# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Heath v. Celebrezze > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0811%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1963 - **Citation:** 372 U.S. 945 ## Text . we CY See Gttice-Supreme Court, U.S. . : te “FILED ©. * i ’ 5 a pee eh |_YAN 26 1963 JOHN F. DAVIS, CLERK : IN THE | Supreme Court nf the Wunited States Qeroper Trem, 1962 . “PLIGHT ENG&NEERS’ INTERNATIONAL a ASSOCIATION, EAL CHAPTER, AFL-CIO, ; PETITIONER VS. a MASTERN ATR LINE S, ING, y . RESPONDE NT° - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS , FOR THE vor CIRCUIT sto : — = | | — L. J. GROMFINE, HERMAN STERNSTEIN, J Winuiam BE. Peer, 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C! | Attorneys ,for- Petitioner Ps Of Counsel: : . Siiatlis ut ? So OF AN ‘ fiber antte-of “Appeals . e “9 * } i Ky H i 1 ry I} t = Mistiagement 2 spt Thr h uN re Procedures Designed dors CHING TURIN APPENIHCES : A? Ber Curian Oni joaoaf the Court Be Upimion the District Cour € Q ta Hs : Th ar 1) H eo ot . ss - AUTHORITIES Amyriecan Airlines v.. ALBA, 169 F. Supp. 777) S.DINY.. T4538 } : : j; = ? 7) Birmingham Trust d& Savings Co. v. Atlante, Bod AR R., 271 Fed. 731 eh Ga WW. oe Lise ve ¥. Zerbst, 295 Tt. ee (1935, Grand International Brotherhood v. Morphy, 109 F.2d 976 Ma Cirss. cert. denvetP 310 US. 635 (1940) : . 23 Pe ° ‘ , SF Howard v. Sh Lowis-San Francisco Ry, 19% F 2d 4420 (sth Cie, 1952) © te... a ea eee reer . International Union of Operdting Baayincers Vo Dahlem C. struction Co, 193 B24 470 (6th Cir, 1951) ‘ wae Lochl. No. 156, United ‘Packinghouse Workers of Amerred, ~ Ms, NLRB. 670 (1957) A hen oie eee : ‘yo Ord ef ney ad Telegraphers ef agRiy I I press. L fene ‘ty ° 321 US. 342 (1944). ....... adil oe he oN . bute id investiaggD thes ‘erew complement’ issues. Eastern flouted these proce- dural steps when it put into effect the contract changes respe sting these issues. , e decision of the Court beldw is contrary to the sicvesanabainal decisions and conflicts with the plain lan- guage and meaning of the Railway Labor Aet. A review of this case by “the Supreme Court is necessary to insure that the statutory scheme of the Railway Labor Act for thirty days’ written, notice (Section 6), conference (Section 6), mediation (Section), and possible consideration by an’ Emergeney Board (Section 10), is not abrogated in the — Federal C ourts bya deci ision which permits a earrier to put into effect chariges im a collective bargaining agre@ment without first’ adhering to the provisions of the Act. II. This Case Presents This Court With the First Occasion to Consider the Important Question of Whether the Re- quirements for Notice and Mediation Set Forth in The - Railway Labor Act May Be Deemed to Have Been Waived Where ‘the Party Complaining of the Failure to Comply With Those Requirements Has Participated in Negotiations and an Emergency Board Which, Qver ’ ~ Its Objections, Dealt With the Issues‘as the Statutory Requireme ot Been Met. ~ This case presefits for the first time before this Court the question whether under the R: ailway Labor Act an air carrier may alter workiug conditions without caving com- plied with the mandatory procedures of the Act simply bes eause the carrier and the Union have engaged.in bargaining over those issues at the behest of the carrier, and simply because the ¢ carrier was: permitted to present these issues to an Emergency Board established to investigate a dis- pute between the parties. EAL ‘Chapter submits that the _decision below holding that Eastern has complied with the aaa 8 o . : Pel oe Hailway Labor Act, is clearly wrong and if permitted /to ° stand will render havoc with dabor-management mee: tions under the Railway Labor Act, and {| thus ete * sallway te pritiary : statutory purpose of promoting labor- cenaenent peace in the railroad and airline industries. EAL ¢ ‘hapter, by insisting thate it is entitled to thirty days’ written notice from Eastern indicating Hastern’s in- tention to put “the ‘terew complement”’ conditions into ef- fect, and by insisting that the ‘terew complement”’ issués be processed through the mandatory procedures of mediation ‘and Kmergency Board consideration, is not attempting to ‘give precedence to form over substane e,’? as held by the District Court.{ Appendix A, fra, pp. a-l4a), any more than Congress intended Section 2, Seventh and Section 6 to- serve no purpose whatsoever and should be read iy such a way as to render their provisions directory rather than mandatory. Real meaning and substantive purpose are served by the notice requirements of Section 6 and by strict adherence to the other proc edural requirements of Sections 5 and 10. The substantive purpose served by Section 6 is obvious. The prima®y. objective of the Act is: to achieve peaceful settlement of labor.disputes through negotiation, mediation and, where agreed to by the parties, final and binding arhi- tration. ‘A Section 6 notice serves two related purposes: (1) it advises the other party and the National Mediation Board of the nature of the dispute, and (2) it defines the precise area in which, upon the expiration of the statutogy waiting periods,. ‘*self-help’s maybe exercised. Throughout the thirty-six years of collective bargaining , experience under the Railway Labor- Act, both sides could be assured, by virtue of Section’6 and Section 2, Seventh of the Act, of the specifie corifines in which the other side. was free to exercise self-help; and could thus recognize those areas in which hard’hargaining toward settlement was needed in order‘to avoid the economic consequences of the ultimate resort to self-help, To be sure, in many nego- tiations one party or the other has injected issues not gaised é ° ¢ ° 14 os 8 cs by’a Section 6 notice. When that has been. done, each'sidg_ Ne ee SorTrrreeerirta fas recoguized Uat while it is Iree to reach a settlement” ° which deals with those issues, neither side, may exercise - self-help with réspect to those issues until all of the proce- dures, beginning with a Sect ion 6 notice, have been complied with. The decision of the-Court below. now comes to say, however, that when Section 6 notices have been filed deal- ing with issues A, B and C,* the injection ‘by one of the parties of issue D at any time during the negotiations has the sameceffect as if a Section 6 notice were filed, and the only way. that the“other party can avoid that consequence is to refuse.to even talk about issue D, and thereby gisk . breaking down neotiationy