View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Lz,3 :
I

3




Dayton & M o n t g o n w w ^

A ir lin e
E x p e r ie n c e

Puwfc u s s * *

u n d e r th e

MAR 2 3 t S n

R a ilw a y
L a b o r A c t

:U V £ H T r .n i’ ^ f .TW^

B U L L E T IN 1683
U. S. D E P A R TM E N T
OF LABOR
BUREAU OF
LABOR STATISTICS







Airline
Experience
under the
Railway
Labor Act
B U L L E T IN

1683

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J. D Hodgson, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STA T ISTIC S
G eo ff r e y H. Moo re, C o m m i s s i o n e r

V

1971

For sale b y the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D .C . 20402 - Price 55 cents




Preface

This bulletin provides a descriptive and statistical account of the
industrial relations, mediation, work stoppage, and emergency dispute
experience of the airlines under the Railway Labor Act. Published
and unpublished records were utilized to conduct a more compre­
hensive analysis than had been available to date.
The definition of this major industry group (air transportation
industry) covered by the Railway Labor Act conforms to major group
classifications 4511 and 4521 in the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 1967 edition, issued by the Bureau of the Budget.

This bulletin was prepared in the Bureau’s Division of Industrial
Relations, Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, by Michael H.
Cimini under the supervision of Albert A. Belman. The cooperation
of the National Mediation Board in the preparation of Chapter V is
gratefully acknowledged.







Contents
Page
Chapter I.

The airline industry.......................................................................................................................

1

Introduction........................
Nature of the industry...................................................................................................................................
Industrial relations regulations..................................................... - .........................................................
Industrial organization and reorganization..............................................................................................

1
1
1
2

Subsidies............................................................................................................................................................
Air safety regulations......................................................................................................................................
Air flight service operations .......................................................................................................................
Competition......................................................................................................................................................
Nature of the product...................................................................................................................................
Technological change......................................................................................................................................

2
2
2
2
2
3

Chapter II. Collective bargaining in the airline industry........................................................................
Collective bargaining u n i t .............................................................................................................................

5
6

Union organization..........................................................................................................................................

7

Multiple unionism.............................................................................................................................................
Single-unit bargaining ...................................................................................................................................
Multicarrier bargaining...................................................................................................................................
Bargaining coordination by management.................................................................................................
Union bargaining coordination....................................................................................................................

7
7
9
10
12

Chapter III. Legal framework of the Railway Labor A c t .....................................................................
National mediation b o a rd .............................................................................................................................
Purposes of the a ct.........................................................................................................................................
Procedural aspects of the a c t .......................................................................................................................

13
13
13
14

Chapter IV.

Airline mediation cases.............................................................................................................

16

Ground and flight groups.............................................................................................................................
Issu es...................................................................................................................................................................
Disposition of mediation ca ses....................................................................................................................
Relative utilization of mediatory services ..............................................................................................

16

Chapter V. Airline emergency boards..........................................................................................................
Unions and carriers involved.......................................................................................................................
Issu es...................................................................................................................................................................
Refusals to arbitrate......................................................................................................................................

17
17
18
19
20
22
23

Emergency board recommendations............................................................................................................. 23
Methods of settlement................................................................................................................................... 24
Disposition...........................................................................................................................................................
Chapter VI. Airline work stoppages.................................................................................................
Other characteristics of size ...............................................................

25
26
26

D uration..............................................................................................

28

Flight vs. ground personnel........................................................................................
Issu es......................................

28




v

Contents— Continued
Page
Chart:

Airline collective bargaining procedures and “ status quo” periods under the
Railway Labor Act

Tables:
1.

.................................................................................................................... -

15

Employee representation on selected air carriers by occupational group, as of

2.
3.
4.

June 30, 1969 ...............................................................................................................................
8
Use of the mutual aid pact benefits, 1958-69 .......................................................................
11
16
Mediation cases disposed of, 1936-69 by occupational g ro u p .....................................
17
Number of mediation agreements and percent of total, 1955-69 ...................................

5.
6.

Airline emergency boards, 1936-69 ............................................................................................
Number of airline work stoppages, workers involved, and man-days idle,1936-69.
.

20
26

7.

Number and percent of airline work stoppages by size, selected periods,1936-69

26

8.
9.

Major airline work stoppages, selected years, 1936-69 ........................................................
Distribution of major groups involved in stoppages, selected periods,1936-69. . . .

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

.

27
28

Major issues in airline work stoppages, by craft, selected periods, 1936-69 ..............
29
Number of workers and man-days idle in airline work stoppages by major
occupational group, selected period, 1936-69.......................................................................
29
Airline work stoppages, selected periods, 1939-69, by major is s u e ..........................
30
Duration of airline work stoppages and issues in volved ...............................................
30
Number of airline work stoppages, workers involved and man-days idle, by
issue involved, 1936-69 .............................................................................................................

31

Appendixes:
1. Airline unions.................................................................................................................................
32
2. Airline involvement in RLA procedures, fiscal years 1936-69 ..........................................
33
3. Airline mediation cases disposed of by National Mediation Board 1936-69,
by major occupational g r o u p ...................................................................................................
35
4. Annual highlights of work stoppages in the airline industry, 1936-69 ........................
36
5.
Duration of airline work stoppages, selected periods, 1936-69 .......................................
38
6. Duration of airline work stoppages, by major issue, selected periods,1936-69 . . .
39
7. Chronology of the airline RLA-Emergency Board, 1936-69
40
8.
Railway Labor Act, as amended, selected sections..........................................................
42




Airline Experience Under The Railway Labor Act

Chapter I. The Airline Industry

Introduction

effects of government intervention on the industrial
relations environment in the airline industry, the

The commerical movement of passengers and
goods by scheduled airlines in the post-war period is

following section briefly describes government regula­
tion of collective bargaining and of related areas.

a history of constant technological change which
resulted in rapid growth and an increasing share of an
expanding transportation market. From 1949, the

Industrial relations regulations

number of jobs in flight-related as well as ground
occupations increased 410 percent, to 312,000 in
1969. In the same period, scheduled carriers were
required to add 1,332 aircraft to their fleets in order
to meet the demand. The magnitude of these opera­

As early as the 1930’s, government labor regula­
tions were an influential force in labor-management
relations of the airlines industry; they superimposed upon
the parties a framework for collective bargaining.
In 1934, National Labor Board (NLB) Decision No.

tions is best illustrated by the 125 billion revenue
passenger miles, 1.33 billion U.S. mail ton miles, and
4.7 billion cargo ton miles flown in 1969.
Under the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) classifica­
tion, the industry is composed of nine main group­
ings. 1 This examination of the experience of airlines
under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) is confined
principally to the largest and most important group,
the domestic trunk carriers, although analysis of air­
line mediation cases and work stoppages include all
scheduled airline operations. Domestic trunk carriers
employ approximately 80 percent of the industry’s
personnel and account for 60 percent of total revenue

83 established minimum wages, maximum hours, and
working conditions for pilots. With the extension of
the Railway Labor Act to the airline industry in
1936, a detailed bargaining procedure was added to
lessen the incidence of labor-management disputes.
(See chapter IV, “ Legal Framework of the RLA” .) 2
Moreover, the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (CAA)
required airlines to comply with the provisions of the
RLA in order to secure and to retain route certifi­
cates. Nine years later, the Civil Aeronautics Board
(CAB) ruled that multi-unit bargaining could not be
imposed unilaterally, but must be agreed to by all
the parties. 3 In 1958 the Federal Aviation Act
(FAA) reiterated the CAA policies requiring the
carriers to comply with the provisions of the RLA
and NLB Decision No. 83, as well as empowering
the CAB to control entrance into the airline industry
by issuing certificates of public convenience and

ton miles.

Nature of the industry
In the airline industry, labor and management
bargain in an atmosphere constrained by Federal
legislation and regulations which are not found in
most other industries. The special characteristics
of the air carrier industry have had an immediate
and direct influence on its labor-management negotia­
tions. When the government began to regulate air

necessity.

These carrier groupings are domestic trunk, domestic
local service, helicopter, intra-Alaska, intra-Hawaiian, all cargo,
international and territorial, supplemental, and intrastate.
2 Title II, the 1936 Amendment to the Railway Labor
Act, Congress of the United States. In U.S., 49 Stat. 1921,
ch. 166, 74th Cong. (1936), Sec. 201.
3 8 CAB 354 (1947).

transportation, it became, in effect, responsible for
the performance of the industry in several areas, one
of which was industrial relations. To highlight the




1

Industrial organization and reorganization

advocated high personnel qualifications, because this
tended to insure skilled workers and to increase the
organizations’ bargaining power and security. A
second and related responsibility of the CAB was to
establish the type, number, and grade of certified
airmen required to safely maintain airline operations.
The implementation of this responsibility by the

The CAB also regulates the organization and
reorganization of the industry with regard to sales
and purchases of routes, acquisitions, consolidation of
facilities, and exchange of equipment and personnel.
All of these economic activities are predicated on increas­
ing the carrier’s market share or on increasing eco­

Board, in effect, created “ crafts” and, thus, unions,
e.g., flight engineers (FEIA), by Civil Air Regulation
(C.A.R.) 41 and 61, airline dispatchers (ALDA) by
C.A.R. 27, etc. 7 On other occasions, the Board’s
rulings were instrumental in eliminating or lessening
the influence of certain crafts (unions), e.g., nonflight

nomies and decreasing costs. At the same time, these
activities constitute a persistent source of job insecu­
rity and require the CAB to take steps to mitigate
the hardships involved and to protect adversely
affected personnel. 4
In the three decades since 1938, 39 mergers and
acquisitions of certified route air carriers were ap­
proved by the CAB. Many factors operated interdependently to produce these reorganizations, among
which were: Degree of competition on major routes,
overcapacity, inefficiency, overcrowded or uneconomic
routes, increasing size and costs of new aircraft,
rising break-even traffic requirements, and labor-man­
agement disputes. In the eyes of one observer, CAB
policy over the years has been to favor the less
efficient and smaller carriers and to approve mergers
only as a last resort. 5

navigators (TWU), radio operators (ALCEA), flight
engineers (FEIA), etc. Third, the CAB was em­
powered by Section 601 of the CAA to establish
operating regulations concerning construction, aircraft
performance standards, maximum flight hours, inspec­
tion and maintenance rules, and other matters affect­
ing safety.
With the passage of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, the control of the CAB safety regulations was
assigned to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency. Thus, this agency administers the safety
provisions of the act by issuing certificates which
continue to influence labor-management relations.

Subsidies
Air flight service operations

Another facet of government regulation, direct
Federal subsidies, are administered by the CAB and
currently are allotted primarily to the small regional
airlines that serve areas where the traffic does not
generate revenue sufficient to fully support air
services. Subsidies appear to exert an influence
on collective bargaining, especially on the regional
carriers’ negotiations. A carrier, in signing a labor
agreement that provides costly work rules or high
wages and fringe benefits, may assume that the CAB
will subsidize the consequences of this negotiation. 6
Subsidies, therefore, may weaken a carrier’s resolve
to undergo a strike and, thus, strengthen the unions’
bargaining position in a dispute.

Like other common carriers, continuous operation
characterizes the service that the airlines offer their
customers. This type of operating schedule makes
unusual demands on employees, especially flight per­
sonnel. Actual operations requiring many changes in
flight schedules are a constant battle between the
weather and man and machine, in turn, affect wages,
hours, and working conditions of workers, again
especially the flight employee groups. Usually the
operations are spread over a vast area; often small
groups work with minimal or no immediate super­
vision.

4 CAB Docket No. 2839, September 29, 1947.
CAB O r d e r No. E-5894, November 27, 1951.
CAB Opinion and O r d e r No. E-2760, April 28, 1949.
5 Edward B. Shils, “ Industrial Unrest in the Nation’s Air­
line Industry,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l , Vol. 15, No. 3, March
1964, p. 150.
6 John Baitsell, A i r l i n e I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s : P i l o t s a n d
F l i g h t E n g i n e e r s , Cambridge, Harvard University (1966), p . 333.
7 In the 1948 ruling that created the “ class” of flight
engineers, the CAB set the stage for the jurisdictional disputes
of the 1950-60’s between FEIA and Pilots’ Association
(ALPA).

Air safety regulations
During most of the air transportation industry’s
history, the CAB issued and enforced safety regula­
tions, three aspects of which affect the working
environment of airline employees. First, the CAB
was authorized by the CAA to issue certificates for
skilled air transportation crafts.




These operations require sizeable numbers

Usually, unions have
2

consumers may patronize other air carriers or use

of specialized and sometimes nontransferable skills.
All these conditions help to shape labor-manage­
ment relations in the industry.

other modes of transportation. Obviously, this situa­
tion increases the potency of the strike. A recognition
of this fact is evident in the formation of the Mutual
Aid Pact discussed in the next chapter.

Competition
Although tariff rates and entrance in to the industry,8
two primary sources of competition, are regulated by
the CAB, commerical airlines view the market for
their product as being highly competitive for the
following reasons:
(1) Alternative systems of transportation are
close substitutes and competively priced, and the
long-run demand for airline services may be price
elastic.
(2) The CAB has adopted the policy of
certifying two air carriers or more to service all
major intercity routes.

As in other industries, technological changes often
create problems for both management and employees.
Airlines must cope with difficulties relating to invest­
ment and debt, mergers, obsolescence, overcapacity,
and labor relations; unions must contend with the
problems of job security, union security, layoffs, and
related matters. Besides modifying job composition
and content, technological change creates jobs and
destroys or threatens the continuance of older
crafts. 11
Three distinct periods of aircraft technological
changes have occurred: The first from 1936 to 1947,
when the DC-3’s and other two-engine piston aircraft
(Boeing 307) were developed; the second from 1948
to 1958, with the appearance of larger, faster fourengine piston aircraft, such as the DC-6, and the
third from 1959 to the present, when the first
turbojets, such as the DC-8, were introduced into
service.

(3) Differences in operating problems (routes,
costs, investments, management, etc.) create an
atmosphere conducive to competition.
Nonprice competition is based essentially on better
service, new aircraft, and other flight equipment.
New developments often are opposed by unions, but
any subsequent productivity gains are usually cited

Accompanying these phenomena since the late
1940’s has been the recurrent pattern of alternating
leaps and lags between traffic and capacity, symbolic
of the dynamic nature of the industry. For 1949-51,

to support wage increases. “ There has been no more
important characteristic of the airline industrial re­
lations scene in recent years than the continual drive
of the flight crew unions for a share of increased
productivity of new flight equipment.” 9 If labor
costs are as large a percent of total operating ex­
penses as they appear to be, especially in light of the
tremendous capital outlays of the industry, and if
the demand for airline services is fairly elastic, then
a change in one carrier’s labor costs can directly
influence his competitive position vis-a-vis other air­
lines. 10 For this reason, management feels the
necessity of securing or preserving a competitive edge
in their collective bargaining negotiations.

1955-56, 1959, and 1963-66, the traffic growth rate
(as measured by year-to-year percent change in
revenue passenger miles) exceeded the capacity
growth rate (as measured by year-to-year percent
change in available seat miles), while capacity grew
faster than traffic for 1952-54, 1957-58, 1960-62, and
1967-69. 12
In the current decade, overcapacity could continue
to pose problems with the advent of the “jumbo jets”
which will be fully operative in 1970. The Boeing
747 was the first to enter service and can carry more
than 355 passengers, two and one-half times the pre­
sent load capacity of the Boeing 707. By 1973,

Nature of the product

8
The CAB establishes uniform rates for each class of
service and determines the number o f sellers in the market
by means of certificates o f necessity and convenience.
^John A. Baitsell, o p . cit., p. 49.
In 1967, according to FAA data, payroll constituted
over 55 percent o f total operating expenses.
11 Examples would include flight engineers, nonpilot
navigators, flight radio operators, etc.
12
Air Transport Association data.

The air transportation industry produces a com­
modity which is “ time sensitive,” that is, services are
“ perishable” in the sense that they cannot be stored
or inventoried. Moreover, much of the demand for
this particular service appears to be elastic and not
deferrable. When the airlines lose revenue (sales)
during a strike, it may be “ lost forever” , because the




Technological change

3

employment in the scheduled airline industry between
1942 (39,713 workers employed) and 1943 (39,279);
between 1946 (96,554), 1947 (85,152), 1948 (84,608),
1949 (80,994); and between 1957 (147,170) and 1958
(147,150). During the last decade, however, em­
ployment rose from 166,000 to 312,000.
During periods of innovation, such as the con­
version to jet fleets, employment for particular crafts

250-300 passenger flight aircraft could become com­
mon with the introduction of the McDonnell-Douglas
DC-10, the Lockheed 1011, and the European
‘Airbus” in daily service. The president of the
International Air Transport Association warns that
new orders of these jumbo jets will increase the
“ capacity of our members which exceeds the
anticipated growth of our traditional market.” 13
During most of the post-World War II period,
traffic and revenues increased appreciably, but total
employment in the industry did not rise at a compar­

in some years decreased for the certified domestic
air carriers.

able rate, as reflected in average annual percent
change:

varied from carrier to carrier. Domestic trunk air
carriers with long-range routes probably were less
affected than those with short-range routes.

1947-57 1957-62
Employment................................
6.1
3.9
Revenue-ton m ile s ....................
15.8
8.8

Apparently, the growth of regional carriers balanced
the adverse effects of the introduction of jet aircraft

SOURCE: Data on revenue-ton miles, CAB.

upon domestic trunk line employment.

In some short-run periods, employment decreased
for the industry as a whole. For example, ATA
records indicated a decrease or stabilization in total




Evidently, flight crews (pilots and flight

engineers) bore most of the burdens of technological
change (unemployment) in this period but the effect

13

4

N ew

York

T im es,

Oct. 20, 1969, p. 81-M.

Chapter II. Collective Bargaining in the Airline Industry

Until the passage of Title II of the Railway Labor
Act in 1936, there were few successful efforts to
organize airline employees. Pilots, who were the
first craft to attempt organization, were unsuccessful
for 11 years before forming the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA) in 1930. In the next 2 years,

three contracts; and clerical, office, station and store­
house employees to seven contracts. The five re­

ALPA organized approximately 75 percent of the

new collective bargaining agreement structure, labor
and management often reached an impasse in
negotiations and invoked the mediatory services
available under the act. With the assistance of the
Board, initial agreements were consummated, which
provided a foundation for subsequent agreements,
many reached without the aid of the Board.

maining groups together were covered by seven con­
tracts.
During this early period, the NMB played an
active role in collective bargaining. In building a

pilots employed by the principal U.S. air carriers.
During this period, airline management actively
opposed union organization; but the pilots used both
economic and political means to maintain and to
augment their power and representation rights.
Moreover, favorable Federal agency decisions and

By the end of World War II, the tempo of
organizing activity increased substantially, especially

legislative actions in the early 1930’s, such as the
NLB Decision No. 83, and the Airmail Act of 1934
(which enforced the wage payment system established
by Decision No. 83), supplemented the benefits and
concessions ALPA was winning at the bargaining
table.
Simultaneously with the organization of airline
pilots, airline ground mechanics were organizing along
craft lines. By June 1937, the National Mediation
Board (NMB) recorded four labor agreements signed
by the principal airlines, two of which covered
mechanics: One at American Airlines, signed with
the Air Line Mechanics Association; the other at
Transcontinental and Western Air (TWA), negotiated
by a system association.
In 1938, the NMB recorded 10 contracts nego­
tiated by mechanic groups, four by radio operators,
and two by clerical, office, station and storehouse
employees. Interestingly, ALPA had not yet nego­
tiated a collective bargaining agreement with any
airline; but it and one carrier did sign an agreement
creating a “ temporary joint board of review to con­

among crafts not previously represented— dispatchers,
stores, cargo, commissary, plant maintenence, watch­
men, guards, and clerical. Problems relating to the
solution of representation disputes arose as these
organizational activities occurred, especially in the
classification of various groups. Previously, few
difficulties were encountered since fomal determina­
tion by the NMB was not required for pilots,
flight engineers, stewardesses, or airline dispatchers
who had secured their representation rights mainly
by means of collective bargaining and voluntary
association.
In the postwar period, however, formal determina­
tion for ground personnel proved necessary, especially
for storeroom and stockroom employees, cargo and
ramp service workers, and clerical and office em­
ployees. A large number of jurisdictional cases
occurred between 1946 and 1948 which involved
disputes between national airline unions competing
for the right to represent certain groups of mechanics,
radio and teletype operators, stewards and stewardesses,

sider an acute issue” which arose between the

and other employees who were already organized.

parties. 14 Finally, in May 1939, ALPA negotiated
its first agreement, with American Airlines.
By mid-1942, only two crafts were highly or­
ganized, the pilots (17 agreements with the principal

For instance, NMB records indicated 96 airline repre­
sentation cases between 1946 and 1948.

