently working at those terminals, their jobs would likewise be abandoned.

So it is a real extensive situation which has not been given much publicity in the proceedings up to this point, or probably within the next few days.

But those are actual facts coming from the implementation of the promulgation.

Senator MONRONEY. As I understood the testimony of the brotherhoods, the railroads' refusal to seriously bargain on the other issues was because they said that unless they could solve the firemen issue then didn't want to go on with the other collateral ones; is that correct? The ones that were not considered of as great a magnitude as the 32,500 firemen's jobs at issue?

Mr. GILBERT. To put it in proper perspective, I believe they refer to it as the manning issues.

Senator MONRONEY. They have said that unless they can begin to make progress on that, there is no use to worry about the other; isn't that correct?

Mr. GILBERT. They have made statements something akin to that. Senator MONRONEY. As I understand from the brotherhoods, they have held this up primarily because they could not solve the firemen problem. Is there a possibility-as the President said in his speech last night, that maybe we can go through the outer gate, make one

step forward in our program of atomic control as we did with the test ban when the treaty was initialed that you could start at the small end of the spectrum in the collective bargaining talks?

Mr. GILBERT. We have been willing to start at every end, middle. and work both directions.

Senator MONRONEY. In your statement, on page 20, you say:

It was basic to my proposition that all firemen presently in employment be retained and that vacancies be created in the particular daylight yard jobs and daylight branch line jobs only on an attritional basis. I believe that the offer was a reasonable approach to settlement of the issue. However, at the time I made the offer, the carriers were packing their bags in preparation for leaving the meeting room

Did you mean by your statement that it was basic to your proposition that you would never in the course of bargaining consider anything greater in attrition than the proposition you made at that time?

Mr. GILBERT. We didn't get beyond that point, Senator, because we didn't get an opportunity. We didn't have a proposal to work with, and that is one of the failures, I think. We never had an opportunity.

Senator MONRONEY. Did you leave that impression when you said it was basic to the proposition, that under no circumstances would you bargain on anything other than the daylight yard jobs and daylight branch line jobs, and then only on an attritional basis?

Mr. GILBERT. We have never had an opportunity to discuss that with the carriers, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. Up to this point you have made no proposition to them, and they have made no proposition to you; is that correct? Mr. GILBERT. We have made a written proposition to them, but we have not received any reply to it from them.

Senator MONRONEY. But only to the extent at which you say it is basic to your proposition, that all firemen presently must be retained? Mr. GILBERT. That was presented in writing, yes, sir. And we

have not

Senator MONRONEY. That is still your hard-and-fast position on it? Mr. GILBERT. We haven't had any opportunity to discuss it. Senator MONRONEY. Is it bargainable?

Mr. GILBERT. That is what we want to talk with the carriers about. Senator MONRONEY. I understand that wages can be bargained. If you are asking for a dollar, there is always a chance to shave it to 99 cents or so on. But when you are dealing with human jobs, human beings, it is awfully hard to reach a compromise unless there is some position that you might be able to reach.

Senator PASTORE. Will the Senator yield on that point? I think this is negotiable, too. The carriers are saying 32,500 jobs. They are saying 5,500. There ought to be a cutoff. That is how this thing goes. That is how you collectively bargain.

Senator MONRONEY. This is what I am asking, Is there a negotiable position that can be arrived at in collective bargaining?

Mr. GILBERT. Senator, I don't like to be evasive, but in 30-some years of bargaining I don't like to tip my hand on bargaining to somebody who can't bargain with me. If you are in a position to bargain with me, then we might go from there. I don't want to be rude, Senator, but I just want to express to you my feelings about that.

Senator MONRONEY. I recognize your position at the bargaining table, and I am just trying to see if a continuation of the situation we

face would offer a hope of having a meeting of the minds. You still that it is wise to go forward at the bargaining table?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir, that is where I would like to do my collective bargaining, at the bargaining table.

Senator MONRONEY. We all would, if we could possibly arrive at a solution.

Senator PASTORE. I merely want to clarify one thing. This committee is a watchdog committee. I want both sides to know that. We have primary jurisdiction in this matter. It doesn't end with this resolution. It goes beyond it. It is part of the jurisdictiona! function of this particular committee. I want it clearly understood by all sides concerned that there is a watchdog element going on now. Furthermore, for the fairness of this hearing, I want both sides to know that there will be rebuttal and surrebuttal if it becomes necessary. If this hearing has to go to its conclusion, it will be complete. I want to thank you gentlemen for testifying here today, and we still have other brotherhoods to hear from.

We have already scheduled, a long time ago, the civil rights hearings, and they will resume at 9:15 on Monday morning.

We cannot meet as a committee if the Senate is in session without unanimous consent, and we doubt very much that we can get that, through past declarations. So we will recess this hearing now until 4 o'clock Monday afternoon. If the Senate is in session, then we will recess until 7 o'clock Monday night.

I would hope from now until next week that the parties will do their collective bargaining.

Thank you all for coming.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene on Monday, July 29, 1963, as heretofore stated.)

21-466-63- -84