on issues A, B, and C. And, if it does not refuse to talk ewbout issue D, but discusses it briefly and then drops the matter, how can it be sure whether it will be found to have uegotiated beyond the point where it can no longer object to the lack of a Section 6: notice? _ 2 The effect of the decision below is to create chaos in col- lective bargaining in the railroad and airline industries. Neither side can have know ledge: of those arda>, and on what issues, hard bargaiming” must be centered. Either party stanidn free to‘inject new issues, subsequent to the filing of_a Section 6.notice specific and limited is its terms, into the negotiations. As the timeeat which the parties will be free to exercise’self-help approaches, neither will*be able to sdy with certainty or what issues thé precedures of the ‘Act have been exhausted and on what issues they have note The likelihood of agreements resulting from collective bar- gaining conducted uader euch handicaps 1 is nil. This is the antithesis of the result sought by the en&ctment of the Rail- way Labor Act. was : In a closely related factual situation the Courts have indicated the importance “of the pargies being fully aware ‘Tt must be remembered that Section 6 of the Act does not merely establish theduty to serve a gencral notice of an intent to modify or open an existing agreement ;.it speaks specifically of the ~ dnty to serve a notice “‘of an intended change."’ a ° . ate _ do } . : ie Q 2 of the consequences of their failure to agr robs In Pittsbu & Lake Erie R.&. v. Brotherhoud ef Raitroad Traimmen, , 179 F. Supp. 271 AWD. Pac 1959), the Court faced the question whether under the Railway Labor Act the proffer of émergency mediation segvices by the National Mediation Board produced a second thirty-day cooling-olf period after ‘the procédures of the Act had qtherwise been exhausted. The Court held that a second thirty-day cooling-off period not contemplated by the Act. In so holding the Court ‘ ‘i wit with approval an amicus curiae*brief tiled gy the Na- ° tional Mediation Board. in which the Board noted the im- partance of. the:pressure upon the parties to the dispute ’ “when faced with expiration of the. thicty-day cooling-off period. The Board stated; * ‘*In controversies of the type which come before the Board ander Section 5, First, sueéesstul termjnation through mediation or arbitration requires séme willing: . ‘ness by the parties involved to adjust or compromise, | the points in dispute. Realization that failure to ¢ achieve settlement will lewd, ‘oy is likely to lead, to «strike action at the end of a ad-day sti and-still period puts upon both partie % ’ to which a party is free to unilaterally change upon the failure of negotiations and the expiration of the cooling-off - period. The attention of the parties must be focused and their bargaining efforts given direction, Only if the dispute is so narrowed and kept within the confines of the Section 6 notice is agreement likely. To held, as the Court below in the dastanit cause has held, that Eastern was free to effect tinlateral changes w ithou! first serving a Section 6 notice and otherwise exhausting the mandatory procedures, of the, Act on the *tcrew complement’? issues, can only result ina diversion rather than gi concentration of efforts, and the unlimited expansion of the bounds of the dispute rather than the narrowing of the dispute. % It is no doubt true that the failure af BAL Chapter and > astern to "reach agreement in the instant dispute can be” divectiy attributed to the fact that Kastern’concentrated its efforts tipou’ the *‘erew complement”? isshes, whereas EAL ‘Chapter concentrated on the economic” issues in the belief “that the “‘erew complement’? issues had not been properly opened under the Railway Labor Act and consequently: could not be the subject matter of any-self-help on the part ‘of Bustern” Had Eastern, like EAL Chepter, also con- centrated its efforts on the *teconomic”’ issues, those issues, whiely had been opened under the Railway Labor Act and thost issues as to which either party was free to exercise self-help upon the expiration of the cooling-off period. of the Aet, settlement of the dispute between the parties would undoubtedly have been realized. Petitioner submits that it was never contemplated by the fromers.of the Railway Labor Act that there tould be a ‘waiver’? of the requirement that each side notify the other of the specifie scope of the issues as to which, at the-end of . the rond, it would be‘ free to excreise: self-helfe or institute unilateraMehanges. .But, whether.or not Petitioner is cor- rect in its view, it is clear, Anat tis — which has \s noted above, p. 6, EAL, C hapter refused to agree th the sub.’ mission of the ‘erew complement "issues to the Emergeney Board and refuse (to present any ev idence to the Emergency Board on those issues, 4 ° > never been passed upon by this Ceurt, is of eritiGal im portance in the future admiyistration et the Act. For that reason alone, this Petit@should be granted in this eae ~ The Decision of the\Qéurt Below Conflicts With Deci sions of the Same Circuit, and With Decisions of Other Courts of Appeals. } ‘ A. The decision of the Court Selowsin Belding that East- ern did not violate the Railway Labor sAdt by altering the ‘crew complement’? working Conditions of\the Flight Butt neers without first serving a Section 6 noNece and without first otherwise exhiusting the mandatore® procedures of Sections 5, 6 und 10 of the Aet, is contrary to every other Court of Appeals decision on this question, Several Court of Ap cE decisions contrary to the deci sion below have already been referrert to Tove, BRE. In addition to those, seb alsa Grand Lutevnes TH ‘ll Bivothe r heod vy, Morphy, 100 Fivd O76 (2d (ir. «f ‘a dented SW U.S. 685 (1940), wherein the ,Coprt reve rch. district Court decision and held that aio er of the Dis trict Court, inst rng! tag thi rec eiye Tota railroad 1 to alter the wages gfthe employees wi itholat regard to the proce ieee of the Act, Was inv@id. A A thier days’ hayt, weoot in ended change was held to be re «quired, as Wak exhaustio of the mediatory procedures of Section 5. There are, in addition, three Distriet Caurt decidtns te the same effect which are particularly iabesloae: In thes first, Birmingham Trust & Savitas Coo, Atlantic, Bo A. R. R., 271 Fed. 731 (XN. D. Ga. 1921), the Court held th part ~ under Section 9 of the Newlands Act of (1913, °45 U.S.C. agreement as having been exectited in violation of the Railway Labor Act. te P Tay : In the third case, Pullman Co. v. Order of Railway Con ductors and Brakemen, 49 L.R.R.M. 3162 (N.D. Ill. 1962), the Court held that a strike over new issues not the subject of a Section 6 notice or otherwise exhausted under the. Act, would be in Violation of the Railway Labor Act. The Court noted thaf the Conductors ‘ich “ e ‘had raised new issues beyond the scope of any notice, previously served . pursuant to Section 6 «of the Railway Labor Act. ° As tospbe isSues now in djs- pute Petween the partiessthe pFocesses ot the Railway ‘Labor\ Act have not been exhausted.”’ 