U.S. airlines) and the mechanics (20 contracts).
Organization of other groups of workers was not
very extensive. Airline radio operators were signato­

F o u r t h A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n

ries to seven agreements; stewards and stewardesses to




B o a rd

5

(Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1938), pp. 4-7.

Threats of strikes and actual strikes were numerous

these, the unions fought for and, to a considerable
extent, won increased wages and supplementary bene­
fits,
This general outline of the industry’s collective
bargaining history overlooks many distinctive features
in the labor-management relationship. Because the
industry is young and very dynamic even after 40
years, definitive generalizations concerning the structure

during this period. Bureau of Labor Statistics records
indicated that 32 work stoppages occurred at sched­

illustrated by this statement in the early 1960’s

uled airlines covered under the RLA between 1946

which is still applicable today:

Unstable industrial relations, characteristic of the
postwar adjustment period, developed in the late
1940’s and early 1950’s. As the cost of living and
the pace of technology increased appreciably, the
airline unions sought wage and rule concessions.
Management, confronted by these demands and facing
set tariff and other constraints, vigorously resisted.

of collective bargaining are difficult to arrive at as

and 1953.
By the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, technological

The airline collective bargaining structure has not yet
fully developed. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there
is any definite pattern and distribution o f decision-making
within the structure. Nor have either the unions or
management evolved a collective bargaining system that
is generally followed to establish the power balance in
collective bargaining. 15

change shifted the emphasis in collective bargaining
and in labor disputes to the area of work rules, job
security, severance pay, and related matters. With
the advent of the jet in 1958, jurisdictional disputes
between ALPA and the Flight Engineers International
Association (FEIA) led directly or indirectly to the

Yet, some tendencies are evident; a limited discussion

appointment of nine emergency boards. The issues
in disputes revolved around whether the “ third-seat

follows on the more salient elements: The nature
of the bargaining unit; union organization; multiple
unionism; single-unit bargaining; the forces leading
to multi-unit negotiations; and bargaining coordination
by management and unions.

in the cockpit” was to be occupied by flight
personnel with pilot training or flight personnel
with mechanical engineering qualifications.
Moreover, 4 of the 6 remaining emergency boards
created during this 5-year span (fiscal years 1958
through 1962) dealt with anticipated or realized
effects of technological change upon wages and job
security. In the dispute leading to Emergency Board
No. 122, for example, one of the major problems
was the granting of severance pay in case of layoffs
resulting from technological change. (See appendix 7 and

Collective bargaining unit
Unlike most other industries, the collective bargain­
ing structure in the airline industry was decided
legislatively on the “ craft” or “ class” principle, rather
than internally. Additionally, there are other con­
siderations in determining the bargaining unit, includ­
ing “ . . . (the) extent and effectiveness of past
collective bargaining arrangements, the functions,
duties, and responsibilities of the employees, the
general nature of their work and the community of
interests existing between jobs . . . (and)
previous decisions of the Board which bear upon
the issues of the particular dispute.” 16 The rigid
application of the “ craft” principle to the air
transportation industry, coupled with the “ majority

table 5.)
Similar fears relating to the effects of the
new jet aircraft on employment, wages, and working
conditions generated the Transport Workers UnionPan American dispute in 1958-59, which required
the establishment of Emergency Board No. 125. In
the same manner, the introduction of advanced
navigational aids precipitated the navigators TWU—
TWA emergency board in late 1961. Lastly, the
members of Emergency Board No. 124 concluded
that one of the main reasons for the impasse in
collective bargaining between the parties (ALPA and

rule,” 17 predetermined the structural form of union

American Airlines) was whether the issue of the
anticipated placement of turbine powered planes in
service was a proper subject for negotiations.
15 Charles Mason, o p . cit., p. 237.
1 F o u r t e e n th A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e N a tio n a l
M e d ia tio n B oa rd , Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1948, p. 7.
17
“ In conducting representation elections, the Board
has for many years followed a policy o f declining to
certify representation in cases where less than a majority
of the eligible voters participated by casting valid
ballots . . .”

More recent labor-management “ national emergency”
disputes have indicated a return to economic issues.
During the 7 fiscal years, 1962 to 1968, with the
development of a more favorable economic climate,
seven emergency boards were created to deal with
disputes concerning adjustments in wages.




In each of

6

tion differs among carriers and varies directly with
the size of the airline—Pan American, the domestic
trunk lines, and the regional carriers are more highly
unionized than unscheduled or other scheduled air
carriers. Unionization as a percent of total em­
ployment in 1961 was estimated at: 23

organization, at least in the earlier years, and resulted
in “fragmented craft unionism,” rather than organiza­
tion along industrial lines:
C
ertain th developm of the m
ly e
ent
any fragm
ented craft
unions in the airlin resulted from the experience of th
es
e
N
ational M
ediation B
oard in dealin w fragm craft
g ith
ent
unions in the railroad industry. It can be safely assu ed
m
that the N
ational M
ediation B
oard did nothing to create
a context in w
hich a industrial-type union m
n
ight
th
rive. 18

Union organization
Generally, then, the airline unions are organized
by craft, the two major exceptions being Inter­
national Association of Machinists and TW As
U.
table 1 demonstrates, IAM represents various classes
or crafts and is especially strong among the mechanics
and stock and stores employees, less among the
clerical and related, and even less among the flight
engineers. TW also represents employees in several
U
crafts or classes, such as flight navigators, flight dis­
patchers, stewardesses and pursers, radio and teletype
operators, mechanics, clerical and related, and stock
and stores. 19
Historically, other unions attempted industrial
organization, the most prominent example being
ALPA. In the late 1940’s, ALPA pursued a policy
of establishing affiliates to represent all the major
crafts or classes. During the succeeding years,
ALPA certified affiliates, such as the Airline Stewards
and Stewardesses Association, the Air Carrier Com­
munication Employees Association, the Air Carriers
Flight Engineers Association, the Air Line Agents
Association; but, by the early 1960’s, many of the
affiliates had been absorbed by other national or
local unions. 20 Presently, flight personnel crafts
(flight engineers, pilots and co-pilots, and stewardesses
and pursers) constitute the main elements of ALPA’s
bargaining strength. In only one classification out­
side of the flight personnel groups does ALPA still
exert an influence, that of clerical, office, stores,
fleet and passenger service which is organized by
ALPA’s affiliate, the Air Line Employees Association.21
The extent of organization varies among the
different crafts and the various carriers. W
hile
flight personnel (stewards, stewardesses, and pursers;
pilots; and other flight deck personnel), communica­
tion groups, and mechanics are highly unionized, the
aircraft and traffic service personnel, office employees,
and other airline employees groups have considerably
less representation. 22 It appears also that representa­




7

United........................................ 64.4
American....................................54.4
Eastern...................................... 55.0
TWA...................
52.3
Pan American............................ 63.8
Braniff.........................................88.5
Northwest................................... 70.3
Continental ..................................52.9
National...................................... 85.8
Multiple unionism
Currently, the NMB distinguishes between nine
major employee representation classifications. (See
table 1.) The majority of these crafts or classes are
represented by a particular union, and most airlines
bargain with a number of unions representing various
employee groups. A number of airlines deal with as
many as five or six different unions. W all the
ith
collective bargaining agreements, negotiation con­
ferences, contract expiration dates, andjurisdictional and
representation disputes that each carrier must deal
with, the probabilities of continuously harmonious
industrial relations are relatively low.
Single-unit bargaining
Collective bargaining in the airline industry has
been distinguished by the tendency of the parties
18 Edward B. Shils, o p . cit., p. 156.
1® A relative newcomer to the airline industrial relations
scene, the International Brotherhood o f Teamsters (IBT) has
challenged the existing organizations and has won representa­
tion rights for Western’s mechanics and stock and stores;
Flying Tiger’s flight engineers and stewardesses and pursers;
Braniff’s and Pan American’s stock and stores and clerical,
office, stores, fleet and passenger service; Ozark’s stock and
stores and radio and teletype operators; and Los Angeles
Airway’s stock and stores employees.
20
Charles Mason, o p . cit., p. 235.
Before Nov. i ; i960, ALEA was named Air Line
Agents Association (ALAA).
22 Baitsell, o p cit. 1966. The author estimated that
slightly under 50 percent o f all employees o f the domestic
passenger/cargo carriers are represented by a union.
23 CAB, Docket 35, 9977 “ Joint Exhibits o f the Airline
Parties,” Exhibit 10.

Table 1.

Employee representation on selected air carriers by occupational g ro u p ,1 as o f June 30, 1969

Pilots

Flight
engineers

Airline

Flight
naviga­
tors

Radio
and
teletype
operators

Steward­
esses
and
pursers

Flight
dis­
patchers

Clerical,
office,
stores,
fleet and
passenger
service

Mechanics

Stock
and
stores

Union
Air West, Inc. . . .
Allegheny Airlines,
Inc.......................
American Airlines,
Inc.......................
Braniff Intern a tio n a l............
Central Airlines,
Inc.......................
Continental
Airlines, Inc.. . .
Delta Air Lines,
Inc.......................
Eastern Air Lines,
Inc.......................
Flying Tiger Lines,
Inc.......................
Frontier Airlines,
Inc.......................
Los Angeles Airways, Inc............
Mohawk Airlines,
Inc.......................
National Airlines,
Inc.......................
North Central Airlines, Inc.............
Northeast Airlines, Inc.............
Northwest Airlines, Inc.............
Ozark Air Lines,
Inc.......................
Pan American
World Airways,
Inc.......................
Piedmont Airlines,
Inc.......................
Southern Airways,
Inc.......................
Trans-Texas Airways, Inc. . . .
Trans World Airlines, Inc. . . .
United Air Lines,
Inc.......................
Western Airlines,
Inc.......................

ALP A

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

-

IAM & AW A LE A

IAM & AW

ALP A

-

-

LU 2

ALPA

-

IAM & AW -

IAM & AW

APA 3

FEIA

-

A LD A

TWU

TWU

TWU

TWU

ALP A

-

-

AD A

ALPA

CWA

IAM & AW IBT

IBT

ALPA

-

-

ALDA

ALPA

-

I AM & AW A LE A

IAM & AW

ALPA

-

.

A LD A

ALPA

-

IAM & AW IAM & AW IAM & AW

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

-

-

-

ALPA

ALPA

-

A LD A

TWU

CWA

IAM & AW I AM & AW IAM & AW

ALPA

IBT

TWU

A LD A

IBT

-

IAM & AW I AM & AW IAM & AW

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

-

IAM & AW A LEA

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

-

IAM & AW I AM & AW IBT

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

-

IAM & AW -

IAM & AW

ALPA

FEI A

-

A LD A

ALPA

CWA

IAM & AW A LE A

IAM & AW

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

-

IAM & AW A LE A

IAM & AW

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

TWU

TWU

IAM & AW TWU

(5)

ALPA

IAM & AW TWU

A LD A

TWU

TWU

IAM & AW BRAC

IAM & AW

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

IBT

AMFA 6

I AM & AW IBT

ALPA

FEI A

.

A LD A

TWU

-

TWU

IBT

IBT

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

ALPA

-

-

-

-

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

TWU

-

-

A LE A

-

ALPA

-

-

A LD A

TWU

-

IAM & AW A LE A 7

IAM & AW

ALPA

ALPA

TWU

TWU

TWU

A LEA

IAM & AW -

-

ALPA

-

TWU

ALD A

ALPA

CWA

IAM & AW -

IAM & AW

ALPA

-

A LD A

ALPA

CWA

IBT

IBT

-

1 For the full name of the unions listed, see appendix 1.
2 Local union.
3
7
Allied Pilot Association.
4 Air Transport Dispatchers Association.




TWU

-

BRAC

-

IAM & AW

5 Included in clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service.
Airline Mechanics Fraternal Association.
Represents only a portion of the craft or class.
SOURCE: Thirty-fifth National Mediation Board A n n ua l, p.89.

8

to bargain on a single-unit basis, that is, negotiations
between one carrier with one union. Various factors
have been put forth to explain this development,
among which are the following:
(1) Vigorous competition and differences in
operating problems (costs, routes, and investment
expenditures) create an unfavorable atmosphere for
bargaining coordination by airline management.
(2) Promotion of craft unionism by the RLA
and by CAB administrative interpretation have
reinforced single-unit bargaining. 24
(3) Besides the specific problems of each
“craft,” several unions (particularly those represent­
ing ground service personnel) compete among them­
selves for membership.
(4) Negotiation coordinating committees es­
tablished by the two parties, such as the American
Transport Association, have as yet not developed
into a permanent system for multi-unit bargaining.
(5) Lastly, usually one party or the other finds
it disadvantageous to increase the “bargaining
unit.” 25
The second point merits some elaboration. No­
where in the RLA is there a reference to multi-unit
bargaining (negotiations involving more than one
carrier or one union); its prohibition originates from
an administrative interpretation by the CAB. Ap­
parently, the Board considers the establishment of
multi-unit bargaining as detrimental to “public
interest,” since multicarrier bargaining could result
in nationwide strikes. On the other hand, some air­
line labor-management experts assert that single-unit
negotiations produce instability in airline industrial
relations.
Multicarrier bargaining
Although single-unit bargaining has always been
the prevalent form of bargaining in the air transporta­
tion industry, pressures have existed to induce one
party or the other to seek multi-unit negotiations.
As early as 1945, the airlines attempted joint nego­
tiations with ALPA. 26 On December 28, 1945, the
Chairman of the Air Line Negotiations Committee
(which represented the airlines involved in Emergency
Board No. 36) urged multi-unit bargaining of a wage
and rules dispute on DC-4’s and Constellations but this
request was rejected by the president of ALPA. Although
the carriers obtained no support from the emergency
board, which did not recommend that ALPA accept




9

multicarrier bargaining, the Board did declare that
the airlines had the right to be represented by the
Committee.
After this defeat, the Committee was reorganized
in August 1946 as the Airlines Negotiating Con­
ference for the purpose of acting as the bargaining
agent for its members. It too proved unsuccessful
and was disbanded on February 28, 1947.
The first union request for multi-unit bargaining
came in 1953 from IAM, an active proponent of
multicarrier bargaining. At the suggestion of the
union, five carriers (United, Eastern, Capital, North­
east, and National) resolved a common dispute in
joint mediation, resulting in uniform contract
duration. One year later (May 26, 1954), IAM
served simultaneous notices on the same carriers and
presented identical demands to them. The carriers’
rejection of joint negotiations led to an impasse in
collective bargaining. W IAM threatening a strike,
ith
the NMB proffered mediation on August 13, 1954.
Except for Eastern, an agreement to hold joint
mediation sessions was consummated between four of
the carriers and IAM, the result of which was the
negotiation of identical wage rate changes and
common contract expiration dates.
In 1957, IAM again expressed an interest in con­
ducting multi-unit bargaining with the major domestic
trunk line carriers; but this effort proved fruitless.
In the subsequent emergency dispute between IAM and
six carriers, the emergency board (No. 122) recom­
mended multi-unit bargaining, as have several boards
since that time. Three years later, the NMB in its
Twenty-Seventh Report also advocated joint bargain­
ing as a means of improving labor relations in the
airline industry.
Meanwhile, in May 1957, the Airline Personnel
Relations Conference, the successor to the Airlines
Negotiating Conference, proposed the creation of
a committee to evaluate the advisability of joint
airline negotiations. On July 31, 1957, the Con­
ference adopted the report of the Committee which,
among other things, advocated bargaining coordina­
tion by management. Subsequent activity led to the
24 A 1947 CAB ruling held that multi-unit bargaining1. . .
cannot be imposed by any party to a dispute but must come
as a result o f the consent o f all parties.”
25 Vernon Briggs, o p . c it., p. 5.
26 Baitsell considers the negotiations o f the 1933 dispute
between ALPA and five carriers, which led to NLB Decision
No. 83, as the first endeavor to institute multicarrier bargaining.
After this unsuccessful bargaining, ALPA opposed and blocked
any effects by management to institute joint negotiations on
the grounds that it (multi-unit bargaining) was in violation of
the RLA.

formulation of the Mutual Aid Pact. Also, in late
1959 and early 1960, ATA began discussions deal­
ing with the advantages of joint negotiations; but the
member carriers were unable to agree on this
proposal.
A more recent example of IAM’s interest in multi­
unit bargaining is illustrated by an agreement reached
between IAM and five carriers (Eastern, National,
Northwest, TW and United) to conduct joint nego­
A,
tiations on eight points of a then current dispute.
After jointly serving “Section 6” notices on October
1, 1965, the parties held individual and, subsequently,
joint meetings. On January 11, 1966, the parties,
deadlocked in negotiations, applied together for the
mediation services of the NMB; and the dispute was
docketed as one case.
Bargaining coordination by management
At the same time, compelling forces also exist for
carriers to coordinate their bargaining. As was pre­
viously stated, airline payrolls currently constitute
approximately 40 percent—all employment costs
(wages, salaries, personnel expenses, welfare programs,
and payroll taxes) constitute 45 percent— of total
operating expenses. Each carrier, operating in a
regulated and highly competitive market, therefore, is
concerned about labor costs vis-a-vis his competitors.
Moreover, with the development of pattern bargaining,
wage negotiations by one airline usually have an
effect on other carriers. Combined, these two factors
exert forceful pressures on the carriers to coordinate
their bargaining.
On the other hand, each airline seeks harmonious
industrial relations and what it considers to be a fair
wage. Beyond that, some airlines are in a better
financial position than others. Therefore, the forces
of competition which frequently impel the carriers
toward coordinated bargaining also dissipate the urge
to cooperate:
The experiments with multicarrier bargaining indicate
the longstanding interest o f airline management in
arriving at some cohesive system whereby settle­
ments would depend not so much on the ex­
pediency o f competitive gain or o f keeping the
business operating as on well-thought-out and
practical long-term objectives. No system that
has proved consistently (my emphasis) workable
has yet evolved. ^

27 Charles Mason, o p . cit., p. 245.
28 CAB Mutual Aid Pact Investigation Docket No. 9977
(Renewal), B r i e f o f th e Carriers to E x a m in e r A r t h u r S.
P resen t, p. 3.
29 National and Continental left the Pact in 1961. After
rejoining on Mar. 22, 1962, Continental discontinued its
membership again on Dec. 31, 1966.
30 See appendix 1.

One important and apparently permanent system
of cooperation has developed. Responding to the




Capital—
IAM strike of Oct. 17, 1958 (which
eventually led to the establishment of Emergency
Board No. 122), six carriers, American, Capital,
Eastern, Pan American, TW and United, executed
A,
a 1-year mutual aid agreement to protect themselves
against strike losses and the prevailing “divide-andconquer tactics” (“whip-sawing”) used by a number
of the unions. Under the provisions of this pact, a
carrier shutdown by a strike would receive “ windfall”
payments if the strike was either “unlawful” or
called to “enforce demands in excess of or contrary
to those recommended by an Emergency Board.” 28
On May 20, 1959, the CAB approved the pact, except
for one provision requiring the shuttling of traffic
from the struck carrier to the other pact members.
On March 7, 1960, the agreement was amended to
include coverage for strikes called in the absence of
emergency boards, with the stipulation that the carrier
fully comply with the requirements of the RLA. Thus,
small carriers whose operations would not substantially
interrupt interstate commerce and whose disputes would
not warrant the appointment of an emergency board found
membership more advantageous; and Braniff, Con­
tinental, National, and Northwest joined in March
and April 1960. 29 Seven unions (ALPA, ALDA,
BRC, FEIA, TW IAM, and UAW 30 reacted by
U,
)
forming the Association of Air Transport Unions on
April 12, 1960, to oppose the pact and to enforce
common expiration dates in their collective bargain­
ing agreements. By November 1960, the Association
became inactive because of disunity among member
unions.
The carrier’s Mutual Aid Pact was amended once
more on March 22, 1962, and three significant
modifications were made. First, a “supplemental pay­
ments” provision (in addition to “windfall payments”)
was instituted to insure that financial assistance to a
struck member would be sufficient to cover 25 per­
cent of the carrier’s “normal operating expenses
attributable to the operations shutdown.” If “wind­
fall payments” were insufficient to cover this 25
percent figure, each member carrier (not struck) was
legally obligated to provide “supplemental payments”
up to .5 percent of their operation revenues of the
previous calendar year. Second, the agreement was
extended indefinitely; each of the carriers had a

1 0

right to withdraw from the Pact. Third, coverage
was enlarged to include strikes in which an emer­
gency board made no specific recommendations. On
July 10, 1964, the CAB approved the amended
agreement for 3 years and later extended its approval.
In the latter part of 1969, the Pact members
petitioned the CAB to effect changes in their agree­
ment. Under the new provisions of the amended
Pact, a struck carrier would receive 50 percent of its
normal operation expenses at the beginning of a
strike, the rate declining on a sliding scale to 35 per­
cent at the end of the first 4 weeks of a labor dis­
pute. Other provisions would alter the conditions of
entry and exit from the Pact and would raise the
annual limitations on the amount payable by any
member. Subsequently, National, Continental, and
W
estern joined the agreement; the first two by Nov.
15, 1969, and the third on. Feb. 2, 1970.