49 L.R.R.M. B. The decision of the Court below in holding that "East- ern, after exhausting the procedures of the Act on the ‘‘eco- nomic”? issues and being free to‘exercise self-help with respect to these iSsues, was also free to exercise self-help on the *terew complement’? issues js in conflict with a de- cision of the same circuit, but “different papel, ir an American World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Engineers’ Inter- & . a” i tree = a : 19 amicied Association, PAA Chapter, AFL-C10, 50 L.R.RM. 2801 (2d Cir. 1962). In that cake, the issue was whether a threatened strike was in violation of the Railway Labor ~ Act, and could be enjoined. Pan-American argued that, since the. Natignal Mediation Board had proffered emer- gency mediation services to the parties invan attempt to re- solve the ‘‘erew complement’’ issues raised by- Pan-Ameri- ‘can without the benefit of a Section 6 ndtice, a strike was* barred even though the procedures of the Act had been exhausted over the ‘‘economic’’ issues. The Court held the Flight Engineers were free to’ strike, on the economic issues, regardless of the status of the t‘crew complement’ issues. Relying Heavily upon Aynerican Airfines v. ALBA, 169 F. Supp. 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), Judge Hays arote: ‘* As was ihe casein American Airlines [169 F. Supp. 777] the strike of the Flight Engineers which has. bee m enjoiged is ‘a strike with respect to the subject matter of the dispute which has been fully proce ‘ssed under the Railway Labor Act.’ Pan-American’ s inje ection into the situation of the erew complement issue catmet be permitted to obscure the fact that the Flight Engi- neers strack only to secure the very demands which they made- in their origiyal Section 6 notice. Pan- “American's reasons for refusing these demands are ebviously not a part of what the Plight Engineers struck for.’’ 50 L.R.R.M..at 2807. Pan American stands for the proposition. that the injee- ~ tion of ‘‘crew complement’ sissues into-a-dispute over ‘eco- 9° nomic’? issnes cannot har the parties, upon exhaustion of the Act on the ‘“‘eeonomic?’ issues, from exercising self- help with resy “ct to these latter i issues. Fach set of issues in dispute hetween the parties must be treated Separately ; each must be processed through the procedures of the Aét separately. The parties must exhau# the procedures of the Net on each independent. of the other i issntes before standing fremto exercise ‘self-help’ with géspect to each. A fusion of issues js not ecountenaneed, .” s For the same reason, separate and ‘independent treat- ment of issnes urfler the Act, exhaustion of the Act by Fastern on ‘‘eeonomic’’ issues does not leave it free to a a. 8 e » _ 20 bie A ae place into effect the **crew complement’? changes in working conditions, any more than exhaustion of the Act by-the Flight Engineers on the Seconomie’’ issues leaves it free to strike on the **crew complement’? issues. 7 IV. The Decision Below Is Contrary to Nationa! Labor Policy of Promoting -Peaceful Settlement of Labor- Management Disputes Through Adherence to Statutory Procedures Designed for Such- Purposes. . This Court-should review the decision of the Court below tor the additional reason that the decison represents a substantial de ‘parture from, the National Labor Policy of _ enforcement of statutory “procedures designed to achieve peaceful settlement of lahor-managgment disputes through advance notice of intended change, negotiation, mediation and possible final and binding arbitration. : As already indicated, the Congressional scheme for set- tlement of labor disputes involving contract changes in the railroad and airline industries is embedied in Sections -5, 6 and 10 of ‘the. thilway Labor Act. ae : . Ae eae ats ‘ . PA if - a a t) ¥ Pe * ‘ . ae, 7 . ; ry . e Gi : ~ . os ° 3 s . “ * i ’ 6 . : 7 r ‘& . = . 7 e APPENDIX A : United States Court of Appeals ' Fon tHe Seeonp Cirevn : / ns No, 4¢—September Term, 196] > ae Argued August 21, 162 ~ Decided August 30, 1962 Docket Number 977145 Fount ssciveers INternsatioxar Associ \TTQN EAL. CHAPTER wth Plamtiff ° against Easterns Nan Lines, Inc., Defendant Before LUMBARD. Chief Jtidge, Moore. and Marshall, Cirenit gind&s Appeal from an. order of the United States District. . Court for the ‘Southern District of New York, WILFRED FEINBERG, 4... denving plaintiff's apphea ‘ion for a preliminary injunction Affirmed PER CURIAM the order of the District Court for the South . f New York. which denied the motion ef the plaintiff for a temporary injanction crestraining EAST- ERN AIR LINES, ENC. from (1) putting into effect norates of pay, rules and working conditions of fight engipeers without first si rving a Section, 6 -notice under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. See. 151 et seq,, and exhausting certain alleged requirements of the Act. ehanges arid, 2). bargaining directly with individual flight engineers ow engaged in a strike against Fastern. for the reasons set forth in Judg? Féinberg’s thorough .and well reasoned opinion % ° ta 8 . ' 2a ; we APPENDIX B 8 Opinion of the District Court a pe - ° s FEINBERG, D: J. : > This is a motion for a preliminary injunction by plain- tiff union, Flight Engineers “International Assgciation, against defendant, Eastern Air Lines, Ine, It grows out ofa tangled labof dispute involving ‘effects of technological change, featherbedding and rival union. jurisdiction. Both parties, at different stages of, the lengthy negotiations, have exhibited something less than an acute awareness of the needs of the public. For the reasons set ferth below, the injunction is denied. However, such *denia®of ig soughe by the Flight Eygineers | reflects no approval « Eastern’s action in re us sing to accept the most recent se af ment proposal of Secretary of Labor Goidbe Te, as set forth in the _ papers before me. : : ee. . a. b s neers were concegisd