Table 2.

The Pact was invoked on four occasions in the
first 2 years of its existence, eight more times (seven
of which dealt with crew complement disputes) in the
next 2 years, and on seven occasions between March
1962 and August 1969. (See table 2.) A definitive
evaluation of the Mutual Aid Pact’s effect on collec­
tive bargaining relations in the airline industry is
difficult to estimate, 31 especially since the agree­
ment was consummated in an unusually disruptive
period, 1958-62, one fraught with emotion laden
issues (job security, work rules, severance pay, etc ).

In CAB, Docket 9977, Hearing Examiner S. Thomas
Simon Stated, “ There is no substantial evidence in the record
that the Pact has had any material effect upon the collective
bargaining process in the industry.”

Use o f the mutual aid pact benefits, 1958-69
Work stoppages
work stoppage
commenced

Carrier

Oct. 16, 1958 ...................................
Nov. 21, 1958...................................
Nov. 24, 1958...................................

Capital
TWA
Eastern

Dec.
June
Oct.
Feb.

20,
10,
11,
17,

May
June
Aug.
Aug.
Mar.
July

2, 1961......................................
23, 1962...................................
21, 1963...................................
25, 1964..........................
. .
31, 1965...................................
8, 1966 ...................................

American
Eastern
Northwest
Pan American
American
TWA
Eastern
National
National
Eastern
United
Pan American
Pan American
Eastern
TWA
United
Northwest
American
Pan American

1958...................................
1960...................................
1960...................................
1961...................................

Feb. 27, 1969...................................
Aug. 8, 1969......................................

Union(s)

Number of
workers
involved

Duration
in days

IAM
I AM
I AM and
FEIA
ALPA
ALPA
I AM
FEIA

20,819
9,655
4,166
173,483

37
16
22
38
22
10
37
7

I AM
FEIA
IAM
TWU
ALPA
IAM

3,581
17,107
2,269
7,630
17,221
270,858

6
82
1
1
11
43

TWU
TCWH

20,000
24,000

21
4

6,838
14,123
14,252

1 Includes the FEIA flight engineers' strike at Western and Flying Tiger.
Also includes the 1AM strike at National.

2

SOURCE:

Air Transport Association; Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Civil Aeronauties Board, Docket No. 9977

(Renew al), December 1968, pp. 3-5.




11

FEIA and IAM simultaneously struck Eastern. Other
examples of interunion mutual aid have included the
honoring of the flight engineers’ picket line at W
estern
in 1961 by IAM and the navigators, the navigators’
picket line at Flying Tiger by ALPA and FEIA, and
the stewardesses’ picket line at Mohawk by ALPA.
Given the particular development of airline collective
bargaining units into numerous crafts or classes, with
varying economic power, this form of cooperation
greatly enhanced the economic power of a small or
weak union.
Another type of interunion cooperation consists of
granting or loaning strike funds. In later 1955, for
example, TW furnished assistance to the flight
U
engineers (FEIA) to sustain their strike against United;
and later, IBT loaned FEIA $100,000 to continue the
strike. 33 Three years later, FEIA received $200,000
more from IBT, this time to maintain strike action
against Eastern. 34

Although the agreement may enhance the member
carriers’ bargaining power, it does not follow that it
necessarily increases the chances for prolonged strikes:
In the first place, at no tim h a the tru k
e ave ll
n
lin been participatin m bers. Indeed, d rin
es
g em
u g
m of its existence five of th trunk lin carriers
ost
e
e
(D
elta, N
ortheast, W
estern, N
ational, an C
d ontinental)
h stayed out of it . . . Second, w
ave
hile paym
ents
m be helpful, they do not cover actu strik
ay
al
e
losses . . . Another w
eakness is that local service
lin are excluded . . . A final w
es
eakness of the
M
utual Aid P is that it (M
act
AP) w not autom
ill
a­
tically preven unions from w
t
inning a new con­
cession from a carrier to w
hich it is not im
portant.32

Union bargaining coordination
The airline unions have also instituted several
schemes for interunion cooperation although, again,
no permanent system has evolved. To illustrate, at
the beginning of the jet crew complement dispute,
Sept. 3, 1958, the FEIA, IAM, and ALSSA locals at
Eastern Air Lines agreed to honor each other’s
picket lines. Soon afterwards, FEIA and IBT entered
into a mutual assistance pact. On Nov. 24, 1958,




32 John Baitsell, o p . cit., pp. 343-45.
33 TWU Express, January 1956, p. 7; T h e N e w
T im es, July 22, 1958, p. 54.
34 T h e W ashington P o s t, Dec. 9, 1958, p. C-10.

1 2

York

C h a p t e r

III.

L e g a l

F r a m e w o r k

Originally, the RLA dealt only with industrial re­
lations disputes in the railroad industry; but a number
of events during the mid-1920’s and the 1930’s in the
airline industry gradually resulted in its inclusion under
the act: The Air Mail Act of 1925 authorized the
Postmaster General to award air mail carrier contracts;
the Air Commerce Act of 1926 empowered the De­
partment of Commerce to encourage air commerce and
to promote the growth of airports, airways and other
facilities; the Watres Act of 1930 authorized the Post­
master General to direct, combine, and strengthen the
air transportation industry; and the Air Mail Act of
1934 required carriers to comply with the compensa­
tion levels and working conditions prescribed by
National Labor Board Decision No. 83 as a pre­
requisite for securing air mail contracts. Simultaneously,
there were industrial relations developments which
culminated in legislative action in 1936. As techno­
logical changes occurred during the 1931-33 period,
aircraft cruising speeds increased substantially; thus,
the air carriers sought a m odification of
their pilots’ pay formula from a monthly base plus
mileage pay to a monthly base plus hourly pay
(flight hours flown). Concerned about the wage and
hour issues involved, ALPA announced its intention to
strike. When the carriers proceeded to institute the
new compensation system, ALPA sought relief from
the NLB. In turn, the NLB created a three-man
factfinding board to investigate the dispute; and their
recommendations directly led to NLB Decision No. 83,
“ the most far-reaching ruling ever issued in the airline
industry.” 35
Meanwhile, from its inception in 1931, ALPA, with
the support of the American Federation of Labor,
Congress of Industrial Organization, and the Railway
Labor Executives Association, attempted to persuade
Congress to include the air transportation industry
under the RLA. Finally, on April 10, 1936, Congress
placed the airlines within the scope of the RLA by an
amendment to the Act (“ Title II” ). “ Title II” ex­
tended all of the provisions of the 1926 Act (as
amended in 1934) to the commerical airline industry,
except section 3 which dealt with the National Rail­
road Adjustment Board. 36




13

o f

t h e

R a ilw a y

N a tio n a l

L a b o r

m e d ia t io n

A c t

b o a r d

In the intervening time, the act was amended on
June 21,1934, to create the National Mediation Board,
the successor to the U.S. Board of Mediation which
was established by the original act in 1926. Two
major functions, corresponding to 2 of the 3 types of
disputes covered by the act, were delegated to the
Board:

(1) The m
ediation of disputes betw
een carriers
an the labor organizations represen g th em
d
tin eir ­
ployees, relatin to the m
g
aking of new agreem
ents,
or the ch
anging of existing agreem
ents, affecting
rates of pay, ru an w
les d orking conditions, after th
e
p
arties h been unsuccessful in th at-hom bar­
ave
eir
e
gain g efforts to com
in
pose th differences (“m
ese
ajor
disputes”) . . .
(2) The duty of ascertain g an certifying the
in
d
represen
tative of an craft or class of em
y
ployees to
th carriers after investigation through secret-ballot
e
elections or other appropriate m
ethods of em
ployees’
representation choice (“representation disputes”) . . . 37
An important supplemental duty assigned to the Board
was the settlement of “ minor disputes,” those involving
the interpretation of the existing collective bargaining
agreements.

P u r p o s e s

o f

th e

a c t

The general purposes of the RLA, as contained in
section 2 of the 1934 amendments to the Railway
Labor Act, are the following: (1) To avoid any
interruption to commerce or to the operation of any
carrier engaged therein; (2) to forbid any limitation
upon freedom of association among employees or any
denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of
the right of employees to join a labor organization;

John Baitsell, o p . c i t „ p. 32.
The 1936 Amendments to the Railway Labor Act,
Congress of the United States. In U.S. 40 States 1921, ch.
166. 74 Cong. (19 3 6), Sec. 2 01 .
37 T h i r t y - F o u r t h A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n
B o a r d , Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1969, p. 4.

has passed after the termination of discussions without

(3) to provide for the complete independence of
carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organiza­

a request for or proffer of the Board’s assistance.

tion to carry out the purposes of this act; (4) to
provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all

parties are expected to negotiate until an agreement is
reached or an impasse develops.
When mediation proves unsuccessful in producing

disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working

an accord and arbitration is refused, the Board is re­

conditions; (5) to provide for the prompt and orderly
settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances

quired to formally notify both parties of its failure to
reconcile their differences. Again, a “ status quo”
period is instituted, and no unilateral alteration in the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement is per­
missible for 30 days from the date of notice unless,
in the interim, arbitration is again proffered and is

or out of the interpretation or application of agree­
ments covering rates of pay, rules, or working
conditions. 38

P r o c e d u r a l

a s p e c ts

o f

t h e

a c t

To implement its general purposes, the RLA
requires the parties to follow step-by-step procedures
that govern their actions from the initial notice of an
intention to change the terms of an agreement to the
last step which leaves the union free to strike or the
employer to institute a lockout. RLA procedures are
complex and time consuming and consist of: Notice
of intended change in the terms and conditions of
employment by one or both parties; direct negotia­
tions; if direct negotiations are unsuccessful, a request
by the parties for or the proffer of mediation by the
National Mediation Board (NMB) should the facts

agreed upon or an emergency board is established
under Section 10 of the act. Action under this
section is taken if, in the opinion of the NMB, an
actual or imminent strike arising out of an unre­
solved dispute “ threatens to substantially interrupt
interstate commerce.” The Board so notifies the
President who may establish, as a last resort under
the act, an emergency board to examine the nature of
and to make recommendations concerning the issues in
dispute.
Generally, the emergency boards delay the issuance
of a formal report as long as voluntary settlements are
impending or probable. Beyond that, the boards utilize
prolongations of the emergency procedures to effect

warrant it; meditation hearings; proffer of arbitration;
emergency board hearings and recommendations; and
“ status quo” periods. (See chart 1.) The procedure
is set in motion upon the serving of a “ Section 6”
notice of intended change in the collective bargaining
agreement. A “ status quo” period prohibits changes

accords by means of mediation.

Even after the rec-

commendations are made public, the NMB (under Sec­
tion 5 of the RLA) may reenter the case and extend
the use of their mediatory facilities.

in the terms and conditions of employment until the
parties reach agreement, or all requisite procedures of
the act have been exhausted, or a period of 10 days




The

38 The 1934 Amendments to the Railway Labor Act,
Congress of the United States. In U.S. 48 States 1185, ch.
691, 73d Cong. (1 9 3 4 ), Sec. 2.

14

C h a r t

1.

A i r l i n e

" s t a t u s

q u o ”

c o l l e c t i v e
p e r i o d s

b a r g a i n i n g

u n d e r

t h e

p r o c e d u r e s

R a i l w a y

L a b o r

a n d
A c t .

PROCEDURES
GOVERNMENT

DISPOSITION

CARRIER(S) AND UNION(S)

30 DAYS0 NOTICE OF
INTENDED CHANGE IN
AGREEMENT AFFECTING
RATES OF PAY. RULES.
OR WORKING CONDITIONS

"STATUS Q U O "
(IN ABSENCE OF
AGREEMENT)
FROM
NOTICE

i

AGREEMENT ON TIME
AND PLACE FOR BEGINNING
CONFERENCES (WITHIN 10
DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE)
||§

CONFERENCES
(BEGIN WITHIN THE 30 DAYS
PROVIDED IN NOTICE)

REQUEST BY EITHER PARTY
(OR BOTH)
FOR MEDIATION,
OR ITS PROFFER BY NMB

i

NATIONAL
MEDIATION
BOARD

L

AGREEMENT

f

MEDIATION
AGREEMENT

AS ITS FINAL

UNLESS 10
DAYS ELAPSE
FOLLOWING
TERMINATION
OF
CONFERENCES
WITHOUT
REQUEST FOR
OR PROFFER
OF
MEDIATION

AGREEMENT
TO ARBITRATE

MEDIATORY ACTION,
NMB PROFFERS
ARBITRATION
l

TO
1

BOARD OF
ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION
■
i
1

1

.........k.
*

BINDING
AWARD

IF. IN ITS JUDGMENT
DISPUTE THREATENS
SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE
NMB SO NOTIFIES PRESIDENT

30 DAYS
FOLLOWING
NMB
NOTICE TO
PARTIES THAT
MEDIATION
HAS
FAILED AND
ARBITRATION
WAS REFUSED

»
I

PRESIDENT, IN HIS DISCRETION
ESTABLISHES EMERGENCY BOARD

THE PRESIDENT

FROM
CREATION
OF BOARD

...... ...................... I
EMERGENCY
BOARD

EMERGENCY
BOARD INVESTI­
GATES DISPUTE

TO
30 DAYS
FOLLOWING
EMERGENCY
BOARD
REPORT

1
_______
■
"

A c t io n w h i c h is re q u ire d
w hen p r e ce d e n t a ction
has been taken.

REPORT TO PRESIDENT, WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS (WITHIN
30 DAYS OF CREATION OF BOARD)
I

*----------------------- P

— —• P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r r e a c h i n g
agreem ent and a ctio n s
w h ich are d isc re tio n a ry .




PARTIES FREE
OF LEGAL RESTRAINT

15

AGREEMENT

39
C h a p t e r

IV .

A ir lin e

Mediation was an indispensable tool in the NMB’s
efforts to conclude settlements in the air transportation
industry. Over the 34-year span since 1936, the NMB
disposed of 1,465 airline mediation cases, 905 (61.8
percent) since 1955. 40 Almost 50 percent of all the
mediation cases were settled in one decade, 1951-1960
(715 mediation cases), years that were characterized
first by a rapid rise in the Consumer Price Index
and later by the introduction of jet aircraft. With the
addition of 3 more years (1963, 1967, 1968), the 13
years combined accounted for 62.4 percent of all
mediation cases.
1936 and 1937, the distribution of cases successfully
mediated, withdrawn by the parties, or dismissed by
the Board was uneven within the 34-year period. In

Years

1936-69 . . .
1955-69 . . .
1936-54 . . .

SOURCE:

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

1,407

100.0
100.0
100.0

595
383
212

42.3
44.0
39.6

812
488
324

57.7
56.0
60.4

871
536

National Mediation Board data.

Within these two major groups, pilots and
mechanics were involved in one-half of the total
mediation cases in all three time periods, but in­
creased their relative share between the subperiods.
With the addition of two other crafts, clerical and
related and stewards, stewardesses, and pursers, the
four occupational groups combined participated in
approximately three-fourths of all airline mediation
cases.
39

All data, except for work stoppage figures, in this and
in the following sections are based on the fiscal year (ending
June 30).
40 Because of a limitation in data, the analysis proceeds on
the basis of mediation cases disposed of (settled by one means
or another) rather than mediation cases docketed in any particlar fiscal year(s).
41 Between 1951 and 1957, the National Mediation Board
disposed of 482 mediation cases.
42 The category of combined airline employees was elimi­
nated trom the analysis since it was impossible to classify those
mediation cases by major groups. Also, all 11 mediation cases
in 1945 were omitted from the analysis for the same reason.

labor-management disputes (374 mediation cases),
although not as many cases were docketed annually
as in the two previous periods.

g r o u p s

Of the mediation cases disposed of between 1936
and 1969 that could be classified by major occupa­




Flight
Ground
mediation cases mediation cases

Number

and early 1960’s ushered in another period of
conflict (338 mediation cases), focussed in demands
for changes in rules and pay. Between 1963 and the
present, pressures induced by innovations and sub­
stantial rises in the CPI generated union demands
which resulted in continual NMB intervention in

flig h t

tional group, 595 (42.3 percent) involved flight em­
ployees and 812 cases (57.7 percent) concerned
ground crafts. (See appendix 3.) 42 Doubtlessly,
flight personnel groups accounted for an inordinately
large and growing share of mediation cases over the
years, especially in light of their relative numbers.
Between 1955 and 1969, flight employees constituted
slightly less than 20 percent of the total airline labor
force; yet they were involved in approximately 40
percent of all airline mediation cases, as shown in
table 3.

Total

the formative years of organization (1936-45), only
40 mediation cases, the majority involving pilots and
mechanics, were processed. (See appendix 2.) Over
the next 5 years (1946-50), organizational activities
among airline employees not previously represented
substantially contributed to the increase in the use
of the Board’s mediatory services (231 cases).
Beginning in the latter part of this period and ex­
tending through the mid-1950’s, unsettled labor
conditions precipitated by the failure to agree on
wage and rule changes, especially for flight groups
and mechanics, frequently required the intervention
of the Board. 41 The use of jets in the late 1950’s

a n d

C a se s

Table 3. Mediation cases disposed of, 1936-69 by
occupational group

Ranging from a high of 83 in 1959 to none in

G r o u n d

M e d ia t io n

16

Pilots
and
mechanics

Years

1936-69 .......................
1955-69.......................
1936-54 .......................

Pilots, mechanics, clerical
and related, stewardesses
and stewards

51.4
53.0
49.1

Table 4. Number of mediation agreements and percent of total,
1955-69

72.9
74.4
70.3

Number
of
mediation
agreements

Years 1

1955-59 .............
1960-64 .............
1965-69 . . . ___
1955-69.............

Issu es

Union demands for changes in an existing agreement
are seldom confined to a single issue. Most frequently

Mediation agreements
as a percent of total
mediation cases
disposed of

233
173
180
586

66.0
58.1
70.9
64.8

they include economic as well as noneconomic pro­
1 Subdividing the 15 years into these 5-year periods was
based on convenience, not on any economic criterion.

posals for change. Nevertheless when an impasse has
been reached, generally, one broad issue can be
identified as the roadblock to agreement. Although

SOURCE:

National Mediation Board data.

full agreement may not have been reached on all
of the provisions which were considered in negotia­
tions, in the data discussed here and in appendix 2,

of by mediation agreements in the former period, in
relative terms the years from 1963 to 1969 were char­

mediation cases were classified by the issue considered
by the parties and the mediators to be the one that
most hindered agreement.

acterized by greater success by the NMB’s mediation
activities. Over the 8-year period 1955-62, the average

Because of the unavailability of data for the pre1955 period, the analysis was confined to subsequent
years. Of the 905 mediation cases disposed of
between 1955 and 1969, 30 were concerned with the
negotiation of first agreements, 534 with rates of pay,
328 with work rules, and 13 with miscellaneous issues.
Combined, rates and rules were the principal subjects
of mediation cases docketed by the Board; they
accounted for over 95 percent of the mediation cases
disposed of during this period.

The negotiations of

new agreements was undoubtedly relatively more
important an issue in the pre-1955 period since

annually. Since 1955, the parties interest in this
procedure apparently declined.

organization of most of the crafts was substantially
completed by the mid-1950’s.

D is p o s it io n

o f

m e d ia t io n

annual number of mediation agreements signed by air
carriers and unions was 42; for the 1963-69 period, 36
cases were annually disposed of on the average by this
means. However, 6 of the 9 years in which mediation
agreements constituted the most prevalent method of
settlement occurred in the second time period.
Arbitration, another method to dispose of media­
tion cases, was seldom used by the parties in the
air transportation industry. During the 15-year period
under consideration, only 12 agreements to arbitrate
were consummated, an average of, less than one

Years

c a s e s 43

Of the various methods of disposition of these 905
cases, mediation agreements far exceeded those of
other categories. Between 1955 and 1969, 586 of
these agreements, accounting for 64.8 percent of dis­
position of all airline mediation cases, were consum­
mated. Thus, after direct negotiation, this second
line of defense was an effective device in assisting the

1955-59
1960-64
1965-69
1955-69

parties to reach agreement.
Table 4 indicates the consummation of mediation
agreements varied between the 5-year periods, with a
decline between the first and second subperiods, due
to an increase in the relative number of dismissals and

drawals and dismissals. 44 Over the 15-year span,

7
3
2
12

1.98
1.01
.79
1.33

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

Two other categories of disposition remain, with­
they accounted for 189 dispositions (82 and 107,
4 3

withdrawals, and with an upswing in the third period.
Even more interesting was the comparision between
1955-62 and 1963-69. Although more cases were disposed




......................
......................
.....................
......................