not only with the issyes originally raised DV the ‘tsection 67° notices bat also with the ¢rew = -complement issue, Negotiations on the Jatter were carried on both under the dus pices of the National Mediafton Board at that ageney’s request” and alse with the assistance of Professor Femsinger and U ndersecretary of Labor Willard), Wirtz. These negotiations continued intermittently until February 21, 1962. On that date, ‘the Flight. Engineers served a written strike uotice on Kastern, The next day, President Kepnédy, pursuant.to Seetion 10 of the Act, 49 USI. © 160 05s), appointed Emergency, Board No. 144 ~Mhe “Emergency Board’*) to investigate certain unad. justed disputes** between Kustern and the Flight Engi- neers, On Mareh 26, 1962, the Emergency Board: convened mage“ the matter‘and filed @ts report on May 1, 1962." , Despi w Flight Engineers’ opposition, the Emergtney Board concluded that the issue of whether the’ recommen- dations of the Fei “singer Commission shéuld be -imple- mented had been submitted to it,;and that those recom- mend: ations should be iniplemented by the Emergency Board since they were thought to be a ‘“ . -manently ‘replaced as rapidly'as possible. On Juiy 19, 1962, Eastern talled 80. jet copilo}s, into immediate training to complete their qualifications for 2 Flight Mngineer’s Cer- triicate.. It also. advised all Eastern flight engineers that anyone reporting to work on or before July 24, 1962 would not lose his job to any copilot receiving such training. From July {to Juiy 19,’Eastern and the Flight: Engi. - | mers met with Undersecretary Wirtz and Professor Fein- ringer to vensider the crew complement and other unre- solved issues. On July 23, 1962, at the request of Secretary - Goldberg, further talks were held. At thei conclugion, Sec- retary Goldberg proposed a method for Settling the dis pute. According to the record before me, the ‘Secretary recommended that the parties agree to arbitrate all unro . solved economic issues. {Ie did not recommend that the crew complement issue be submitted to arbitration, Dut profosed that ‘‘upon receipt of the arbitration award * of the unresplved economic issues’? the parties ‘will com, ~ plete agreement regarding the orev complement issue with. oO Rk -wagne ° Ba ’ ee ° in the frame work of the he -retofore.agree ‘d-upon basic prin- ciples and subject to the coneurrence of the Eastern Air- lines Pilots.’’ The Secretary stated that he and other gov- ernmental officials and agegcies would assist the partiqg in - y_ reaching agreement on the crew complement issue, and that a 4% ora > lemei ; » ’ "a > , ny crew complement issue not re solved is to be finally settled by such procedures as they shall preseribe."? Fi- nally, the Secretary recommended immediate cancellation’ of the Flight Engineers’ strike and Wesumption, of opera- tions by Kastern. The same day, Eastern informed the > Secretary that it could not accept-the proposal, principally’ on the ground that the solution tothe crew complement issue Was ‘‘still one that will’ not immediately include or definitely bind the piiots.”’ Dt) further stated: that after strikes by the Flight Engineers ovef this very issue, ‘*we cannot aecept the solution thatamounts to a ‘truck’... ” with no assurance 6f pilot acquiescence.” e The next day, the union accepted Secretary Goldberg’s t = recommendation to submit the unresolved economic iseues f to arbitration. With= regard to the crucial crew comple- ment issue, the Flight Mngineers préposed that the parties immediately ‘write afi agreement |... regarding the crew complement issues Wkhin,the framework of’ the ‘already agreed-upon b&sic issues.”’ The Flight Engineers offered to return to. work immediately upen conclusion of such an - a greement. : ie o On July 24, 1962, | Secretary (féldberg asked Eastern to” , eae recormyler its action. Since then, further meetings have | been held ey le r the auspices of the’ Secretary of Labor, but have. not produced, any resolution of the issues of the basic dispute. : ms On July 23, 1962, Eastern resumed operations on an | ; extremely limited basis. The strike has foreed an almost complete shutdown of Eastern’s operations, causing it to lose an estimated $1 million a day in revenue. As a result of the strike, Eastern has been forced to furlough approxi. mately 17,000 employees, who have suffered a loss of $12 million a month in wages and benefits. The strike lias re. —. da f sulted in a seriou’ reduction of hcgPline, service received by the 115 communities normagby served by astern, and - has disrupted the travel qlans of a Jarge portion of the publie. ie ‘ . ae nt ) | ~ he Railway Labor Act: 45 USAC. 65 151-1638, 181-188 (1958), provides detailed pro@dures for the settlement of labor disputes arising in [Pastries covered by the Act. The procedures differ, depending upon whether ‘miner’ 6 or ‘Smagor”’ disputes are invelved, The former involve the interpretation and application of existing collective bgr- ee % ae hia a : gaiggos agreements; the lafter concern the formation of terms and conditions of employment to be included in a> new collective bargaining agreement goyerning the relation- = ship. between the parties, See, eg. Elan J. @ E. Ry. ve Burleu, 395 U.S. 711, 723-24 (1949); Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Bug’rs Ass'n, Nos. 27697-0862 Cir. . July 25, 1962 at 2816. Since the issues in thi axe ammount toa “major dispiite,” attention need only be given here to the “Act's procedures for resolving sHeh disagreements. These have been ably summarized by Judge Bryan in Aimer- wean Airlines, Tie. M8 Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 169 F. Supp. 777, 784 (S.D.N.Y. WO8): . 2 “Tf either carrier or-eanplowees desire to make any chenge in the status qito Withtespect to conditions of employment, ¢ither nner any, existing godectives bar- gaining agreement or in its absenee, they must vive at. : . ree . . ; a —~ least thirty dat-"'written notice of an infentied change . insagreements affecting rates of pay prules, or working eonditipns’. © 6. - ! “Thereafter it- isthe duty of koth parties undér the mandate of Section 2 to confer and the Act divects that the time and place for the beginning of ‘conserence ‘ shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt days provided in the.notice’. (Emphasis supplied.