Number

Percent of mediation
cases disposed of by
arbitration agreement

17

Data on disposition of airline mediation cases was also
unavailable prior to 1955. See appendix 2.
44
A withdrawal refers to the action of the party which
initially requested the mediatory services of the Board when
the party retracts its application. A dismissal refers to the
action of the Board when it discharges the request for its serv­
ice according to the conditions required under the act (RLA).

respectively). Between the three subperiods, the

establish a measuring rod of the efficiency of the
parties to dispose of industrial relation controversies
by means of direct negotiations. Limitations, mainly
due to data constraints, were quickly apparent. No
accurate statistics were available to indicate the num­
ber of “ Section 6” notices of intended change in

distribution of dismissals plus withdrawals was rel­
atively stable, 19.6 percent of all dispositions
between 1955 and 1969, 22.5 percent between 1960
and 1964, and 20.9 percent between 1965 and
1969. Within these three periods, however, they
varied considerably.

collective bargaining agreements or the number of
disputes settled by direct negotiations.

R e la tiv e

u tiliz a tio n

o f

m e d ia t o r y

Moreover, the

number of mediation cases that involved airlines annu­
ally was not ascertainable. These statistics were to
be utilized to indicate the percent of “ Section 6”

s e r v ic e s

notices requiring the mediatory services of the NMB.
To ascertain whether labor and management relied
heavily upon the mediatory assistance of the Board to
resolve their differences, an attempt was made to




18

Thus, without these data, accurate quantification of
the parties’ success in solving their collective bar­
gaining problems on their own was impossible.

Chapter V.

Airline Emergency Boards
disputes which “threaten substantially to interrupt
interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive
a section of the country of essential transportation
service” and to the settlement of all disputes “in
order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to
the operation of any carrier. . . .” Considering the
size of some of the smaller airline carriers and the
Civil Aeronautics Board practice of awarding two
or more carriers access to major routes, as well as
the existence of other means of transportation, a
strict interpretation of Section 2, 1st, may not have
been necessary to protect the public interest.
In 1966, former Secretary of Labor W. Willard
Wirtz refused to classify as a national emergency
the labor-management controversy which interrupted
about 50 percent of domestic trunkline air service
and which caused the creation of Emergency
Board 166. This particular controversy probably
had the greatest economic impact of any airline
emergency board dispute, and it may serve as a
measure of the economic impact of the other 32
cases.
Most emergency boards involving a single carrier
and a single union (especially those in the late
1940’s and early 1950’s) were created to resolve
controversies which may not have fulfilled the
conditions of threatening to substantially deprive
a section of the country of essential transportation
services, except in the narrowest sense. For
instance, it would seem that when the Brotherhood
of Railway Clerks struck Braniff (a domestic trunk­
line carrier) in late 1951, the dispute did not
threaten to substantially interrupt interstate com­
merce or deprive a section of the country of
essential transportation services for the following
reasons: The clerks are not essential personnel in
the same sense that mechanics and flight deck
personnel are; the major airline routes assigned to
Braniff were also flown by other carriers; and other
forms of transportation were available to provide
essential services to the affected areas. The

Since 1936, the Board has dealt with 1,465 airline
mediation cases; and only 63 required this final step
of the procedure. 45 In total, 33 boards were
created, two-thirds between 1955 and 1969 but none
during the last 3 years. (See table 5.) The incidence
of airline emergency boards over time was irregular,
most occurring in scattered clusters.
Between May 1946 and November 1954, 13 emer­
gency boards were established. Fourteen boards,
created between January 1958 and March 1962,
coincided with the introduction of the jet plane and
centered on work rules for ground employees and
manning issues for flight deck personnel as the
principal subjects in dispute. In the last seven airline
emergency boards, which were confined to ground
crafts, wages was the prime issue.
The use of emergency boards in the past 20 years
has been depicted as a “proliferation” of such pro­
cedures and a domination of labor-management
negotiations in the industry by the Government,
contrary to the original intent of the act. Critics have
frequently charged that the Board has pursued a
policy of automatically notifying the President of
almost any dispute which was unsettled after it had
intervened, the only criterion being whether a work
stoppage was imminent. Since the airline unions
routinely set a strike date when an impasse is reached
in negotiations or in mediation conducted by the
Board, the occurrence of “imminent work stoppages”
has been extremely high. Consequently, it appears
that the effectiveness of the emergency board pro­
cedures as a last resort has been reduced and the
parties have integrated this procedure into their col­
lective bargaining strategy.
If this lessening of effectiveness has occurred, its
cause lies, perhaps, in the evolution of the act. Orig­
inally, the act was limited exclusively to railroads,
an industry in which collective bargaining relation­
ships were well-structured and one in which a work
stoppage, even on smaller lines, could entail a sub­
stantial impact on an area. The law was phrased
to reflect the nature of the industry and its relative
importance vis-a-vis the national economy as it
existed at the time of passage in 1926. Thus,
Section 10, 1st, and Section 2, 1st, referred to




45
Some of the 63 mediation cases were combined into one
emergency board case; others were considered separately.

19

Table 5. Airline emergency boards, 1936-69
Major craft involved
Emer­
gency
board
number

Flight

TWU
TWU

166

1AM

158

Carrier(s)

Union(s)

168
167

1AM

Mechanics and related

1AM
TWU
TWU
FEIA
FEIA
ALPA
ALPA
TWU
1AM
FEIA
BRC
TWU
ALPA
FEIA

122

1AM

121
120

ALPA
FEIA

108

1AM
FEIA
1AM
FEIA
1AM
TWU
ALPA
BRC
1AM
(ALPA
(1AM
1AM
ALPA

Rules

Other

X______
X..............

.

"Section 6 "
notice date

May 31,1966
Mar. 1,1966
Oct.

1,1965

1

Oct. 31,1962

X..............

Mechanics and related________

X______
X..............
X______

[Capital_____________ _____
National__________________
Northwest________________
United...................................
Eastern............. ....... ................
United__________ _________
Northwest________________
TWA...........................................
Northwest________ ______
Pan American_____________
American_________________
Braniff___________________
Northwest...............................
National__________________
National....................................
Northwest__________ _____
TWA 17.......................................

Wages

| x ..............

Braniff___________________
Continental_____________
Eastern___ ________ _____ _
Northwest________________
TWA........ ..................................
United__________ ______ _
Pan American..................... .
American...................................
TWA............. ............................
Eastern......... ........................ ..
Pan American.........................
TWA.....................................
TWA_____________________
Northwest______________ _
Pan American_____ ____ _
Pan American_____________
Pan American............... .........
American_________________
TW A ____________________
[Eastern____ _____ ________
TWA______________ _____ _
United___________________
Northwest___ _
Northeast........... ......................
Capital........ ........... ..............
National...................................

New
agree­
ments

Ground

Pan American...........................
American........... __ ______
[Eastern...................................
1National...................- ...............
■{Northwest................. ............
TWA............................. .............
(.United.................... ....... ...........

156
152
149
146
144
143
142
140
136
135
128
125
124
123

103
102
101
100
99
94
90
67
62
38
36

Major issues

Engineers............. ..
Pilots . .
Pilots..........................
Navigators............

X..............

Service___________
Pilots ____________

May

X.........
X______
X______
X..............
X..............
X......... .
X..............
X.............
X .. .
X .

1
X..........

X
X

Pilots .

X.........

Mechanics and related................
Engineers............
Engineers
. ..
Engineers________

X..............
X.........

_____

X______

Pilots .

X ....

Pilots____________

X______
X______

X______
X.............
X..............
X______

1,1962
U l9 6 1 »
28,1962
26,1960
8,1960
2,1960
30,1960
31,1961
9,1960*
31,1960
8,1960
9,1959
30,1958
21,1957
23,1957
1,1957
1,1957
30,1957
30,1957
30,1957
30.1957
29,1957
27,1957
26,1957

May 26,1954

X______

X..............
X______
X______

Pilots.. . .

(Aug.
(Feb.
Oct.
Feb.
Jan.
Aug.
May
[Feb.
(May
Mar.
Oct.
Oct.
Jun.
Sep.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
X.............. Aug.
Jul.
Aug.
Aug.
Mar.
Feb.

X...........

Dec.
Sep.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
May
Apr.
May

26,1951
21,1951
28,1952
11,1950
31,1951
31,1949
10,1949
28,1948

May U l9 4 7
Mar. 1,1946
(0

2 In c lu d e s m a n n in g req u ire m e n ts , w o rk rules, and te c h n o lo g ic a l in n o v a tio n issues.
D id n o t respo nd to re c o m m e n d a tio n s .
N o fo rm a l e m e rg en cy board, re p o rt, s e ttle d d ire c tly b y th e parties.
" S e c tio n 6 " filin g d a te n o t a v a ila b le .
D is p u te in w h ic h 2 m e d ia tio n cases in v o lv in g th e sam e partie s w e re considered jo in tly .
N o specific re c o m m e n d a tio n s on e c o n o m ic issues.
N o s e ttle m e n t; ba rg a in in g agent changed.
B oard re c o m m e n d e d resum in g n e u tra l fa c t fin d in g , w ith no re c o m m e n d a tio n s on sp ecific issues, e x c e p t th a t s e ttle m e n t s h o u ld n o t
c o n flic t w ith Feinsinger C om m is s io n 's re c o m m e n d a tio n s .
9 P artia l a c c ep ta n c e (re je c tio n ).

3
4
5
6
7
8

interstate commerce has limited to a small pro­
portion the U.S. scheduled air carriers and major
airline unions involved in emergency procedures.
In most cases, emergency boards were appointed by
the President to aid in disputes between one carrier
and one union, usually a major airline union and a
domestic carrier. With the exception of one emer­
gency dispute, none involved more than one union;
and only five were concerned with more than one

Mediation Board’s hesitancy, apparent since the mid1960’s, to recommend the appointment of emer­
gency boards for some single carrier disputes was
probably a recognition of the need to reverse this
policy.

Unions and carriers involved
The requirement that boards be appointed to
consider disputes that may substantially interrupt



2 0

Ta bU 5. Airlin t emergency boards, 1936-69— Continued
Emergency board recommendations

Work stoppages
Duration
under act
(calendar
days)

Number of
workers
involved
(thousands)

Mar.-days
idle
(thousands)

Response of parties

Occurred
Before
emergency
board
created

Rejec ed by

After
emergency
board
created

Union

I

»

|

jx

1,922

Accepted
by both
parties

Carrier

X _________
X____ . . . .

182
179
277

Settlement deviated from
recommendations on:Economic
issues

(2>

jx

.

Job security
issues i

X__________
X______ ..

__

Emer­
gency
board
number

168
167

jx__

166

1

436

(3)

231
163
225
582
842
586
502
186
444

17

912

X.

4

210
100

_______

1 _____
0
x

21

118

X____ _____

14
14

13 371
141

8'X

185
13371

434

252

(»)
(»)
(»)

0
X............. ..
X_____ ____
X........... .........
X.....................

(«)
(»)
(»)
X.
X

(ID
(*)

X______

(11)
0

6z)

/

156
152
149
146
144
143
142
140
136
135
128
125
124
123
122

X
X

X

X .. . ................
X.....................

(3)
1

04)

4

(14)

1
2

13

X__________

8

X__________

30
83
3

X __________
X__________

244

X____________

X

X
X
X
X_............

X___

(11)
0
X

6
)

X

103
102
101
100
99
94
90
67

X.....................
X________ -X__________

(3)
X ... ........

X
(3)

..

X ................

(3)
(»)

108

(3)

(3)

121
120

(3)

X ..
1

204

439
189

(«)

X

511
359

t15)

(3)
(3)

158

X.....................

14

X__________

'

X
X
X

X
X.....................

7

(3 )
(3 )

26 X

X____ _____

20

499
266
258
469
335

402
372
184
802
139
754
538
316

(3 )
(3 )

X

(3)

(3)

(3)
(11)

4)
6

)

01

(3)
X ____ _____

X......... ...........
X ___________

62

38
36

! j W o rk stoppage o c c u rre d im m e d ia te ly a fte r th e c re a tio n o f th e em e rg en cy board and b e fo re m em b e rs w e re a p p o in te d .
. - N o re c o m m e n d a tio n s on specific issues.
. , E m erg e n c y b o ard re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e parties bargain in good fa ith , b u t a s trik e o c c u rre d s h o rtly th e re a fte r.
N u m b e r o f w o rk e rs inv o lv e d and m a n -d a y s lost in c lu d e I A M and F E IA strikes a t Eastern. B LS c o u n te d it as one s trik e .
. 5 Less th a n 5 0 0 .
N o fig u re given becau^a m a jo r issue was a grievance; inclusion w o u ld bias results because regular procedures, in c lu d in g a
"S e c tio n 6 " n o tic e , w e re n o t re q u ire d .
16 In fo r m a tio n n o t available.
1 7 Includes 1 2 o th e r carriers; T W A was th e m a jo r case.
S O U R C E S : N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n B o a rd , B ureau o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s, C ivil A e ro n a u tic s B o a rd , and p re sid en tia l em erg en cy
b o ard rep orts.

airlines, American, Eastern, United, and TWA constituted
slightly under one-half of carrier participation in such
disputes. When Pan American and Northwest are added,
these six airlines accounted for approximately threefourths of the carriers involved in the disputes. Only 5
of the 14 unions that represent a significant number
of airline employees were involved in the emergency

carrier— four of which involved the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Another prominent structural characteristic of emer­
gency board participation was its concentration by
economic size. All the airlines involved in these disputes
were either domestic (trunk and local) or international
carriers. Of the 21 major domestic and international




21

Issues

board procedures: The Machinists on 11 occasions;
Air Line Pilots Association, Flight Engineers Inter­
national Association, and Transport Workers Union of
America, 7 times each; and the Brotherhood of Rail­
way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handler, Express
and Station Employees, twice.
The ability of flight personnel to close down a
carrier’s operations (because of the essential nature
of the occupation and the economic regulations of
the Civil Aeronautics Board) is reflected in the
number of emergency cases in which they partici­
pated. Eighteen of the 33 emergency boards
involved flight crafts only, a disproportionate
participation, considering their relative numerical
importance in the industry. Another 10 dealt
exclusively with ground crafts, and five included
both of these groups. Three occupational groups
participated in the majority of the boards: The
pilots, the flight engineers, and the mechanics.
Since 1955, these three groups increasingly came
before emergency boards, as shown below:
M
ajor group in
volved
in em
ergency board
1936-691

1955-691

A distinct pattern of major issues has precipitated
emergency disputes. Major issues were fairly evenly
divided between wages (16 cases) and rules (13).
Both issues came before emergency boards twice.
Of the two remaining disputes, one involved the
revision of the entire agreement, and one dealt with
the negotiation of an initial agreement and miscel­
laneous issues. In the late 1940’s to early 1950’s,
which were characterized by a rapidly rising cost
of living and continuous aircraft technological change,
wages predominated in emergency board disputes.
With the advent of the jet plane, during the late
1950’s and early 1960’s, rules became the prime
issue between the parties, especially for flight person­
nel. By the mid-1960’s, the emphasis reverted to
economic issues, which generated several conflicts
involving ground employees. Flight deck personnel
(pilots and flight engineers) tended to participate
in emergency boards dealing primarily with demands
for rule changes. As the following tabulation shows,
ground employees were involved in a majority of
boards facing demands for changes in pay.

1936-54

1936-69

Flight personnel:
Pilots................
Flight en
gineers ..
O
ther flight
personnel.........

7
10

4
6

3
4

2

2

0

G
round personnel:
M
echanics .........
O
ther ground
personnel.........

12

9

3

3

1

2

1936-54

N agreem
ew
ent:
Flight..............
Ground.............

0
0

0
1

6
13

0
10

6
3

R
ules:
Flight..............
Ground.............

SOURCE: N
ational M
ediation B
oard data.

0
1

W
ages:
Flight..............
Ground.............

1 Fiscal year, based on date em
ergency board w created.
as

12
3

1
1
2

1
1

M
iscellaneous:1
Flight.............. ___
1
1
0
Ground.............
2
1
1
1 Apparent discrepan
.
1.
cies a explained by m
re
ultiple issu a d
es n
crafts involved in E ergency B
m
oards 36, 38, 62, 67, 99, 108, a d
n

Execpt for four emergency boards, the involvement
of other ground crafts— stock and stores and clerical
and related— in this procedure was incidental to their
representation by the Transport Workers and the
Machinists and to the unions’ practice of negotiating
concurrently for the various classes represented by
them. Similarly, in only two cases were flight
personnel other than pilots or flight engineers directly
involved in national emergency disputes; and both
crafts (flight navigators in Emergency Board 140
and flight service employees in Emergency Board
125) were organized by the Transport Workers. In
four other instances of participation, these flight
service personnel were involved because of their
organization by the two unions and their common
negotiations for the various crafts represented.




1955-69

122.

SOURCE: N
ational M
ediation B
oard data.

Another important characteristic of the disputes
was the disparity in duration, 46 from the Section
6 notice to 30 days after the emergency board
report, by major issue. Cases involving rule issues
were on the average longer in duration than those
dealing with rates of pay, 471 days compared with
269 days.
46
Average duration refers to the mean duration of the emer­
gency boards, defined as the time span between the issuance of
the “ Section 6 ” notice and 30 days after the emergency board
report.

2 2

For all emergency boards, from the date of the
“Section 6” notice to 30 days after the issuance of
the emergency board report, 47 the average dura­
tion was 381 days, with an array ranging from 109
days in Emergency Board 99, which dealt with
adjusting wages, to 812 days in Emergency Board
144, which involved rule changes. This long dura­
tion was primarily the result of three factors: First,
under the provisions of the act, no time limitations
were placed on mediation. Defined as the time
span between the initiation of the mediation sessions
by the Board and the offer of arbitration, the
average duration of mediation activities was 74 days,
the longest period covering 338 calendar days. 48
Second, although Section 10 of the act established
a time limit for the emergency board procedure
(30 days from the date of the Board’s creation to
the date of its report), with the consent of both
parties, the Board can notify the President that an
extension is neccessary which he, in turn, is authorized
to grant.
As measured by the time span between the es­
tablishment of the emergency board and its report,
the average duration of an airline emergency board
hearing was 75 days, the longest 200 days.49 Of
the 12 prolonged emergency board hearings (those
requiring more than 60 days), the majority were
concerned with flight personnel groups asking for
rule changes. Third, too often the parties con­
tributed to the duration by bringing issues before
the Board on which they had spent little time
bargaining, as demonstrated by this statement of the
National Mediation Board:
In th h
e andlin of m
g
ediation cases th follow situ
e
ing
a­
tions constantly occur: O is th lack of sufficient
ne
e
an proper negotiations betw
d
een th parties prior to
e
invoking m
ediation . . . in other instances prior to
invoking the services of the B
oard, th p
e arties h v
ae
only m in brief session w
et
ithout a real effort to re­
solve the dispu or consideration of altern
te
ative
approaches to the issu in dispute . . . Frequent
es
recesses of th n re (due to the tw above
is atu
o
problem do not perm a prom disposition of th
s)
it
pt
e
dispu a anticipated by the act . . . In other
te s
in ces m
stan
ediation proceeds for only a short tim
e
before it becom apparent that th designated
es
e
represen
tative of one or both sid lacks the authority
es
to negotiate the dispute to a conclusion . . . Another
facet of th problem is the requirem that a a ree­
is
ent
n g
m w
ent hich h been negotiated by th design
as
e
ated
represen
tatives m be ratified by th m bership of
ust
e em
th organization. F re of the em
e
ailu
ployees, in som
e
in ces, to ratify the actions of th design
stan
eir
ated
represen
tatives casts a doubt on th authority of th
e
ese
lead an a question a to th extent to w
ers d
s
e
hich they
can negotiate settlem
ents of disputes. . . . 50




Refusals to arbitrate
As noted earlier, the Board has the option under
the law to suggest that the parties submit the dispute
to arbitration. Mediation cases culminating in emer­
gency boards were closed when carriers rejected
arbitration in five cases (15 percent of the total),
unions on 22 occasions (67 percent), and both parties
in six instances (18 percent). In no case did both
parties agree to submit the dispute to arbitration.
As early as 1941, a formal censure of the parties’
tendency to decline arbitration, the next to last step
left to the parties to agree on a method of settlement,
was recorded by the Board and was reiterated almost
every year since then in the Board’s Annual R eport:
“The Board has always felt that arbitration should be
used by the parties more frequently in disposing of
disputes which have not been settled in mediation . . .”S
1
Up until the 1950’s, the carriers were inclined to re­
ject the offer of arbitration; but since then, the
unions have usually refused the offer.

Emergency board recommendations
The Railway Labor Act does not compel the
parties to reach an accord; rather the act places
maximum reliance on self-determination by labor
and management. While the right to strike is an
integral part of this public policy, the parties are
required to adhere to a step-by-step process during
which the nature of the dispute and the merits of
the opposing claims would be made public. The
assumption in the law was that this type of dis­
closure would generate public pressures that con­
tribute to a “just” and “equitable settlement.”
Of the 23 substantive and 3 less detailed emer­
gency board recommendations that were produced,
the vast majority were rejected by one or both

47
The act permits no unilateral change in the terms and
conditions of employment for a 30-day period following the
emergency board report.
4 ® This is a somewhat arbitrary definition since hearings
are often intermittently held, sometimes informal in nature (for
example, over the telephone) and often extend beyond the
formal period as defined by the act.
49 Four Emergency Boards— 158, 152, 149, and 100—
were not included because no emergency board reports were
issued.
50 T h i r t y - F o u r t h A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n
B o a r d (for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1968), pp. 2 3 —24.
51 Ibid., p.6.

23

parties. 52 In fact, labor and management accepted
the board’s specific recommendations only twice:
the reduction to a three-man crew in the Air Line
Pilots Association-Eastern dispute in 1958 (Emer­
gency Board 121) and the pay increase and
retrocative decisions in the Flight Engineers Inter­
national Association-United controversy in 1953
(Emergency Board 103). 53 National Mediation
Board, Civil Aeronautics Board, and other govern­
ment records indicate that on 16 occasions airline
unions rejected the boards’ recommendations; and,
in two instances, airline carriers acted similarly.
Unions’ responses were partially negative on five
other occasions, and managements’ on four
occasions. 54 Flight groups accounted for 13
rejections (including four partial rejections), and
ground personnel, for eight rejections (including one
partial rejection).
Thus, the pressure of public opinion was not
adequate to force the parties to accept a board’s
recommendations, nor was voluntary compliance
common. As early as 1951, the Board recognized
the increasing predisposition of the unions to reject
emergency board recommendations, an action contrary
to the anticipated operation of the act. To explain
this tendency, the Board argued that the complicated
and technical issues precipitating these disputes were
given little publicity and beyond that they were
somewhat incomprehensible to the public.55
In no case did the parties completely repudiate
the emergency boards’ recommendations or reach
a settlement entirely outside of those suggestions.
At various times, the boards’ recommendations
served as a basis for eventual agreements with out
interruption of service. For example, in Emergency
Board 123, the parties (FEIA and TWA) implemented
the recommendation of a reduction to a three-man
jet crew, with flight engineers having prior rights
to the third seat and eligibility for training at com­
pany time and expense.
At other times, the parties materially changed the re­
commendations in their final agreements, such as in
the settlement between the Machinists’ flight engineers
and Northwest (Emergency Board 102) in which the
parties substituted a monthly base pay with additional
compensation based on hours, miles, and gross weight
for the board recommendation of an increase in the
existing flat monthly salary based on longevity.
Even when the boards were unsuccessful in re­
conciling the parties’ differences, they did narrow the
scope of the dispute so that the parties were able to
effect a settlement in less time and with less inter­
ruption of airline services. For instance, in Emer­




gency Board 90 some rule proposals were withdrawn
or agreed upon during the hearings.
Except for Emergency Board 124, in which rec­
ommendations on specific issues were not issued,
all post-emergency board strikes were disputes in
which one party rejected the recommendations
entirely. No post-emergency board strikes occurred
in situations in which partial rejections were
registered.

Methods of settlement
Over the 34-year period, few emergency board
reports have served as a basis for quick settlement 56
of airline disputes. Even after the emergency boards’
appointments and the issuance of their reports, the
National Mediation Board generally reentered the
case, offering its mediatory assistance and the use of
arbitration, as evidenced by the number of mediation
and arbitration agreements consummated by the
parties. The principal method of settlement was
ascertainable for 31 emergency cases. Of these, 10
accords were reached by mediation, 6 by arbitration,
and 14 by the parties directly. 57 Flight groups
accounted for five of the arbitration agreements,
four of which concerned rules and the fifth, rules
and wages. Of the 15 party agreements, 8 were
signed by flight personnel, 5 by ground classes, and
2 by both. All 5 party agreements dealing with
rules were consummated by flight personnel.
Ground employee groups were involved in seven wage
5 2

Substantive recommendations were issued in Emergency
Boards 36, 38, 90, 94, 99, 1 0 1 -0 3 , 1 2 0 -2 3 , 125, 128, 136,
140, 142, 144, 146, 156, 1 6 6 —6 8; less detailed recommenda­
tions, in Emergency Boards 62, 135, and 143. No formal emer­
gency board reports or recommendations were promulgated
by Emergency Boards 67, 100, 108, 124, 149, 152, and 158.
Although the parties initial response was favorable, the,
parties deviated from the recommendations in subsequent
negotiations.
54 Lack of available information mads it impossible to
include the response of the parties involved in Emergency
Board 38.
55 S e v e n t e e n t h A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n
B o a r d (for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1951), p. 33.
56 It is assumed that a negotiated agreement was the
principal method of settlement when there was no indica­
tion that either a mediation agreement or an arbitration agree­
ment was consummated. In boards involving more than one
carrier or union, the method of disposition was determined
by the author’s knowledge of the prevalent means o f settle­
ment used by the parties.
57 The principal method of settlement in Emergency
Board 122 in which one party agreement and one mediation
agreement was consummated was not included. In the
immediate discussion dealing with the number of each type
of settlement, the two agreements were included.

24

anticipated effects of technological changes on wages
and work rules. Nine strikes were called by airline em­
ployees participating in these eight emergency boards
(two in Emergency Board 62 and three in Emergency

settlements, including one signed by both flight
and ground crafts.
One-half of the mediation
agreements, the majority dealing with wages, were
secured by flight personnel.
During the 1936-69 period, as the following
tabulation indicates, labor and management were
more inclined to dispose of emergency board dis­
putes by negotiated agreements than the other two
methods of settlement. During the 1955—69 period,
the parties increased their reliance on arbitration

Board 122, ond of which also involved the parties in
Emergency Board 120). Moreover, seven work stop­
pages occurred 'prior to the creation or appointment of
an emergency board, 58 a legal course of action once
a 30-day status quo period has been observed.
In total, then, 14 disruptions of airline services,
were evident in 12 emergency boards.
Only one
was an illegal work stoppage called in definance
of the Railway Labor Act emergency procedures.

agreem ents rather th an on direct negotiations.
1936-69

N ber, total .
um

1955-69

1936-54

30

21

Even though Emergency Board 135 was created to
hear the job security dispute between the Flight

9

Arbitration agreem
ents .............. ___
M
ediation agreem
ents .............. ___
P
arty agreem
ents . . ___

6

5

1

10
14

7
9

3
5

P
ercent, total . ___

100.0

100.0

100.0

20.0

23.8

11.1

refused flight assignments for 7 days, an action
which resulted in 100,000 man-days of idleness
for 20,000 workers.
Combined, the 14 work stoppages entailed 4,326,911
man-days lost by 187,953 airline employees.
This
represented 72.1 percent of all airline man-days idle
during 1936—69 and 46.8 percent of all airline

33.3
46.7

33.3
42.9

33.3
55.6

workers involved in strikes during the same period.
As the following tabulation indicates, ground crafts

Arbitration agreem
ents .............. ___
M
ediation agreem
ents .............. ___
P
arty agreem
ents . . ___

Engineers (FEIA) and Pan American, those employees

accounted for a substantial share of these losses,
largely because of six machinists’ strikes, such as, a

SOURCE: N
ational M
ediation B
oard data.

43-day stoppage in 1966 which involved 70,858
workers and 1,922,031 man-days idle and one
extending for 37 days in 1958 at Capital, which

Disposition

involved 6,838 workers and 184,626 man-days lost.
Of the 33 emergency boards, 6 were disposed of
by the parties, with or without the aid of the Board,
either before board members were appointed or
before a formal report was issued.
All six were
settled without a strike, three with the mediatory
assistance of the Board.
Except for one (Emer­
gency Board 100), these boards involved ground em­
ployee groups, organized by the Machinists and
Transport Workers, with rates of pay as the principal
subject in dispute.
The remaining 27 emergency board disputes, 17 of
which involved flight employees, were settled after a

W
orkers involved

M
an-days id
le

N ber P
um
ercen N ber
t
um
Total, a airlin
ll
e
w stoppages. .. 401,862
ork
5,988,345
Total, em
ergency
disputes............... 187,953
F
light ........................ 75,493
Ground...................... 94,353
Both......................... 18,107

P
ercen
t

100.0

4,326,911 100.0

40.2
50.2
9.6

1,615,202 37.3
2,333,447 53.9
378,262 8.7

formal emergency board report. Of these 27 boards,

SOURCE: B reau of L
u
abor Statistics.

approximately one-half were concerned with wages
and one-half with rules.
Following the boards’
reports, eight of the above 27 post-emergency settle­
ments were preceded by a work stoppage. Seven of
these were primarily concerned with the actual or




58
Two o f these strikes (Emergency Board 62) extended
both prior to and after the creation of the board.

25

Chapter VI.

Airline Work Stoppages

One indicator of the development and status of the
collective bargaining relationship was the frequency
and intensity of work stoppages during the 34-year
span under consideration. Between 1936-69, the airlines
experienced 129 work stoppages— slightly under four a
year— that involved 401,862 workers and 5,988,345
man-days of idleness, averaging 46,421.2 man-days and
3,115 workers annually. (See appendix 4.) By far,
the largest number of strikes, involving the majority
of workers and man-days idle, have occurred since
1954, as would be expected by the dynamic growth

regional and helicopter lines, and foreign carriers,
made up the bulk of the under 100 size group. A
large proportion of the workers in the largest size
groups consisted of flight deck personnel and

annual number of workers involved in the stoppages
and the average annual number of man-days idle
increased substantially (1,148 employees vs. 4,000

mechanics and related occupations, generally in
dispute with a single major carrier.

employees and 13,076.8 man-days idle vs. 61,407.5
(See

Table 7. Number and percent of airline work stoppages
by size, selected periods, 1936-69

Table 6. Number of airline work stoppages, workers
involved, and man-days idle, 1936-69

Years 1

1936-69....................
1955-69....................
1936-54....................

Number
of
stoppages
129
89
40

Total

401,862
355,960
45,902

Number
1936-69 ..................
1955-69 ..................
1936-54..................

Average
3,115
4,000
1,148

5,988,345
5,465,268
523,077

1936-69 ..................
1955-69 ............... ..
1936-54 ..................

46,421.2
61,407.5
13,076.8

Number

129
89
40

100.0
100.0
100.0

42
32
10

31
20
11

24.0
22.5
27.5

1,000 and
under 10,000

1 Pre-1954 and post-1955 comparisons are shown because
most of the major crafts were substantially organized by 1955.

1936-69..................
1955-69 ..................
1936-54..................

In only 9 years were there over 100,000 man-days
lost; and, with one exception, these years were also
characterized by 10,000 employees or more going out
on strike. The later years predominated these meas­
ures of size; they accounted for 7 out of 9 man-days
and 8 out of 9 workers involved in strikes between
1936 and 1969.




Percent

100 and under 500

Man-days idle
1936-69....................
1955-69....................
1936-54....................

Under 100

Year

Workers involved
Number

Ground employees strikes

against smaller carriers, such as domestic cargo,

In the post-1954 period, the average

man-days idle), again as would be expected.
table 6.)

Almost 57 percent of the 129 work stoppages
involved groups of less than 500 employees and slightly
under one-third dealt with strikes of less than 100 work­
ers. (See appendix 4.) In the post-1954 period, the
relative number of stoppages involving fewer than
100 workers and those involving 10,000 workers and
over increased substantially. Each reflected the
influence of a particular group of employees on a
specific class of carrier.

in the number of workers employed and the con­
current organization of the various crafts by the
airline unions.

Other characteristics of size

26

30
19
11

23.3
21.3
27.5

Percent
32.6
36.0
25.0

500 and under 1,000
16
9
7

12.4
10.1
17.5

10,000 and over
10
9
1

7.8
10.1
2.5

Another prominent characteristic of these work
stoppages was the number of companies and unions
participating in the disputes. As would be expected
by the relative lack of bargaining coordination, single­
unit work stoppages were most common (123). Only
six strikes, five of which occurred in the 1955-69

period, were multi-unit in nature: One in 1945 in­
volving two carriers and two unions; one in 1958
and two in 1967 dealing with two unions; one 7-

In a vast majority of major work stoppages, the
principal subjects in dispute were wages and work

carrier strike in 1961; and one 5-carrier work
stoppage in 1966. Of these six multi-unit strikes,
two were “ industrywide” in nature— the 7-carrierFEIA dispute in 1961 and the 5-carrier-IAM dispute

1962 and the IAM-5-carrier wage dispute in 1966.
Major airline disputes accounted for the bulk of
the man-days of idleness (76.4 percent) and of the
employees (70.9 percent) involved in all stoppages

in 1966.
Stoppages involving 10,000 workers or more were

between 1936 and 1969. The duration of these
large strikes ranged from 7 days in an FEIA-7-carrier
job security controversy in 1961 to 82 days in an

rules, i.e., the FEIA-Eastern job security strike in

almost as infrequent as multi-unit disputes. (See table
8.) Over the three-plus decades, 10 major strikes of

Eastern-FEIA wages and rules dispute in 1962; the
mean was 27.0 days.

this magnitude occurred in the airline industry, all
but one since 1955.

Table 8.

Major airline w o rk stoppages, selected years, 1936-691
Work stoppages
Year

Carrier(s)

Union(s)

Number
of
workers
involved 2

Duration
(in days)

Man-days
idle

1936-45 ......................
1946 ............................ TWA
1958 ............................ TWA
American
Eastern

12,967
14,123
20,819
14,252

26
16
22
38

No stonoaaes
244,267
141,230
118,081
370,552

1961 .............................

73,483

7

329,434

17,107
17,221
70,858

582
11
43

912,401
137,768
1,922,031

24,050
20,225

4
21

96,200
303,375

Prior to the
Following
No
emergency creation of an (Section 10)
emergency "status quo”
board
period
board
created

1962 ............................
1965 .............................
1966 ............................

1969 .............................

ALPA
I AM
3
ALPA
I AM and
FEIA
Pan American FEIA
Western
Eastern
National
Flying Tiger
American
TWA
Eastern
FEI A
Pan American ALPA
Eastern
I AM
National
Northwest
United
TWA
Pan American TCWH
TWU
American

X

X
X
4

X

1 Work stoppages involving 10,000 workers or more, lasting more than 1 day.
2 Number of workers involved may include members of other unions or nonunion workers idled by disputes in the same establish­
ment.
3 D ensions of M
im
ajor W Stoppages 1947-59, BLS Bulletin 1298, p. 14.
ork
4 Shortly after Emergency Board No. 135 was created, flight engineers refused assignments at the 7 carriers.
Full operations resumed in mid-September w ithout a formal settlement after some engineers returned to work and other
personnel were trained as flight engineers.
SOURCE:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Analysis of W
ork Stoppages annual bulletins, 1936-69.
National Mediation Board Annual Report, 1936-69.




27

Duration

Ground crafts were involved in the majority of labormanagement disputes, especially in the 1955-69 period
when they increased their strike participation rate
vis-a-vis the flight groups. (See table 9.)

In comparison with the major strikes, the average
mean duration of all airline work stoppages over the 34year span was 21.2 days, which was also the average for
both the 1936-54 and the 1955-69 periods. Interest­
ingly, the average duration for the Nation as a whole
was slightly less than 1 day (0.7 days) below the air­

Table 9. Distribution of m
ajor groups involved in stoppages,
selected periods, 1936-69

line average over the 1936-69 period, 2.5 days shorter
in the 1936-54 period, and approximately 1 day

Flight

All work stoppages

(1.2 days) longer in the 1955-69 period. 59
Slightly more than 50 percent of the airline disputes

Years
Number

Percent

Number

Percent

129
89
40

100.0
100.0
100.0

28
15
13

21.7
16.9
32.5

lasted 6 days or less; and approximately 80 percent
1936-69___ __
1955-69 ...........
1936-54...........

continued for fewer than 30 days:

Ground

N ber of
um
stoppages

D
uration 1936-69
6 days or less . . .
Less th 15 days
an
Less th 30 days
an
Less th 60 days
an
Less th 90 days
an

.
.
.
.

P
ercen
t
of total

67
85
104
116
122

1936-69...........
1955-69...........
1936-54 ...........

51.9
65.9
80.1
89.9
94.5

99
73
26

76.7
82.0
65.0

Both
2
1
1

1.6
1.1
2.5

Another important difference between flight and
ground personnel strikes was the incidence of issues
Only 7 of the 129 work stoppages extended for more
than 90 days, five of which occurred after 1954. Of the

involved in their disputes. (See table 10.) In each of
the three periods (1936-69, 1955-69, 1936-54) for

prolonged strikes, the flight engineers and mechanics
were involved twice; and the pilots, three times. Only
three unions— IAM and ALPA three times each;
FEIA, once— and three crafts participated in work
stoppages whose duration extended beyond 90 days.
The uneven distribution of prolonged strikes in the
subperiods illustrated another important characteristic
of airline work stoppages. Over the years, the rela­
tive number of longer strikes (more than 30 days)
increased while the relative number of work stoppages
with a shorter duration declined. Perhaps, this
relationship has been influenced by the increased
ability of the parties to sustain a strike through the

flight personnel, economic issues were more numerous
in both absolute and relative terms than job security

establishment of strike funds, Mutual Aid Pact,

for the entire period 1936-69, noneconomic issues,
particularly plant administration and union organiza­
tion and security, became the principal subjects in
dispute; they generated 67.6 percent and 61.4 per­
cent of the strikes, respectively.

issues. Moreover, the relative distribution of major
issues precipitating flight disputes remained extremely
stable in all three time periods; economic issues were
the primary reason for 57.1 percent of all flight work
stoppages between 1936 and 1954 and 56.2 percent
between 1955 and 1969. On the other hand, the
incidence of major issues was not invariant for the
ground crafts. In the pre-1955 period, economic
issues, especially wages, predominated in ground labormanagement disputes and accounted for 55.6 percent
of all ground work stoppages. In 1955-69 and

and other forms of cooperative ventures.

Flight vs. ground personnel
Another pattern in the airline work stoppages was
the different involvement of major occupational groups.
Between 1936 and 1969, ground personnel were in­

volved in 101 stoppages, and flight employees participated
in 30 work stoppages during the same period. 60




28

59 For th N
e ation a a w
s
hole, analysis w con­
as
ducted exclusive of 1969 data w
hich w u available
as n
w
hen th bulletin w prep .
is
as
ared
60 In tw cases both groups w in
o
ere volved.

Table 10. Major issues in airline work stoppages, by craft,
selected periods, 1936-69
1936-69

Table 11. Number of workers and man-days idle in airline work
stoppages by m
ajor occupational group, selected period, 1936-69
Ground

1955-69

Issues
Flight

Ground

Flight

Economic

117

l 39

9

113

l 34

9

3
1

2
3

-

2
1

-

-

13

62

7

2,305
2,803
904

-

Security

1936-69........................
1955-69........................
1938-54........................

21

Average
number of
workers

24

Wages ..........................
Supplementary
b e n e fits......................
Wage adjustments . . . .
Hours of work ...........

Years

Ground

Average
man-days
idle

50

Union organization
and secu rity...............
Job security ................
Plant administration. . .
Other working
c o n d itio n s..................
Interunion or Intraunion ...........................

1

20
J17
21

-

3

1

-

3

-

1936-69 ........................
1955-69........................
1938-54........................

2

6,239
10,175
1,742

91,039.5
149,502.8
24,224.2

1

-

Flight

15
*11
21

-

35,994.3
46,537.5
7,098.1

h
5

ground employee groups and six by flight personnel.
Over the years, relatively fewer flight stoppages and
relatively more ground strikes were in this category,

1936-54

demonstrating the tendency for ground employee
Economic

*8

1 15

Wages ..........................
Supplementary
b e n e fits ......................
Wage adjustments.........
Hours of w o r k .............