*> 6. “Tf the conferénees tail either party may invoke the . s@rviges of the Medition Board which ‘shalt promptly =° put itself in communicativn with the parties’ and ‘shall ; ° e . > “ 7% S z ; : we of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty: ‘ e 10a use its best efforts, by mediation, to bring them to. agreement’. If these.efforts are unsuccessful the Board ‘as its final required action’ (except as to the request for a Presidential Emergency Board) ¢ shall at once endeavor * * *-to induce the parties to submit theire controversy to arbitration’. (Emphasis supplied.) § 5, First. If both parties agree arbitration proceeds under ’ § 7 and the resulting award is final and binding on the parties. If arbitration is refused, however, the Board ‘shall’ notify the parties thut its mediatory efforts have. failed and ‘for thirty days thereaftegs unless in the intervening period the parties agree to arbitration, or . an emergency board shall be created under Section 10 . vf this Act, 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’. (Emphasis supplied.) § 5, First. ‘*Finally, after being notified by the Mediation Board that a dispute threatens ‘substantially to interrupt in- -.°., terstate commerce to-a degree such as to deprive any — section of the country of essential transportataon’, the ‘'Presiden? may create a Board which ‘shall investigate promptly the facts as to the dispute and make a repoft - thereon to the President within thirty days from the = ° date of its creation’. After the creation of the Board, and for thirty days after it has reported to the Presi- dent ‘no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of | which the dispute arose’. § 10."" ~ bs It should be noted that at no stage of the proceedings: under-the Act are the parties compelled to settle the dis- pute unless beth agree to submit the issues to binding arbi- . tration. See Elgin, J. & E. Ry. v. Burley, supra, at 722-28. See generally Comment, Enjoining Strikes and Maintam- ing the Status Quo in Ratlway Labor Disputes, 60 Colum. L. Rev. 381, 385 (1960). ‘ ‘*For [the settlement of major disputes] ... the stat- utory scheme retains throyghout the traditional volun- tary processes.of negotiation, mediation, voluntary ‘ar-, bitration, and conciliation Every fagility for bringing, about agreement is provided and pressures for mobi- lizing public opinion are applied. The parties are re- quired,to submit to the successite procedures designed Fad | ‘ lla to induce agreement. ° 93 First (b). But compulsions . yo only to insure that those procedures are exhausted : before resort cay be had to self-help: No authority is empowered to decide the dispute and no such power is intended, unless the parties themselves agree to arbi- tration.’’ ™ * it @ The carrier, on the other ca can effect no changes in the terms and conditions of employment pertaining to the dispute until the procedures of the Act are exhausted. Nor may either party resort to the use of economic weapons, 1.e., ‘self-help,’ until #ie proceedings provided by the Act for major disputes are at an end."* The union confends that the actions ‘af Kastern,’as Ody lined in its letter to it on July 17, 1962, and as effectuated on July 24 and thereafter, violafedgvartoug, se tions of the Act. The union argues (1) Eastern has place a into effect changes in terms and conditions of employme ut withsut having first servéd a fotice of intended change as required by Section 6 and Section 2, Seventh of the Act; (2) Eastern has —— directly with flight engineers in violation of Section 2, Fourth and Section 2’ Ninth of the Aet; and (3) Eastern nn executed agreements with individual fight. en- ginee rs with the intended and ultimate effect of- coercing them and ®therwise interfering with the selection of their bargaMming representative in violation ef Section 2, Third: and Section 2. Fourth of the Act. With regard to the first contention, the union claims that " since “ic € cre complement and A&P license issues were not raised ji Kastern’s original. **section 6°’ notice: fio uni- laterai act on theepart of the carrier changmg the status _quo could be legally instituted because the compulsory me- diation procedures of the Xet had not been exhausted with" o respect to those issues.” : In the recent case of Pan American World Airw AES : Ine. 7 - se “Elgin, J. & EB. Ry Burley, 325 US. 71, 725 (1943). 12 See Butte? A. & Pae. Ry. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire- men, 268 F.2d 54,58 (9 Cir.), cert. denygd, 361 U.S. 864 (1959) ; American Aitlines, Inc. a Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 169 F. Supp. 777, 789 (S.D. N.¥® 1958). - « é % sae Vi * lla a ° cat . ee 3 » Flight Eng’rs Ass'n, supra, the Court o Appeala.c lis: % eee iajur ection obtained by Pan American in ihe = tm trict © ourt against the-ABelit Ie enginee rs’ strike of the c: ‘ fier. Pan American appare ntly ¢« contended that the str ‘ke . was illegal e ‘ither because ne + ectYousi notice was served % by either party with refe renee To @ crew compile ‘ment : - — problenr and the mediation procedures “of the Act had-pet— ~ beer complied with, or, in the alternative, that Pan Amer- dean's: *Saece ptanee’ of the recommendations of the Fein. singer Commission on the crew coniplement issue, some 16 or 17 months after the original *? sec tion G"* notices, const * tuted a new certion 6°" notice on that issue, which set in motion the procedures of the Act not theretotore exhausted prior to the-strike. The Court of Appe fals.-in a 2-1 decision, rejected the contention that ‘one of the parrties ta the pro.‘ cedures under the Railway Labor Net can, after those pro- cedures are once exhausted, set them in motion for a secand : time by the sery ice oh ase efion 6 notices raising new issues." 5h He Par hme rere dit W arlad abe IrWaUs, lucy v. Plight fug'rs Ass’ a, ~ supra at 2820. Further, the logical extension of such a cone clusion would mean that ‘teach new dispute on which the parties se ved Mypropriate ‘openers’ awonld set in motion the machinery of the Railway Labor Act all over again with respect to a dispute In whieh the procedures ot the | “Act had already been fully exhansted. Thus the right: of, . the Union or.the employer to Use the economic pressures of strike or lockout Ww hich are ter bidder ons during’ a ye riod when the parties have not fully per formed their duties and obligations under the Act, ¢ voualel he ng aR; ad indefinitely.” 5 “7 American Airlines, Tne. ». Air Line Pilo Ass'n, supra at 797. Therefore. nnuder Pan Awmerrican, injection oft the erew _ coniple ment and related issubs by Eastern after the ‘*see- " tion 6°" netices had heen served could not, by starting the Act's processes all over again, prevent the Flight Engt , : neers from striking. But. having raised these issues, and the anion having struck, is Bastern foreclosed, “> the union contends, from changiyg the teres and conditions of em loa ployment! Under te cireamstances of thats ease, LT think not. This is not a situation in which the employer t raised. the crew complemeif issue for the first time after the anion went on strike, where different considerations might) be involved. Rather, the emplover herp is in the same pe Shion as the etmplayer avas in Pai bmericen, where no formal wt weetion fo —Hetiee was _obeT tied but the em foyer **ae- cepted’ the recommenda t lous of the Peinsinger Commis extdpsive bargaining since Fe bruary 106 } when the Fheht Engineers actually wernt out anh strike heeause of "these isstads. Oni the record be@ore ane, it is clear that the Prinary COU oft this labor dis} ute ah ved thie carrent strike Was the crew complement problent and its related issues, Although there may have been a technieal deficiency in the manner in Which these issues were injected into the dispute, such technicalities cannot mas® the tact that these issues have heen a subject of negotiation since F ‘obra: ry P61, and as to them, the processes of the Act Nave been ext nusted, To: allow ‘either party Te Hiock resort to ‘tself-helpe. atter the exhaustion of the Act's procedures by relying on a tee Thnical omission from the original SS apene is’ of issies tolls dis — eussed and negotiated would give precedence to form over ( | m jw i substance. After protracted negotiation ang mediation on. these issues, an imipasse was* reached, and at that stage, it would appear that the purposes of the Act, which at- tempts ‘“to avoul any interruption to commerce*’ and ‘‘to provide for the upt and orderly settlement of. all dis. putes’’ had been fulfilled. They could not have been implemented further by a Subsequent service of a new ‘*section 6°" notice, even though such service might cure What may have been a technical omission to comply with the-formalitie of the Act. Te require compliance with such formality would) amter—the—tircumstances of. this ease, only deter the possibilities of settiement. See Inter. national Air Line Pilots Ass'n vy. Southern Arias, Inc., 7 4 CCH Lab. Cas. 917,469 at 26.220 (MR Tenn 1962), appeal docketed, Nas. lous -22, 6 Cir, May Ai; 1962. More. over, i! may be that suchtforma! technicalities were ful filled here. From the Flight Engineers’ original proposals of April 1, i960, it appears that they may have ‘‘opened”’ the crew complement problem themselves.’ If so, the alleged technical deticieney would disappear from the case. Finally, it ean be argued that, under the circumstances of this case, the union waived any technical deficiency of com “ pliange with the “Aet’s requirements Ygih respect to these issues White the Act does not. by its terms, specifically speak of waiver, the doctrine would appear applicable when justified by. the Pagts See Childers v. Broth: rigod of RR. Trainmen, 199 F.2d 956, Yoo (Ss Cir, 1951): Tater national Air Line Pilots Ass'n vy. Southern Arrieays. Inc. supra, at 26218-19 It would seem that the union’s exten. “sive participation in negotiation sand mediation proceed - The copy of the union's original proposals attached tet its com plamht includes, at page 16 L / ‘3. Mediatior agreement on withdrawal of pilot qualitica tion—-renew without change. eae. ou , + A and E waiver—renew without change : “5 Om all straight jet aireraft .on sll flights, on all routes or route segments a second Flight. Engineer will be assPyned and carried on as an operating crew member Such Flight Engineer shal! be subject to all provisions ef ‘this Flight Enygi neer worktime ayreement{* y ° @ - ings during which the crew complement and related issues were thoroughly discussed constituted a waiver of East- ern’s failure to serve a ‘see tion 6°" notice on those issues, sinee the anion knew that no such ‘‘opener’’ had’ been served by Eastern. In Having decided afirmettive lv the question of whether Eastern could change conditions and terms of employment, the issues rem: un of whether, as the unlon.charges, Nasteyn nonetheless iaprope riy bargained direetly with and coerced individual engineers. if an employer and a bargaining representative reach a deadlock» after eXhausting the proceedure established by the Act in an attemp+ ee: ettle a ‘*major-dispute,"’ “it is quite clear that the Aer contemp lates that trrther progress toward the de ‘termination of the controversy will be » left — entirely to the imiterplay of economic forees without gov ernmental intervention. “Thy parties are then free from ai! compulsion under the Act and mav resort te ‘self-help’. 20." Pan American Word lirwaus. Iyeoy. Flhant Ena'rs Ass'n. sépra at 2817-18. Thix mig does not appear to differ from the ruleunder the Nationa! Labor Relations Act (*“*NLRA’’) that in labor disputes classified as economic, resort to “self help’ & permissible when th parties’ good faith bargain ing reaches an impasse, see NLRB vy Mackay Radio & Tel. 304 US) 333, 345 (1938). The economle pressure te which-the « emplover or union Mav resort is, of course. not unlimited, and here the Flight Engineers claim that East Pern resorted to mnlaavty! pressure‘ On Juir 17. Mr... 1.03 Jarrard, Vice-President for Indus. trial Relations 4f ’ Eastern, wrote to Mr. Jack Robertson, president o{the Eastern chapter-of the Flight Engineers After briefly Sommarizing.the long history of the attempts : that had heen made to solve the prohiems of “job security, qualification and representation of flight engineers,’’ he described the impact of the st tite - losses to Eastern of over $25 million. temporary unemployment of neariv 18,000 Iba Mook etic astern employees, and great inconvenience’ to the public. Consequently, the letter confgiued, the Strike had altered the parties’ circumstances, and Eastern was ‘compelled to take affirmative and positive steps to. resume operation immediately.”’ Therefore? Hasteri? proposed to begiz im- mediate transition from four-man to thrg?-man jet créws, évith the third man to’ have the pilot training advocated -by the Feinsinger Report. In piaée of the detailed solution to the crew complement issue. suggested by the Report, East- ern simply offered to give the necessary pilot training to” its flight engineprs at its expense in the manner approved by the Report. Eastern also offered the flight engineers a rf 10.82° pay inerease, apparently the increase it had. pro- . * if e posed during the hearings before the Emergency Board " and recommended by the Board.’