J4

113

_

_

3
1

-

Security

6

12

Union organization
and secu rity...............
Job secu rity..................
Plant administration. . .
Other working
c o n d itio n s ..................
Interunion or Intrau n io n ..........................

strikes to involve smaller carriers and to entail lower
economic losses than did flight personnel work
stoppages as shown below:

2

Years
1
3
2

5
6

-

Flight

36
29
7

6
3
3

-

_

Ground

1

1936-69....................
1955-69..................
1936-54..................

1 Includes 1 strike where both flight and ground were
involved.

Issues
Within the 34-year span, the incidence of major
issues in the airline industry varied considerably; but

Flight employee disputes were larger and longer on
the average than stoppages called by ground personnel
although mechanics’ strikes displayed a similar tendency.
(See appendix 4 and table 11.)

table 12.) These issues were classified into those involving
economic matters, such as supplementary benefits,

This observation was also substantiated by the flight
crafts’ participation in stoppages involving fewer than

concerned with workers’ security, i.e., union organiza­
tion and security, job security, plant administration,

100 workers and those involving 10,000 workers or
more. Of the 42 smaller strikes, 36 were called by

other working conditions, and interunion or
intraunion matters.




some patterns did emerge. (See appendixes 4 and 6 and

wage adjustments, and hours of work; and those

29

Table 12. Airline work stoppages, selected periods, 1939-69, by major issue
Economic issues
Years

Supplementary
benefits

Wages
Number

1936-69 ...................................
1955-69 ...................................
1936-54...................................

46
30
16

Number

Percent
35.7
33.7
40.0

Wage
adjustments

Percent Number

2
2

Percent

6
1
5

1.6
2.2
0

Hours of
work
Number

4.6
1.1
12.5

1
1

Total economic
issues

Percent

Number

0.8
0
2.5

Percent

55
33
22

42.6
37.1
55.0

Security issues
Union organization
and security
1936-69 ...................................
1955-69 ................................. ..
1936-54...................................

21
15
6

16.3
16.9
15.0

Other
working
conditions
1
1

1936-69 ...................................
1955-69 ............. .....................
1936-54...................................

Job
security
23
14
9

Plant
administration
26
24
2

17.8
15.7
22.5

Intraunion or
interunion
matters

0.8
1.1
0

3
2
1

20.2
27.0
5.0
Tc tal
survival
issues

2.3
2.2
2.5

74
56
18

57.4
62.9
45.0

Table 13. Duration of airline work stoppages and issues involved
Duration
Issue 1

30 days and over
Number

Wages . ........................
Union organization
and secu rity...............
Job secu rity..................
Plant administration. . .

60 days and over

Percent

90 days and over

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

12

48.0

7

53.8

3

42.8

6
5
1

24.0
20.0
4.0

4
1
1

30.8
7,7
7.7

2
1
1

28.6
14.3
14.3

1 Based on 129 strikes and all issues (including hours, wage adjustments, supplementary benefits, interunion or intraunion
matters, and other working conditions).




30

Of the issues that were reported to be the cause of a
significant number of stoppages, wages was by far the

Table 14. Number of airline work stoppages, workers involved
and man-days idle, by issue involved, 1936-69

principal subject in dispute in both absolute and rela­
tive terms during the three time periods. Although

Workers involved

the results were not completely consistent in all

Issue

periods, plant administration was the next most
troublesome issue, followed by job security and union
organization and security, respectively.
The two issues generating internal pressure— union
organization and security and job security— on the
average had the longest duration (31.9 days and 24.9
days, respectively), followed by wages (24.0 days)
and plant administration (9.4 days). (See table 13.)
Survival issues, on the other hand, engendered longer
periods of dispute than economic issues; but, within
these two major categories, wages was the issue in
most of the longer strikes.

Total, all
work stoppages . . . .
Wages...........
Union organization and
security . . .
Job secur it y .............
Plant administration.........

Number
of
stoppages

Number

Percent
of total
1936-69

Average
number per
stoppage

129

401,862

100.0

3,115

46

238,532

59.4

5,185

21

8,927

2.2

425

23

106,741

26.6

4,641

26

28,281

7.0

1,088

In the terms of the number of man-days idle and
workers involved, economic issues generated greater

Man-days id le

losses than did noneconomic issues, primarily because
of the number of major work stoppages based on
wages or wage adjustments (eight entailing 3,875,353
man-days lost by 197,370 workers). Within these two
major categories, wages was again the primary issues.
(See table 14.)




31

Total, all work
stoppages .

5,988,345

100.0

46,421

Wages...........
4,434,373
Union organization and
279,107
security. . .
Job security .
814,005
Plant administration.........
174,834

74.1

96,399

4.7
13.6
2.9

13,290
35,391
6,724

Appendix 1.

Airline unions
Initials used by—
Union

2
A ir Line Employees Association
(A F L -C IO )................................................................
A ir Line Dispatchers Association
(A F L -C IO )...................... .........................................
A ir Line Pilots Association, International
(AFL-CIO) ................................................................
A ir Line Stewards and Stewardesses
Association, International 2 (AFL-CIO) .............
Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association
(Ind.) .........................................................................
Allied Pilots Association ( I n d . ) .................................
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employees (A F L -C IO )............................................
Communication Workers of America
(AFL-CIO) ..............................................................
Flight Engineers International
Association (AFL-CIO) ..........................................
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) .............................
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America ( I n d . ) .....................................................
Transport Workers Union of America
(A F L -C IO )................................................................

National
Mediation
Board1

Bureau
of Labor
Statistics

ALEA

ALEA

8,500

8,500

ALD A

ALD A

930

930

ALPA

ALPA

24,155

24,155

ALSSA

ALSSA

8,000

8,000

AMFA
APA

AMFA
APA

3,500

3,500

BRAC

BRASC

320,000

3 12,000

CWA

CWA

357,500

3 600

FEIA
1AM and
AW

FEIA

1,700

1,700

903,01 5

3 80,000

1,755,025

330,000

97,754

347,695

1AM

IBT

TCWH
or IBT

TWU

TWU

1 Corresponds to employee representatives found in table on page 8.
2 A ffiliate of ALPA.
Union estimate.




Membership (1968)

32

Total

In
airline
industry

_

Appendix 2.

Airline1 involvement in R LA procedures, fiscal years 1936-69
Mediation cases

Collective bargaining agreements

Airlines

Airlines

Year

1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................

Total

3,485
3,836
4,055
4,095
4,193
4,292
4,390
4,466
4,563
4,665
4,833
4,937
5,002
5,060
5,092
5,102
5,118
5,137
5,157
5,180
5,190
5,196
5,205
5,215
5,218
5,220
5,221
5,226
5,228
5,230
5,235
5,275
5,285
5,404

Railroads

Number

3,485
3,832
4,039
4,061
4,149
4,233
4,319
4,389
4,484
4,567
4,694
4,769
4,811
4,836
4,851
4,858
4,864
4,878
4,887
4,905
4,913
4,916
4,925
4,933
4,934
4,935
4,935
4,940
4,941
4,942
4,945
4,957
4,961
5,050

0
4
16
34
44
59
71
77
79
98
139
168
191
224
241
244
254
259
270
275
277
280
280
282
284
285
286
286
287
288
290
318
324
354

Percent
of
total
number

0
.10
.39
.83
1.05
1.37
1.62
1.72
1.73
2.10
2.88
3.40
3.82
4.43
4.73
4.78
4.96
5.04
5.24
5.31
5.34
5.39
5.38
5.41
5.44
5.46
5.48
5.47
5.49
5.51
5.54
6.03
6.13
6.55

See footnotes at end of table.




33

2

Total

Railroads

81
158
101
148
182
171
228
234
217
359
381
242
259
309
234
269
273
297
250
312
324
263
305
248
226
229
205
199
252
236
236
242
284
343

81
158
98
144
178
166
223
229
214
348
348
206
209
246
185
203
201
225
171
241
260
205
228
165
153
177
152
133
198
188
200
181
212
306

Number

0
0
3
4
4
5
5
5
3
11
33
36
50
63
49
66
72
72
79
71
64
58
77
83
73
52
53
66
54
48
36
61
72
37

Percent
of
total
number

0
0
2.97
2.70
2.20
2.92
2.19
2.14
1.38
3.06
8.66
14.88
19.31
20.39
20.94
24.54
26.37
24.24
31.60
22.76
19.75
22.05
25.25
33.47
32.30
22.71
25.85
33.17
21.43
20.34
15.25
25.21
25.35
10.79

Appendix 2.

Airline1 involvement in R L A procedures, fiscal years 1936-69— Continued
Mediation cases

2

Disposition 3

Airlines
Major issues

Year
Agreements

1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................

-

Rates
of
pay

Rules

-

Mediation
agreements

-

4

Arbitration
agreements

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

....................................

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

....................................

-

-

-

-

-

....................................

-

-

-

-

-

-

.............................

-

-

-

-

-

-

....................................

5
4
5
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
0

54
45
42
35
69
45
34
44
55
4
5
24
28
50
0

9
7
10
39
12
26
16
8
10
50
43
12
30
19
37

3
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

47
41
40
49
56
40
31
31
48
23
32
30
43
50
25

1
0
0
0
6
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1

.............................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................

Emergency
boards

Miscellaneous

.............................

....................................

4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
6
1
2
5
2
2
0
1
2
0
0

1 The definition of the industry group conforms to industry classifications 4511 and 4512 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1967 Edition.
2 Collective bargaining agreements on file with the National Mediation Board and mediation cases disposed of in a fiscal year
ending June 30.
The difference between the total number of mediation cases disposed of and those settled by means of mediation, arbi­
tration, and emergency boards is accounted for by withdrawals, dismissals, and other means of settlement.
4
Refers to the means by which mediation cases are "disposed" of driving the fiscal year.
NOTE:

Dashes indicate no data available.

SOURCE:

National Mediation Board annual reports; Bureau of Labor Statistics annual reports on work stoppages.




34

Appendix 3. Airline mediation cases disposed of by National Mediation Board 1936-69,
by major occupational group
Major occupational groups

1936 1937

1938 1939

1940 1941

1942 1943 1944 19451 1946 1947

o
Combined airline .....................................................
Mechanics..................................................................
Radio and teletype operators .................................
Clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger
service ....................................................................
Stewards, stewardesses and flight persons.............
P ilo ts ...........................................................................
Dispatchers................................................................
Mechanical forem en..................................................
Meteorologists...........................................................
Flight engineers.........................................................
Navigators..................................................................
Miscellaneous ...........................................................

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
2
0

0
2
0

0
1
0

0
1
0

0
2
0

0
0
0

0
2
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0

31
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

31
0
4
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

T o ta l................................................................

0

0

3

4

4

5

5

5

3

1948 1949

1950 1951 1952

1953 1954 1955 1956

.

-

2
9
5

2
4
4

3
1
7
0
0
0
0

-

5
1

2
1
17
0
0
0
0
6

11

33

36

.

.
.
_

_
_

1957

1958 1959

2
Combined airline .....................................................
Mechanics..................................................................
Radio and teletype operators .................................
Clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger
service ....................................................................
Stewards, stewardesses and flight persons ...........
P ilo ts ..........................................................................
Dispatchers................................................................
Mechanical foremen ................................................
Meteorologists...........................................................
Flight Engineers.........................................................
Navigators..................................................................
Miscellaneous.............................................................

3
8
6

0
22
6

2
8
7

1
12
7

2
20
4

0
19
7

1
24
4

0
26
5

0
14
3

0
18
5

6
14
0

5
12
8

7
5
11
3
0
3
1
1
2

7
12
6
7
0
1
2
0
0

5
6
5
8
1
1
3
3

8
11
13
2
0
1
8
3

13
3
21
3
0
0
3
3

9
4
12
8
0
0
6
7

5
9
19
8
0
0
3
6

3
5
19
7
0
1
1
4

6
4
19
7
0
2
6
3

3
9
9
7
0
1
2
4

8
9
21
7
0
0
5
7

13
12
19
4
0
0
7
3

T o ta l................................................................

50

63

49

66

72

72

79

71

64

58

77

83

1960 1961

1962 1963

1964

1965 1966

1967 1968 1969

1936-69

2
Combined airline ..................................... ...........
M echanics..................................................................
Radio and teletype operators .................................
Clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger
service ....................................................................
Stewards,stewardesses and flight persons .............
P ilo ts ...........................................................................
Dispatchers..................................................................
Mechanical forem en...................................................
Meteorologists...........................................................
Flight engineers.........................................................
Navigators ................................................................
Miscellaneous.............................................................

2
7
2

0
8
3

0
18
1

3
17
1

0
14
0

1
15
1

5
6
0

7
16
1

5
20
2

0
16
1

47
357
83

13
6
24
8
0
1
5
5

6
4
13
3
0
0
7
8

6
4
18
1
0
0
3

4
10
23
2
0
0
1

2

5

8
4
20
4
0
0
3
1

6
6
12
5
0
0
0
2

1
2
7
5
0
1
4
5

11
3
15
2
0
1
5

5
11
14
5
1
2
7

2
2
8
2
2
4
0

156
144
368
108
1
15
77
6
92

T o ta l................................................................

73

52

53

66

54

48

36

61

72
L _

37

-

No distribution available.
Mediation cases in which more than 1 craft was involved.
Stock clerks.




'

SOURCE.

35

National Mediation Board data.

Appendix 4.

Annual highlights of work stoppages in the airline industry, 1 9 3 6 —6 9

(W ork ers and m an -days in thoyisands)
D istribution of num ber of stoppages by size of unit
Y ear

Stoppages

W orkers M an-days
idle 1
involved 1

1969s
1968
1967
1966
........
1965.
...
1964...........................

5

55. 7
2. 1
7. 0
72. 3
17. 4
13. 7
3. 4
17. 1
77. 1
16. 4
5. 3
6 2 .9
3. 0

6
11
8

3
9
6

......................
1 9 6 1 ...........................
1960
1959. .
............. .
1958................... .......
1957
1956
1955........... . ...... .
1 9 5 4 . ......................
1953
1952 .....................
1951
1950 ........................
1949...........................
1948
.........
1947 .
1946
1945. ....................
1944 ___ ______
1943____ ________
1942
1941 ......................
1940______________
1939.........................
1938...........................
1962

1
2

9
5
12
2

3
7
4
7
7
5
3
3
3

1.6
1.0

3. 5
3.8
2. 5
6. 7
8. 3
.4
1.8

1.5
14. 7
2. 7

2
2
2

i

(4)

_
i

.

-

556.6
7 .7
29.6
1,945. 3
139. 9
31.5
4. 7
913 .4
343.8
336. 3
9. 5
975. 2
6 8 .4
74. 2
30.4
34. 5
30. 7
7. 7
25. 5
38. 1
1.2

113.

500 w o rk e rs

w ork ers
Flight

Ground

Both Flight

Flight

Ground

Both Flight

Ground

2

1

Ground

2

2
1

2

1

i

Both Flight

3
5

i

1

2
2

5

2

i

1

1

i
2

2

1

2

i

3

1

1

1
1

2

1

1

2

1

2

i

1
2

1
_

_

i

_

_

i

3

1

2
2

.

1

2
1
2

2
1

_

i

1

_

1
1

_

1

1

1

1
2
1
1

1

-

*

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

1

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

-

-

_

-

-

-

-

_

401 .9

5 ,9 8 8 .3

6

_

2

1

_

_

2

1
2

1

1.7

1

1

l

1

1

1

1

11.0

(4)

Both

10,0 00

1,000

1

3
3
5

8

246. 8
12. 0

Ground

Issues involved
Mean 2
duration
(in
calendar
W orkers
M an-days
Both days)
Stoppages
inidle 1
volved 1

w ork ers
and over

and under
1 0 , 0 0 0 w o rk e rs

500 and under
1 , 0 0 0 w ork ers

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

14. 8
16. 2
15. 1
18. 0
31.0
6. 8
12. 3
82. 0
6. 5
54. 0
8.4
20. 3
21.5
29. 3
25. 8
8. 2
15. 1
4. 9
7. 2
4. 7
3. 3
165. 7
25. 5
15. 5
6. 5

_

1

3
1

4
3
2

5

52. 0
. 1
1. 6
71. 5
17. 2
13. 0

0

3

3

912. 4
14. 3
254.7

6

44. 1

595.9

1

1
2

3
3
2

(4)
(4)
2. 3
.8
4. 0
4. 0

(4 )
(4)
7. 3
4. 9
4 .0

2

.

2
2.6

1

-

_

.

8

9
4
5

17. 1
3. 6
4. 9

1

1.0

20

508.
4.
16.
1, 924.
139.
30.

(4)

(4)
_

0

1Q

T o ta ls , 5
1936.69 —

129

See footn otes at end o f table.




36

8

23

"

2

13

"

7

23

i

5

4

i

21.5

46

238. 5

4, 434. 4

A p p e n d ix 4.

A n n u a l h ig h lig h ts o f w o rk s to p p a g e s in th e a irlin e in d u s try , 1 9 3 6 —6 9 ---- C o n tin u e d

( W o r k e r s an d m a n - d a y s in t h o u s a n d s )
I ss u e s in v o lve d — C ontinued
Year

1 9 6 9 3 - .......................
1 9 6 8 --------------------1 9 6 7 --------------------1 9 6 6 --------------------1 9 6 5 ............ ............
1 9 6 4 --------------------1 9 6 3 --------------------1962
^------------1 9 61 ______________
1 9 6 0 ..................... 1 9 5 9 --------------------1 9 5 8 --------------------1 9 5 7 ______________
1 9 5 6 --------------------1 9 5 5 ______________
1 9 5 4 ______________
1 9 5 3 --------------------1 9 5 2 ______________
1 95 1 ______________
1 9 5 0 --------------------1 9 4 9 --------------------1 9 4 8 ................... —
1 9 47 --------------------1 9 4 6 --------------------1 9 4 5 ______________
1 9 4 4 --------------------1 9 4 3 --------------------1 9 4 2 ........................
194 1 --------------------1 9 4 0 ------------- ------1 9 3 9 --------------------1 9 3 8 --------------------1 93 7 --------------------1 9 3 6 --------------------T otals, 5
1936-69 —

1
2
3
4
5

S upp lem entary
benefits
W orkers
ManStop­
days
inj
pages
volved
idle 1

i
1
_
_
_
_
_
-

0. 6
(4 )
_
-

H ours of
work
W orkers
Stop­
in­
pages
volved 1

Mandays
idle 1

Job
security
W orkers
Stop­
in­
pages
volved 1

19.5
. 1
_
-

Union o r g a n iza tio n
Plant
Interunion o r
O ther w orking
and s e c u r i t y
adm inistration
intraunion m atters
conditions
W orkers
ManW orkers
W orkers M anW orkers ManManStop­
Stop­
Stop­
Stop­
in ­
days
days
in­
days
in­
days
in­
pages
pages
pages
pages
volved 1
idle 1
volved 1
v o lv e d 1 idle 1
v o lv e d 1 idle 1
idle 1

.

.

.

_

.

.

_

.

.

_
i
1
-

-

-

-

2
3
-

0. 7
2. 3
-

i
i
1
-

1
-

0. 2
-

0. 2
-

73 . 5
2. 5
17.8
-

.6
-

1. 8
-

_
-

-

_
-

_
1

_
-

-

-

i
i
i
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0. 6

19. 6

6

14. 8

i
-

<;>
(4 >
. 8
13. 0
-

(4 )
. 1
. 8
244. 3
"
"

247 . 3

-

1

0. 9
-

1
2
i
3
1
1
1
1
-

-

(4 )
.4
.4
1.4
.9
.8
4. 3
. 1
-

1

7. 8
-

-

3
2
-

1.6

1. 0
3. 5
329.4
3. 9
377. 7
. 1
5. 3
2. 0
2 1.5
.9
1. 7
34. 0
30 . 0
-

-

0 .9

"

-

3. 1
"
-

7. 8

23

106. 7

814. 0

-

R o u n d e d t o th e n e a r e s t t h o u s a n d .
F i g u r e s a r e s i m p l e a v e r a g e ; e a c h s t o p p a g e s in g i v e n e q u a l w e i g h t r e g a r d l e s s o f s i z e .
T h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 196 9.
L e s s th an 100.
B e c a u s e o f r o u n d in g , s u m s o f in d iv id u a l i t e m s m a y not e q u a l t o t a ls .




Mandays
idle 1

.

.
-

Wage
adiustm ent
W orkers
M anStop­
in ­
days
pages
volved 1
id le 1

-

.
-

-

(4 )
(4 )
0 .2
-

(4 )
0 .8
. 9
. 2
-

3
-

(4 )
1.6
-

1 4. 9
-

1
2
2
3
-

(4 )
3. 0
1.5
.4
-

(4 )
68 . 4
74 . 1
24 . 9
-

1
2
1
-

1.0
-

8. 0
-

1
-

.8
-

83. 0
-

i
-

(4 )
. 1

-

-

1
"

. 1

21

8. 9

1. 9
. 1

1. 7

-

279. 1

2
4
4
3
-

3. 7
1.5
3. 9
. 2
-

1
2
-

(4 )
1. 0
-

47. 8
2. 3
11.2
.4
. 1
1. 0
-

3
2
2
-

1 0. 0
2. 7
. 7
-

66. 7
5. 6
1. 3
-

1
1
-

. 2
3. 1
-

. 2
32. 5
-

-

-

-

1. 3
-

5. 7
-

"
-

-

-

26

28. 3

1
“
-

-

-

_ _

2
-

1.6
-

2. 0
_

-

_
-

-

-

1
-

0. 5
-

0. 5
-

-

_
_
_
_
-

*
_
-

_
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1. 1
-

9. 0
-

-

1
-

174.8

3

2. 7

10. 9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0. 5

0. 5

1

A ppendix 5.

D uration o f airline w o rk stoppages, selected periods, 1936-69
1936-69

Duration

Workers nvolved

Stoppages

Man-days idle

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

All stoppages ..................

129

100.0

401,862

100.0

5,988,345

100.0

1 d a y ........................................
2 to 3 days...............................
4 to 6 days...............................
7 to 14 days.............................
15 to 29 days..........................
30 to 59 days..........................
60 to 89 days..........................
90 days and o v e r....................

25
28
14
18
19
12
6
7

19.4
21.7
10.9
14.0
14.7
9.3
4.7
5.4

23,508
26,050
30,762
110,823
85,535
97,585
19,105
8,494

5.8
6.5
7.7
27.6
21.3
24.3
4.8
2.1

23,508
53,637
122,692
597,423

.4
.9
2.0
10.0

1,029,649
2,611,683
998,326
551,427

17.2
43.6
16.7
9.2

1955-69
..................

89

100.0

355,960

100.0

5,465,268

100.0

1 d a y ........................................
2 to 3 days...............................
4 to 6 days........... . .................
7 to 14 days.............................
15 to 29 days..........................
30 to 59 days..........................
60 to 89 days...........................
90 days and over......................

16
19
9
12
13
9
6
5

19.1
21.3
10.1
13.5
14.6
10.1
6.7
5.6

17,192
16,353
29,141
103,513
66,803
96,322
19,105
7,531

4.8
4.6
8.2
29.1
18.8
27.1
5.4
2.1

17,192
36,146
115,012
542,201
733, 254
2,584,111
998,326
438,429

.3
.7
2.1
9.9
13.4
47.3
18.3
8.0

All stoppages

1936-54
All stoppages. . ..................

40

100.0

45,902

100.0

523,077

100.0

1 d a y ........................................
2 to 3 days...............................
4 to 6 days...............................
7 to 14 days.............................
15 to 29 days...........................
30 to 59 days...........................
60 to 89 days..........................
90 days and o v e r....................

9
9
5
6
6
3
2

22.5
22.5
12.5
15.0
15.0
7.5
5.0

6,316
9,697
1,621
7,310
18,732
1,263
963

13.8
21.1
3.5
15.9
40.8
2.8
2.1

6,316
17,491
7,680
55,222
295,795
27,572
113,001

1.2
3.3
1.5
10.6
56.5
5.3
21.6




38

A ppendix 6.

D uration o f airline w o rk stoppages, by m ajor issue, selected periods, 1936-69
Issues

Duration

Supplementary benefits

General wage
1936-69 1955-69

1936-54 1936-69

1955-69

Wage adjustment

1936-54 1936-69

1955-69

1936-54

1 d a y .........................................................
2 to 3 days................................................
4 to 6 days................................................
7 to 14 days..............................................
15 to 29 days............................................
30 to 59 days............................................
60 to 89 days............................................
90 days and over ......................................

5
10
8
4
7
5
4
3

1
5
2
4
4
4
4
3

4
5
6
3
1
-

_

-

1
1
-

1
1
-

.
-

2
2
1
1
-

1
-

1
2
1
1
-

-

-

T o ta l....................................................

46

27

19

2

2

-

6

1

5

Percent ....................................................

35.7

30.3

47.5

1.6

2.2

-

4.6

1.1

12.5

Hours of
work

Union organization
and security

Job
security

1 d a y .........................................................
2 to 3 days................................................
4 to 6 days................................................
7 to 14 days..............................................
15 to 29 days............................................
30 to 59 days............................................
60 to 89 days............................................
90 days and o v e r .....................................

_

.

.

1
-

-

4
2
3
6
2
2
2

2
2
3
4
1
2
1

2
2
1
1

6
5
2
4
1
4
1

4
3
2
1
1
3
-

-

1
-

-

2
2
3
1
1

Total ..................................... .............

1

-

1

21

15

6

23

14

9

Percent .....................................................

0.8

-

2.5

16.3

16.9

15.0

17.8

15.7

22.5

Plant
administration

Interunion or
intraunion matters

7

7

_

_

.

.

9

9

2

1

1
3
-

1
-

-

-

1
-

-

-

22

4

1

1

24.7

10.0

0.8

1.1

1 d a y .........................................................
2 to 3 days................................................
4 to 6 days................................................
7 to 14 days..............................................
15 to 29 days............................................
30 to 59 days............................................
60 to 89 days............................................
90 days and o v e r .....................................

4

4

3
1

1

Total ..................................................

26

Percent .....................................................

20.2




Other
working conditions

39

1
2
-

1
1
-

1
.

-

-

-

-

3

2

1

-

2.3

2.2

2.5

-

A p p e n d ix 7.

C h ro n o lo g y o f th e a irlin e R L A —E m e rg e n c y B o a rd , 1 9 3 6 —6 9
D ir e c t negotiations

N ational m ed iation

Em er­
gency

Date of
"section

B egin-

6"

P ro ffe r of
arbitration

Date o f re q u e st
for m ediation 1
Date of
proffer

E nd in g
d ate

Date
session

6-27-66
4-21-66

.
-

6-27-66
4-27-66

10-18-65

1-10-66

1-11-66

1-11-66

11-12-62
11-27-62

(S )
-

-

-

1-18-63
3-4-63

(5 )
2-28-62
8 - 10-61

(?)
(5 )
11-13-62
11-27-62
5-28-62
5-3 -6 2
3-7-62
9-6-61

1-23-63
7-23-62
-

14 6

10-26-60

11-16-60

A - 6 2 8 9 -------------------------------

14 4

2-8-60

5-16-60

7-8-60

A - 6 3 2 8 ------------------------------A - 6 4 0 7 ------------------------------A - 6 5 3 7 ------------------------------A - 6 1 7 6 ------------------------------A - 6 3 4 3 -------------------------------

14 3
14 2
140

6-2-60
8-30-60
5-31-61
2-9 -6 0
5-31-60

7-19-60
9-20-60
7-7-61
6-14-60

8-19-60
12-15-60
7-20-61
2-26-60
9-13-60

A - 6 2 4 5 -------------------------------

135

3-8-60

5-10-60

5-18-60

A - 7 8 4 1 ------------------------------A - 7 7 8 9 ................................ -

168
1 67

5-31-66
3-31-66

6-7 -6 6
4-15-66

A - 7 6 5 5 -------------------------------

1 66

10-1-65

A - 6 8 9 8 ------------------------------A - 6 8 9 9 --------------------- --------A - 6 9 0 0 —--------------------------A - 6 9 0 1 --------------- --------------A - 6 9 0 3 ------------------------------A - 6 9 0 4 ------------------------------A - 6 9 0 5 ------------------------------A - 6 7 0 1 ------------------------------A - 6 6 6 3 ------------------------------A - 6 5 8 2 -------------------------------

1 58
1 56

10-31-62
5-1-62

1 52
149

A - 6 4 0 6 -------------------------------

136

(?)
< )
5
6-6-62
5-28-62
3-27-62
10-25-61

12-29-60

“

Union
do

9-29-66
7-26-66

9-30-66
7-27-66

10-30-66
8-27-66

2-1-66

3-18-66

do

4-15-66

4-21-66

6-5 -6 6

-

-

-

-

do
-

4-2-63
5-31-62
4-2-62
1-17-62

9-6-63
9-6-63
7-18-62
4-18 -6 2
3-19-62

12-29-60

3-20-61

7-17-61

7-22-60

9-12-60

8-16-61

do

10-20-60
4-24-61
8-7-61
4-26-60
11-7-60

2-15-61
6-28-61
8-25-61
6-3-60
1-1 3 -6 1

do
do
do
Both
Union

8-2-60

1-9-61

1-23-63
5-28-62
3-27-62

-

-

_
_

5-24-60

128
12 5

10-9-59
10-30-58

11-16-59
11-17-58

12-11-59
"

12-11-59
-

A - 5 5 6 7 -------------------------------

12 4

6-21-57

7-15-57

8-2-57

8-7-57

A - 5 6 3 0 -------------------------------

123

9-23-57

10-18-57

11-5-57

-

8-1-57

8-19-57

9-30-57

-

"

-

9-30-57

A - 5 6 1 3 -------------------------------

do

9-9 -5 7

10-8-57

8-30-57
do
7-30-57

9-24-57
9-17-57
(5 )

10-24-57
10-8-57
10-10-57

A - 5 6 4 2 -------------------------------

8-30-57

-

11-21-57

A - 5 6 4 3 -------------------------------

8-29-57

-

11-25-57

A - 5 6 1 5 ..................... - ............
A - 5 6 1 8 ------------------------------A - 5 6 2 1 — ................. - ..........

12 2

S e e f o o t n o t e s at e n d o f t a b l e .




-

Date of
em er­
gency
board
report

8-25-66
6-22-66

3-3-60
9-15-60

8-22-60
12-20-60
7-21-61

R ejected
by

Date
em er­
gency
board
created

6-30-66
4-28-66

10-26-61

A - 6 1 3 0 ------------------------------E - 1 9 3 --------------------------------

A - 5 5 9 9 -------------------------------

Initiation
of

D is p o s it io n o f e m e r g e n c y b o a r d dispute
Date of
national
m ediation
board
notificat i o n to
resident

4-2-63
-

Union

12-11-63
-

10-4-63
8-11-62

10-9-63
8-14-62

6-19-62

[6-20-62

3-16-62

Both
Union

12-10-63
-

3-20-62

2-21-62

2-22-62

(8 )
10-31-61
10-4-61

11-10-61
11-15-61
10-5-61

-

}2-23-61

J2 -2 4 -6 1

2-13-61

2-17-61

(6 )
11-18-63
(6 )
i

do
5-1-62

“
11-6-57

-

M ediation 3
12-3-66
N egotiation4 9 -2 9 -6 6

-

(5 )
(5 )
N egotiation
do

12- 16-63
D e c . 1 63
J a n . ! 64
1-10-64
D e c . ' 63
J a n . ' 64
12-30-63
9-13-62

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

M ediation

7-17-62

_

_
"
6-23-62
to
12-11-64
_
_

(5 )
(5 )
(5 )
N egotiation

N egotiation
11-21-62
A rbitration 7 5 -1 3 -6 3
-

12-10-61
12-15-61
11-3-61

A rbitration
do
do
N egotiation

5-21-62
5-6-62
12-5-61
7-12-63

_
_
_

N egotiation
A rbitration
M ediation
do

7-25-62
11-10-62
7-2-60
7-15-59

6-20-61

12-17-59
11-28-58

2-5-60
1-26-59

do
do

3-14-60
2-25-59

3-18-60
4-22-59

6-2-60
6-15-59

12-6-57

do

6-11-58

6-19-58

9-3-58

2-3 -5 8

2-20-58

do

3-25-58

3-27-58

7-25-58

1-24-58

do

do
N egotiation

(5 )

10-11-60
2 - i 4 - 61
2-17-61 9
2 -S -6 1
_

1-11-59

-

7-29-58

-

12- 1 4-58

10-15-57

-

12-9-57

1-30-58

Both

M ed iation

12-7-58

-

10-24-57
-

-

12-2-57
1-16-58
12-16-57

1-25-58
1-29-58
2-8 -5 8

Union
do
do

N egotiation
M ediation
do

4-14-58
11-19-58
2-10-58

-

-

11-26-57

-

1-15-58

2-6 -5 8

do

N egotiation

11-19-58

-

-

do

12-18-57

1-31-58

do

10-24-57
10-24-57
10-19-57

2-24-58

2-27-58

9-15-58

7-8-66
to
8-19-66
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

12-11-64

15-24-61

A fter
em ergency
board
report

8-19-66

do

N egotiation

10-23-57

4 - 4 - 5 9 10

Type of
agreement

do

11-25-57

11-26-58

W ith a s trike
B efore
Date of 2 e m e r g e n c y
agreeboard
ment
created
o r during
em ergency

do

11-25-58

_
_
12-19-58
to
1-11-59
11-24-58
to
12-31-58
11-21-58
to
12-3-58
10-14-58
to
11-23-58
“

A p p e n d ix 7.

C h ro n o lo g y o f th e a irlin e R L A —E m e rg e n c y B o a rd , 1 9 3 6 —6 9 ---- C o n tin u e d
D ir e c t n egotiation s

Date of re q u e s t
fo r m ediation1

A - 5 6 1 2 -------------------------------

Em ergency
board
num ber

Date of
"section
6"
notice

B egin­
nin g
d at e

121

N ational m ed ia tion
b oa rd ca s e num ber-

3-27-57

5-14-57

11-18-57

120

2-26-57

7-10-57

10-22-57

10-23-57

10-23-57

(5 )

(5 )

( 5)

-

-

-

D is p o s it io n o f e m e r g e n c y b o a r d dispute
national
m ediation
board
n otifica­
t i o n to
president

D ate
em er­
gency
board
created

Date of
em er­
gency
board
report

7-21-58

(5)

-

P ro ffe r of
arbitration

A - 4 5 7 9 ------------------------------A - 4 5 8 0 ------------------------------A - 4 5 8 1 ------- ----------------------A - 4 5 8 2 ------------------------------A - 4 5 8 3 ------------------------------A - 4 5 8 4 -------------------------------

108

A - 3 9 1 0 -------------------------------

10 3

12-26-51

A - 3 8 9 4 ------------------------------A - 3 9 6 8 -------------------------------

102
101

9-21-51
3-28-52

A - 3 5 6 6 -------------------------------

100

3-11-50

A - 3 8 2 7 -------------------------------

99

A - 3 2 5 5 ------------------------------A - 3 1 4 9 ------------------------------A - 2 9 1 3 ------------------------------A - 2 7 0 7 ------------------------------(” )
.................

94
90
67

5-26-54

(5 )

62

Ending
d ate

(5 )

Union

A irlin e

Date of
Initiation
proffer
of
of
m ediation
m ediation
session

1-10-58
-

8-13-54

Date

1-17-58

1-24-58

do

1-27-58

1-28-58

11-18-57

12-13-57

do

1-21-58

1-21-58

9-15-54

10-7-54

( 5)

-

-

4-15-52

5-23-52

2-29-52

-

-

5-1-52

2-5-52
5-22-52

-

5-26-52

-

3-18-52
6-4-52

7-31-50

11-7-50

11-15-50

-

*

1-15-51

5-29-52
6-6-52
7-10-51
11-28-51

10-30-51

]

11-15-54"

11-16-54

11-12-51

12-6-51

-

12-6-51

-

12-7-51

5-31-49
4-10-49
5-28-48
5 - 2 6 - 4 7 1*

8-3-49
M a r . *49
6-15-48
10-21-47

9-2-49
6-5 -4 9
7-30-48
10-29-47

9-13-49

-

-

6-5-49
7-30-48

-

12-14-49
6-8-49
8-30-48
12-1-47

7-30-48“
10-31-47

--

-

do

4-13-55

do
do
do
do
do
do

3-1-46

3-19-46

4-18-46

5-8-46

8-29-52
do

1 - 3 - 5 2 11

1-4-52

12-8-51

Both

12-15-51

12-17-51

2-16-52

do

8-4-50
3-23-50
10-28-48
12-10-47

C a rrier
do
do
do

1-9-51
7-10-50
1-13-49

1-13-51
7-12-50
1-19-49

5-25-51
8-31-50
3-10-49

M ediation

11-28-45

12-12-45

12-21-45

7-3-46

Union

1-11-46

2-15-46

C a r r i e r 15 5 - 6 - 4 6

7 -3 -4 6 "

7-3 -4 6

8-7-46

5-7-46

7-8-46

(5 )
M ed iation
N egotiation
do

4-14-52
11-5-51
A u g . *50
3-24-49
12-30-48
11-24-48

After
em er­
gency
board
report

11-24-58
to
12-31-58
-

-

-

11-5-52
to
11-6-52

-

4-24-52

7-10-52
7-9-52

6-7-46

5-8 -4 6

4 - 14-55

(5 )
M ediation

7-9-52
7-7-52

[7-9-48

3-11-55

N egotiation

do
do
C a rrier
Union

5-15-48

-

1-30-53

1-2-53

5-13-48

12-31-58

11-5-52
10-24-52

11-6-52

(6 )

(8-2 2 -5 8
11 - 1 - 5 9

N egotiation

11-5-52

1
38

do
M ed iation

( )

2-25-52

-

do

Type of
agree­
ment

do

-

2-8-52

2-4-52

R ejected
by

With a s trike
B efore
Date o f 2 e m e r g e n c y
board
agree­
created
ment
o r d uring
em ergency
board

-

-

-

12-16-51
to
12-18-51
-

127-3-46

-

24-48
3-48

to 1 2 -3 0 -4 8
to 1 1 -2 4 -4 8

9-6-46
7-4-46

A - 2 2 1 9 -------------------------------

I
3

36 14

-

-

-

A rbitration

1-22-47

-

10-21-46
to
11-18-46

D a t e that o n e o f th e p a r t i e s f i r s t r e q u e s t e d th e m e d i a t o r y s e r v i c e s o f the N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d .
D a t e ( 1) a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d b y the p a r t i e s , (2) a g r e e m e n t w a s r a t i f i e d , o r (3) a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d w a s r e n d e r e d .
M ediation a greem en t.

P a r t i e s s e t t l e d d i r e c t l y ; n o e v i d e n c e to i n d i c a t e m e d i a t i o n o r a r b i t r a t i o n w a s u t i l i z e d t o r e a c h a n a g r e e m e n t .
N o data ava ila b le.
N o f o r m a l e m e r g e n c y b o a rd r e p o rt issu ed.
7 A rbitration agreem ent.
8 N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n B o a r d file on A - 6 3 2 8 not a va ila b le .
9 I l l e g a l s t r i k e c a l l e d o n F e b . 1 7 , 196 1 i n d e f i a n c e o f E m e r g e n c y B o a r d N o . 1 3 5 .
10 C o m p a n y o r i g i n a l l y r e q u e s t e d m e d i a t i o n , a n d a t e n t a t i v e a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d .
W h e n th e a g r e e m e n t w a s n o t r a t i f i e d , th e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d r e o p e n e d the c a s e and p r o f f e r e d
s ervices.
II I n f e r r e d f r o m N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d c a s e f i l e s .
12
D a t e u n i o n ( I A M ) w a s c e r t i f i e d a s b a r g a i n i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r th e c l e r k s at N a t i o n a l A i r l i n e s .
A L P A —N a t i o n a l d i s p u t e o v e r g r i e v a n c e m a c h i n e r y ; d i d n o t f o l l o w r e g u l a r R L A ~ e r n e r g e n c y b o a r d p r o c e d u r e s .
14 T w e l v e o t h e r c a r r i e r s w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s e m e r g e n c y , b u t T W A ( A - 2 2 1 9 ) w a s t h e m a i n d i s p u t a n t w i t h A L P A .
15 W i t h d r e w f r o m a r b i t r a t i o n .
5

tory

SOURCE;

N ational M ed iation B oa rd ca se file s,




National M ediation B o a r d Annual R e p o r t s ,

P resid en tial em e rg e n cy board rep orts.

its m e d ia -

Appendix 8.

Railway Labor Act, as Amended, Selected Sections

General purposes.

“Section 2. The purposes of the Act are: (1) To avoid any interruption
to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein;
(2) to forbid any limitation upon freedom of association among em­
ployees or any denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of
the right of employees to join a labor organization; (3) to provide for
the complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter
of self-organization to carry out the purposes of this Act; (4) to pro­
vide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning
rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; (5) to provide for the
prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances
or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates
of pay, rules, or working conditions.

General duties.

“First. It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents,
and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain
agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and
to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such
agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to com­
merce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute
between the carrier and the employees thereof.
“Second. All disputes between a carrier or carriers and its or their
employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all
expedition, in conference between representatives designated and
authorized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers and
by the employees thereof interested in the dispute.

Agreements by carriers and
employees concerning pay, working
conditions, etc.

Conferences to speedily con­
sider, etc., disputes.

Functions of Mediation Board.
Right of either disputant to
invoke service of Board.

Proffer of services by Board.

Action if arbitration refused.




“Sec. 5. First. The parties, or either party, to a dispute between
an employee or group of employees and a carrier may invoke the
services of the Mediation Board in any of the following cases:
“(a) A dispute concerning changes in rates of pay, rules, or work­
ing conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference.
“(b) Any other dispute not referable to the National Railroad
Adjustment Board and not adjusted in conference between the
parties or where conferences are refused.
“The Mediation Board may proffer its services in case any labor
emergency is found by it to exist at any time.
“In either event the said Board shall promptly put itself in com­
munication with the parties to such controversy, and shall use its
best efforts, by mediation, to bring them to agreement. If such
efforts to bring about an amicable settlement through mediation shall
be unsuccessful, the said Board shall at once endeavor as its final
required action (except as provided in paragraph third of this section
and in section 10 of this Act) to induce the parties to submit their
controversy to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.
“If arbitration at the request of the Board shall be refused by one
or both parties, the Board shall at once notify both parties in writing
that its mediatory efforts have failed a*id for thirty days thereafter,
unless in the intervening period the parties agree to arbitration, or an
emergency board shall be created under Section 10 of this Act,

42

A ppendix 8.

Railway Labor A ct, as Am ended, Selected Sections— Continued

Functions o f Mediation Board —
Continued
No change in pay,- etc., rates to
be made.
Procedure in changing rates
of pay, rules, and working
conditions.
Notice of intended, to be given
in writing.

No alteration in rates, etc.,
by carriers until final action,
etc., by Board.

Arbitration.

E m e r g e n c y Boar d.




no change shall be made in the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions
or established practices in effect prior to the time the dispute arose.
“ Sec. 6. Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at
least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements
affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and
place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of
the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon
within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall
be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case
where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences
are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation
Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has
proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions
shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been
finally acted upon as required by Section 5 of this Act, by the
Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after
termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the
services of the Mediation Board.”
“ Sec. 7. First. Whenever a controversy shall arise between a carrier
or carriers and its or their employees which is not settled either in
conference between representatives of the parties or by the appro­
priate adjustment board or through mediation, in the manner provided
in the preceding sections, such controversy may, by agreement of
the parties to such controversy, be submitted to the arbitration of
a board of three (or, if the parties to the controversy so stipulate, of
six) persons: P r o v id e d , h o w e v e r , That the failure or refusal of
either party to submit a controversy to arbitration shall not be con­
strued as a violation of any legal obligation imposed upon such party
by the terms of this Act or otherwise’.’
“ Sec. 10. If a dispute between a carrier and its employees be not
adjusted under the foregoing provisions of this Act and should, in
the judgment of the Board of Mediation, threaten substantially to
interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any sec­
tion of the country of essential transportation service, the Board of
Mediation shall notify the President, who may thereupon, in his
descretion, create a board to investigate and report respecting such
dispute.”
The 1936 Amendments to the Railway-Labor Act
(Chapter 166.)
An Act
To amend the Railway Labor Act.
B e it e n a c t e d b y

th e S e n a te a n d H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f th e

U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a in C o n g r e s s a s s e m b l e d ,

43

That the Railway

Appendix 8.

Railway Labor A ct, as Am ended, Selected Sections— Continued

Arbitration— Continued
Labor Act, approved May 20, 1926, as amended, herein referred to as
“ Title I,” is hereby further amended by inserting after the enacting clause
the caption “ Title I” and by adding the following title II:
“ Title II

Title II.
Designated provisions extended
to carriers by air.
Adjustment Board provisions
excluded.

“ Section 201. All of the provisions of title I of this Act, except
the provisions of Section 3 thereof, are extended to and shall cover
every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce,
and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with
the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person who
performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such
carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to super­
vise and direct the manner of rendition of his service.

Application of Act to
carriers by air and employees.

“ Sec. 202. The duties, requirements, penalties, benefits, and privi­
leges prescribed and established by the provisions of title I o f this Act,
except Section 3 thereof, shall apply to said carriers by air and their
employees in the same manner and to the same extent as though such
carriers and their employees were specifically included within the defini­
tion of ‘carrier’ and ‘employee,’ respectively, in Section 1 thereof.

National Mediation Board.
Adjustment of disputes.

Pay, working conditions, etc.
other disputes.

Proffer of services in
emergency.
Invoking of Board's services.

Handling employer-employee
disputes.

Reference to adjustment
board upon failure to agree.

Boards of adjustment;
establishment; jurisdiction.




“ Sec. 203. The parties or either party to a dispute between an em­
ployee or a group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air may
invoke the services of the National Mediation Board and the jurisdication
of said Mediation Board is extended to any of the following cases:
“ (a) A dispute concerning changes in rates of pay, rules, or working
conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference.
“ (b) Any other dispute not referable to an adjustment board, as
hereinafter provided, and not adjusted in conference between the
parties, or where conferences are refused.
“ The National Mediation Board may proffer its services in case any
labor emergency is found by it to exist at any time.
“ The services of the Mediation Board may be invoked in a case
under this title in the same manner and to the same extent as are the
disputes covered by Section 5 of title I of this Act.
“ Sec. 204. The disputes between an employee or group of em­
ployees and a carrier or carriers by air growing out of grievances, or
out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates
of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and un­
adjusted on the date of approval of this Act before the National Labor
Relations Board, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and
including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle
such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the
disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party
to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full
statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.
“ It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through
their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions o f this title,
44

A ppendix 8.

Railway Labor A ct, as Am ended, Selected Sections— Continued

Employee-carrier boards
of adjustment.

National Air Transport
Adjustment Board.

Composition

Meeting, organization, etc.

Filling vacancies, etc.

Powers conferred.




to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdic­
tion which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards
of adjustment, under the authority of Section 3, title I, of this Act.
“ Such boards of adjustment may be established by agreement between
employees and carriers either on any individual carrier, or system, or group
of carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their employees; or pend­
ing the establishment of a permanent National Board of Adjustment as here­
inafter provided. Nothing in this Act shall prevent said carriers by air, or
any class or classes of their employees, both acting through their represen­
tatives selected in accordance with provisions of this title, from mutually
agreeing to the establishment of a National Board of Adjustment of tempo­
rary duration and of similarly limited jurisdiction.
“ Sec. 205. When, in the judgment of the National Mediation Board, it
shah be neccessary to have a permanent national board of adjustment in
order to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of disputes between
said carriers by air, or any of them, and its or their employees, growing
out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements
between said carriers by air or any of them, and any class or classes of its
or their employees, covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, the
National Mediation Board is hereby empowered and directed, by its order
duly made, published, and served, to direct the said carriers by air and such
labor organizations of their employees, national in scope, as have been or
may be recognized in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to select
and designate four representatives who shall constitute a board which shah
be known as the ‘National Air Transport Adjustment Board.’ Two members
of said National Air Transport Adjustment Board shah be selected by said
carriers by air and two members by the said labor organizations of the
employees, within thirty days after the date of the order of the National
Mediation Board, in the manner and by the procedure prescribed by
title I of this Act for the selection and designation of members of the
National Railroad Adjustment Board. The National Air Transport Adjust­
ment Board shall meet within forty days after the date of the order of
the National Mediation Board directing the selection and designation of
its members and shall organize and adopt rules for conducting its
proceedings, in the manner prescribed in Section 3 of title I of this Act.
Vacancies in membership or office shah be filled, members shall be
appointed in case of failure of'the carriers or of labor organizations of
the employees to select and designate representatives, members of the
National Air Transport Adjustment Board shall be compensated, hearings
shall be held, findings and awards made, stated, served, and enforced,
and the number and compensation of any necessary assistants shall be
determined and the compensation of such employees shall be paid, all
in the same manner and to the same extent as provided with reference to
the National Railroad Adjustment Board by Section 3 of title I of this
Act. The powers and duties prescribed and established by the provisions
of Section 3 o f title I of this Act with reference to the National Railroad
Adjustment Board and the several divisions thereof are hereby conferred
upon and shall be exercised and performed in like manner and to the

45

A ppendix 8.

Railway Labor A ct, as Am ended, Selected Sections— Continued

Election by employee-carrier
boards to come under jurisdiction
of.

Transfer of pending cases
to Mediation Board.

Custody of papers,
records, etc.

same extent by the said National Air Transport Adjustment Board, not
exceeding, however, the jurisdiction conferred upon said National Air
Transport Adjustment Board by the provisions of this title. From and
after the organization of the National Air Transport Adjustment Board,
if any system, group, or regional board of adjustment established by
any carrier or carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their
employees is not satisfactory to either party thereto, the said party,
upon ninety days’ notice to the other party, may elect to come under
the jurisdiction of the National Air Transport Adjustment Board.
“ Sec. 206. All cases referred to the National Labor Relations Board,
or over which the National Labor Relations Board shall have taken
jurisdiction, involving any dispute arising from any cause between
common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or
any carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the
United States Government, and employees of such carrier or carriers,
and unsettled on the date of approval of this Act, shall be handled to
conclusion by the Mediation Board. The books, records, and papers of
the National Labor Relations Board and of the National Labor Board
pertinent to such case or cases, whether settled or unsettled, shall be
transferred to the custody of the National Mediation Board.

Separability provision.

“ Sec. 207. If any provision of this title or application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act
and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances
shall not be affected thereby.

Appropriation authorized.

“ Sec. 208. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary for expenditure by the Mediation Board in carry­
ing out the provisions of this Act.”
Approved, April 10, 1936.




46

Selected Bibliography
Aaron, Benjamin, “ Emergency Dispute Settlement,”
A d m in is tr a tio n o f th e R L A

by

1967.
Washington, D.C., Government Printing

L a b o r L a w D e v e lo p m e n ts ,

th e N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n B o a rd , 1 9 3 4 - 5 7 ,

Office, 1958.
Air Transport Association (ATA), A i r T r a n s p o r t F a c t s a n d F ig u r e s , Annual Reports 1963 and 1968-70.
Air Transport Association, T h e A i r l i n e s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , March 1961.
Air Transport Association, C o m p o s i t e M u t u a l A i d A g r e e m e n t a s A m e n d e d , March 22, 1962.
American Bar Association, “ Final Report o f the Ad Hoc Committee to Study National Emergency Disputes,”
1966.
Baitsell, John M., A i r l i n e I n d u s tr ia l R e l a t i o n s : P i l o t s a n d F li g h t E n g in e e r s , Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press, 1966.
Blum, Albert A., “ Fourth Man Out,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 13, No. 8, August 1962.
Briggs, Vernon M., “ The Mutual Aid Pact of the Airline Industry,” In d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w ,
Vol. 19, No. 1, October 1965.
Cullen, Donald, N a t i o n a l E m e r g e n c y S tr ik e s , Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1968.
Curtin, William, “ National Emergency Disputes Legislation: Its Need and Its Prospects in the Transportation
Industries,” G e o r g e t o w n L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 55, April 1967.
D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f C r a ft o r C la ss o f t h e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d , J u l y 1 , 1 9 3 4 - J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 4 8 , Vol. 1,
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1948.
Di Pasquale, A., “ Labor and Management At Arms,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1968.
Dragonette, Joseph E. and Chester Myslicki, “ Air Transport: Trends in Output Per Employee,” M o n t h l y L a b o r
R e v i e w , Vol. 91, No. 2, February 1968.
Ernest, Dale and Robert Raimon, “ Management Unionism and Public Policy on the Railroads and the Airlines,”
In d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w , Vol. 11, No. 4, July 1958.
F e d e r a l L e g is la t io n t o E n d S t r i k e s :
A D o c u m e n t a r y H i s t o r y , Vols. 1-2, Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, May 1967.
Henzey, William V., “ Labor Problems in the Airline Industry,” L a w a n d C o n t e m p o r a r y P r o b l e m s , Vol. 25, No.
1, Durham, N.C., Duke University, Winter 1960.
Herlong, A. Sydney, “ Transportation Strikes: A Proposal For Corrective Legislation,” F o r d h a m L a w R e v i e w ,
Vol. 36, December 1967.
In itia l D e c i s i o n o f H e a r in g E x a m i n e r S. T h o m a s S i m o n , CAB Docket 9977, Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, 1963.
Kahn, Mark L., “ Airline and Maritime Job Security Problems,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , Vol. 89, No. 3,
March 1966.
Kahn, Mark L., “ Airline Flight Crews: Adjustment to Technological Change in a Regulated Growth Industry,”
P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 1 9 6 5 S p r in g M e e t i n g , Industrial Relations Research Association, 1965.
Kahn, Mark L., I n d u s tr ia l R e l a t i o n s in t h e A ir l i n e s , Harvard University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1950.
Kahn, Mark L., “ Mutual Strike Aid in the Airlines,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 1960.
Kahn, Mark L., “ Regulatory Agencies and Industrial Relations: The Airlines Case,” A m e r i c a n E c o n o m i c R e v i e w ,
Vol. 42, No. 2, May 1952.
Kahn, Mark L., “ Settlement of Airline Labor Disputes,” P a p e r o f t h e M ic h ig a n A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e , A r t s , a n d
L e t t e r s , Vol. 37, 1952.
Kahn, Mark L., “ The National Airlines Strike: A Case Study,” J o u r n a l o f A i r L a w a n d C o m m e r c e , Vol. 19,
No. 1, Winter 1952.




Kahn, Mark L., “ Wage Determination for Airline Pilots,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w , Vol. 6, No. 3,
April 1953.
Kaufman, Jacob J., “ Emergency Boards Under the Railway Labor Act,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 9, No. 12,
December 1958
Krislov, Joseph, “ Representation Disputes in the Railroad and Airlines Industries,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 9,
No. 2, February 1956.
Lecht, Leonard A., R a i l w a y L a b o r L e g i s la t io n , New York, N.Y., Columbia University Press, 1955.
Leviton, T.S. and P.D. Bazazian, “ Strikes-Toward a Total Answer,” J o u r n a l o f U rb a n L a w , Vol. 45, 1967.
Mason, Charles M., “ Collective Bargaining Structure: The Airlines Experience,” T h e S t r u c t u r e o f C o l l e c t i v e
B arga in in g , edited by Arnold Weber, New York, N.Y., Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.
Mater, Dan H. and Garth L. Mangum, “ The Integration of Seniority Lists in Transportation Mergers,”
I n d u str ia l a n d L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w , Vol. 16, No. 3, April 1963.
In itia l D e c i s i o n o f H e a r in g E x a m i n e r A r t h u r S. P r e s e n t , CAB Docket 9977 (Renewal), Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1968.
National Mediation Board, T w e n t y Y ea rs U n d e r t h e R a i l w a y L a b o r A c t , National Mediation Board,
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1947.
National Mediation Board, annual reports, 1936-69, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
Northrup, H.R., “ Collective Bargaining by Air Line Pilots,” Q u a r te r l y J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m i c s , Vol. 61,
August 1947.
Northrup, H.R., “ The Appropriate Bargaining Question Under the Railway Labor Act,” Q u a r te r l y J o u r n a l o f
E c o n o m i c s , Vol. 60, February 1946.
Oliver, Eli L., “ Labor Problems of the Transportation Industry,” L a w a n d C o n t e m p o r a r y P r o b l e m s , Vol. 25,
No. 1, Winter 1960.
Presidential emergency board reports, (Nos. 36, 38, 62, 67, 90, 94, 99, 100-103, 108, 120-25, 128, 135-36,
140, 142-44, 146, 149, 152, 156, 166-68), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
“ Recommendations on the Airlines-Flight Engineers Dispute,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , Vol. 84, No. 7, July 1961.
Redenius, Charles, “ Airlines: The Railway Labor Act or the Management Relations Act,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l,
Vol. 20, No. 5, May 1969.
R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s id e n tia l R a ilr o a d C o m m i s s i o n , Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, February 1962.
R e p o r t o f t h e T a sk F o r c e o n N a t i o n a l A v i a t i o n G o a ls , 1961 (Project Horizon), Federal Aviation Agency,
September 1961.
Ruppenthal, Karl M., “ Compulsory Retirement o f Air Line Pilots,” In d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w ,
Vol. 14, No. 4, July 1961.
Shils, Edward B., “ Industrial Unrest in the Nation’s Airline Industry,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, Vol. 15, No. 3,
March 1964.
“ Six Carrier Mutual Aid Pact: A New Concept o f Management Strike Strategy in the Airline Industry,”
C o l u m b i a L a w R e v i e w , Vol. 60, No. 2, February 1960.
Sloane, Arthur, “ National Emergency Strikes: The Danger of Extralegal Success,” B u s i n e s s H o r i z o n s ,
Summer 1967.
S ta tis tic a l H a n d b o o k o f A v i a t i o n , annual reports 1966-68, Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office.
S ta tis tic a l H a n d b o o k o f C iv il A v i a t i o n , annual report 1958, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office.
Stern, James, “ Alternative Dispute Settlement Procedures,” W is c o n s in L a w R e v i e w , Vol. 41, Fall 1968.
Wisehart, Arthur M., “ Transportation Strike Control Legislation: A Congressional Challenge,” M ic h ig a n L a w R e v i e w ,
Vol. 66, June 1968.
Wisehart, Arthur M., “ The Airlines Recent Experience Under the Railway Labor Act,” L a w a n d C o n t e m p o r a r y
P r o b l e m s , Vol. 25, No. 1, Winter 1960.
U.S. Department o f Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, A n a l y s i s o f W o r k S t o p p a g e s , annual bulletins, 1936-68.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, T e c h n o l o g ic a l T r e n d s in M a j o r A m e r i c a n I n d u s tr ie s , BLS
Bulletin 1474(1966).




* U . S. G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F I C E : 1971 O - 4 3 7 -2 0 7 (21)

ORDER FROM:

E asy To R ead

M ail o rd e r fo r m w ith pa y m en t to :
S u p erin ten d en t f fDc ocu m en ts
...................o o D
U.S. G overnm ent P rinting O ffice
W a sh in gton , D. C. 2 0 4 0 2
o r any U.S. D epa rtm ent o f C o m m e rc e Field O ffice

h o u s in g -

Aariculture - Construction

Quantity

Price

Amount

__

D it t r lb u t t o n

Geography '

|

Make check payable to Superintendent of Documents J
Subscription

F o r m a t

^ Cr0
M
e
e

C 3 .1 6 3 / 3

G

o

-

f Z L n a t i o n

-

P o p u l a t i o n
C o m p e n d ia

1 Year

3.00

2 Years

6.00

3 Years

9.00

L is ts a n d wf

om_

dia presenting

R ep o rts an d ^ ^ ^ T S r r e n t su rveys, and

..............

S i x t i e s from f ^ ^ f e e n s u s B u r e a u ,
oth er p rogra m s o
pu n ch cards.

Add $.75 For F oreign M ailin g Per Year
S e le c te d p ^ ' j “
E n closed is $

^ , h e C on gress.

P e p e n ^ a n d a r tic le s p r e p a r e d b y t h e C e n s u s

(c h e c k , m on ey o rd e r, Supt. D ocs,
co u p o n s)o r

ch a rg e

D ep osit A c co u n t

No.

t o

Name
Street Address

s s o is r s K s s ti* * 2 *
summaries only.

City, State, ZIP




«— " ■ a

a n n u a1 ,

\

l




B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T IS T I C S
R E G IO N A L O F F IC E S

Region I
1603-A Federal Building
Government Center
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617)

Region V
219 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: 353-7230 (Area Code 312)

Region II
341 Ninth Ave., Rm. 1025
New York, N.Y. 10001
Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212)

Region VI
337 Mayflower Building
411 North Akard St.
Dallas, Tex. 75201
Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214)

Region III
406 Penn Square Building
1317 Filbert St.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Phone: 597-7796 (Area Code 215)

Regions V II and V III
Federal Office Building
911 Walnut St., 10th Floor
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816)

Region IV
Suite 540
1371 Peachtree St. NE.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404)

Regions IX and X
450 Golden Gate Ave.
Box 36017
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: 556-4678 (Area Code 415)




**

Regions VII and V III w ill be serviced by Kansas City.
Regions IX and X w ill be serviced by San Francisco.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
WASHINGTON, D .C

20212

O F F IC IA L . B U S IN E S S

P E N A L T Y F O R P R IV A T E USE, $ 3 00




POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
r
L

THIRD CLASS MAIL

1


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102