* Eastern retreated from its apparent past willingness to grant both a lintited rétro- active pay incresse and a ffrospective increase, effective . on April 1, 1962."" Eastern further stated that it would be available to discuss its offer with the Flight Engineers for the balanee. of July 17 ahd July 18,7 but that if the Flight Engineers rejected the offer, Eastern ‘*{would] offer the same terms and conditions to*all of the flight engineers _individually.’* The-effer was subject to‘the condition that only flight enginéers who returned-to work on or before July 24 would be given the appropriate pilot training at Eastern’s experse. Strikers who did not return by that date would, ‘‘If te-employed by the Company, be restricted to service on propeller-driven aircraft ‘and [would] not be given the training contemplated by the Feinsinger.Report.”’ Flicht engineers who did not return to work ‘‘{ would] be permanently replaced as rapidly as posstble.”’ | Thereafter, Eastern sent to each striking flight engineer a letter, dated July 18, signed by Mr. Maleolm MacIntyre. “17S. Emergeney Board No. 144, Report to the President at 15 {1962;. ; x 15 Thid. 7 16 Td. at 21 ° IT Diseussions were held on July 17, 18 and 19 hy the parties with the aid of Undersecretary of Labor Wirtz and Professor Feinsinger. Ws ‘ ”~ ’ A Z - ( | . iva ; ; President of Nastérn. Annexed to the letter was Mr. Jar rard’s lptter of the previpus day to Mr. Robertson. Mr. Maclntyre reiterated that because ot the impasse in neygo- tiations and the great losses sutfered by Kasiern because of the strike, Bastern had ts resume operations. ‘There. fore, he stated, effective in nmediately, de ‘terms and con. ditions set fort) Ou the alt tached letter «at July 17, 1962 shail be applicable to ali Hight engineers Por betsy In addition to instructing the strikers as to how and when any of them who wished to return to work eould inform .Kastern of their decision, Mr. Macintyre stated that any. engineer whe did not elect to take jat pilot training would be restricted, to propeller alreraft, and added, ‘Those who do not report by July 23th may be - placed” agd any who are reemployed thereafter will be restricted to propellér’ airer att. * On July 19, the strikers were informed by letter Phat to resame eoperahans as quiekly as possible, astern + vas ealling 80 copilots jnto training as flight engineers. The copilots would: be used as the third man*in Jet crews to the extent that Quch places were not filled by flight wif ne@rs who reported to work by Jaty 24. The letter con cluded that ‘thes» copilot. will not fake flight: engineer , jobs away from any pr esent flight engineer who so reports.”’ As of July 24, 1962, 52 flight engineers dad accepted the. offer of July 1s, end Teeeiyed priority for the pilet-engi necr’s position in fe three-man crew. The pregram of training 80 aa as flicht engineers was, ‘as of the date of the hearins, well underway, and the cost of thit program is estimated to be approcimdtely $341,009. * The wnipn argues that Eastern hag attemptpd $0 bargain” “ individually with flight ongineers in violation of Section 2.. Fourth and Section 2, Ninth of the “Act, which require em- plovers to Sargain only with their employees’ authorized representatives, and has cooreed flight engineers in viota- tion of Section 2, Third and: Seetion 2, Fourth of the Act. The principal conduct of Easterr’ that might constitute individual bargaining consists of the company ‘galetters of . July 18 and July 19 to the- strikers, which, according to Phe . ° 4 2 18a 4 ww t . record before me, are the only communications sent directly to-them bythe company. Eastern claims, and there is nuth- ‘ing in the reéord to the contrary, that it has negotiated only with the union and never with individual engineers. Accordingly, the Blight Engineers’ entere argumett on individual targaining stands or falls primarily on? Kast- ern’s two letters to the strikers. Eastern’s letters both withdrew all previous offers to the strikers, and stated the terms*upon which they could return to work. It.does not appear that this conduct vio- lated the Act. The terms relating to the crew complement issue upon which Eastern proposed to take back the strikers ¢ them jess job pretection than Eastern’s pre- vious ‘The cases under the NL RA that suggest a measurgyo “hastern’ s right to. vary its offer indicate that Eastern’s abandonment of some prior concessions under the circumstances of this case was not unlawful. See Great Falls Employers’ Council, ine., 123° N.L.R.B. 974, 982 (1959), enforce ment de nied on other grounds . 207 KF. 2d 7i2 (9 Cir. 1960) (**Respondents bargained in good faith until an impasse developed on April 12, 1957, when the Jmen rejected Respondents” last amende d offer and, onethe foel- lowing day, stguck Buttrey, one. member of the malti- employer unit. Thereafter, Respondents were relieved of - any dnty,they may have been under to adhere-to previously made bargaining concessions and were free te withdraw, as they did on April 15, 1957, their rejec ‘ted ‘fine] _pro- posal’ and te renounce the terms Of the old, expired con- tract which had been continned in effect by mutual consent of both parties thereto.’')" It is clear that. Eastern's * modification of its position neither created the deadlock in” ,the pa.ties’ negotiations ner precipitated the strike. East- ,eetn did not depart from its last. pre-s strike’ offer until the strike was 25 davs old. The cases decided under the NLRA *% Cf NERR v. Hart Cotton Mills, Inc. 199 F.2d 944 (4 Cir 1951) (withdrawakh df concession not evedence of ow faigh Stoner Rubber Co.. 123 N.L.R.B. 1444, 1448 (1959, wering of wage offer not evidence of bad faith). Compare NILRB v National Shoes,. Inc, 208 F. 2a 688, 692 (2 Cir. 1953 . ® ? f . | Duty ty Bara 1423-24 (195 te tena Nk "198 and the \apparent econemic justification for Eastern’s actyous and absence of bad faith on its part compel the coficlusion that basteri’s withdrawal of its’ last offer,,. inked with its new proposal, Was not resort.to unlawful + self-help.” ee Norgdo I think ‘unlawful Eastern's statement in its letters of the terms ol which it invited the strikers to return to work. Initially cpmumunicated to the union on July 17, the new off€r of July 1s, when ‘mailed to the strikers, amounted to no more than a unilateral statemen of the terms on Which the strikers could. return to work if they. wished. ‘Plainly, ‘tbargaining’* with individuals was neither contemplated nor ent hts is ho evidence that any resulted. Parenthetically, it a be noted that the offer was in no way more advartageous to the flight engineers than Eastern’s previous offers. Thus, the new offer was not the type of uniktteral employer action taken with intent to weaken a pion which, if taken in an economic dispute subject to the NLRA, would be deemed a violation of the duty te*argain. in rood faith. See May Dept. Stores Inc A. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376 (1945); Cox, The * }, and pases ¢ ited therem. / Mackau Rrdi ‘of Tel on _ supra, and cases cited imme- diately delow. Furthe*more, it rfiy individually inform in in Good Faith, 71 Hark. L. Rev. 1401,. “es * 4 ”™ bo the striking employees sat they: must either return to work on the basis of its last offer or face the threat of replacement. Robonson Freight Lines, 114 N.L.R.B. 1093 (1989), enforcement granted, 25) F.2d 639 (6 Cir. 1958) : Téras €'0., 93 N.L.BB.21358 (1951), set astde on other grounds, 198 F.2d 540 (9 Cir. 1952); Kansas Milling Covv. VERB, 180° F.2d 418 (10 Cir, 1450). Accordingly, L eon- ¢Clude that Eastern, under the -cireumstances’in which it found itself, could hire and train copilots to replace the Bs Kastern’s letters informing the strikers of its intenfions did not exceed the boundaries of lawful ‘‘self- 2 help.’’*° 1 find that on the evidence before me Eastern has not bargained directly with individual tlight engineers, nor ‘has it executed agreements with them with the intended _and ultimate effec eof cgercing them and otherwise inter- ection of their bargaining represenatives. mats . #." - also argued that.the union has failed to ¢om- s fering with the ' Bastern h: denied, 346 ULS..818 (1953), or that a failure to return, to work by a specified date would constitute termination, seé NLRB v. Beaver Meadow Greamery 215 Fo2d 247 (3 Cir. 1954) (alternative holding). Regardless of the distinetions, substantive or semantic, s upon which these cases“may turn, see Shopmen’s Toeal 774 vy. NLRB, 219 F.2d 874 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 835 (1955), ‘no such problems are presented by .Eastern’s Jetters, ‘ 2°'The cases cited by the union are not to the contrary. They involved. .emplovers who dealt in the first instance with inaividual employees rather than their’ representatives, Medo Photo Supply \Corpsv. NLRB, 321 1S. 678 (1944); Order of R.R. Telegraphers ®\ Ry. Express Agenev; $21 U.S. 342 (1944), ave employer who rekused te bargain collectively Wk K a newly certified representative becduse of the existence of contracts previously made with individ- ual employees, J. [. Case Co. vo NLRB, 321 U.S. 332 (1944), an emploxer whe by organizing a company union att»mpted to impede its emplovees’ exercise of theif rights, to choose a bargaining repre- sentative, Virginia ‘Ry. v. Svstem Federation, 300 VéS. 515 (1937), and an employer who unilaterally attempted to/raise its employees’ wages after refusing to bargain with their representative, May Dept. Stores Co. v. NLRB, 326 0.9% 376 (194%). These eases are, clearly inapposite to the pyoblem p esented here. ’ c \ 7 2 \ gf Se ae Fk Z2la_ : 7. sae Te » LOS (108), and therefore the remedy of a® injunction is WO unavailable to it. ‘hat Section provides, inter alia, that ng injunction should be granted to a complainant ‘who has failed to makeevory reasonable effort to settle such dispute Bither by negotiation or with the aid of any available gov- ernmental maclrinery: of mediation or voluntary arbitra- tion.’* Bastgrn contends that. the union’s repeated ‘past ‘refusals, before it went on strike, to submit to mediation or us arbitration at the exhortation of various high ‘yovernment Officials is fatal.to its eause.*’ See Brotherhood of RR. Tratigmen v"Toleda P. dW. RR, 321 US. 50 (1944). How- ever, on the view'of the case already taken, it is nof neces- sary to explore this argument. . : On the record before nie made by the ‘parties on this motion for a prelintinary injunction, | dovnot feel that the Flight Engineers have shown by ‘‘clear and convincing?” facts, see American Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, supra at 793, that Eastern’s actions have violated their legal rights, or thet they have a reasonable probability of success in final hearing on these points. Id. at 795. Aecord- inghy, under alt the circumstances, ihe motion fpr prelimi. “ nary injunction should be denied. 2 . The foregoing shall constitute findings of fact &nd con- clusions of law in aecordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C. Settle order on notice. | aw mw, PP ae : Dated: New York, N.Y. pe © . eAugust 10, 1962 3 Witrrep FEmneerc ” U. &. D. J. o | Fi # « m2) ?1 See text at p. 8, supra. te le ea » 22a APPENDIX C 69 . . . a . § Pertinent provisigns of the Railway ‘Labor Act referred to in the petition are as follows: ‘ = ‘ ‘ i e Section 2, Seventh; . ‘Seyenth. No carrier, its officers, or agents shall change *he a class as embodied in agreements-except in the manner pre- seribed in such agreements or in section 6 of tht Act.”’ ” e . ‘ Nectwn 35: . . Mle See, 5: First. The parties, or either party, to a dispute be- tween an elaplovee or group of employees and a carrier may invoke the Services of the Mediation “Board in any of the . following cases: _ 7 - F ‘*(a) A dispute concerning chffnges in rates of pay, rules, or worlgps conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference “(b) May other dispute not referable to the National Railroad Adjustment Board and not adjustest in conference between the parties or where conferences are refused. + ‘The Mediation Board may protfer its services in case any laber emergency is found by it to exist at any time. ‘In either event the said Board shall promptly put itself in communication with the parties to’such controversy, and shal! use its best efforts, by mediation, to bring them to agreement. If such efforts to Pring about an amicable settlement through mediation shalt unsuccesstul, the sai endeavor as its final required action (¢ paragraph third of this section and in s to induce the parties to submit fheir co tion. in accordance with*t' > provisions o “If arbitration at the request of the Boarc one or both parties, the Board shall at once in writing that its mediatory efforte have faWed and for thirty days thereafter, unless in the interveninf period the parties agree to arbitration or an emergency, board shall be created under section 10 of this Act, no change shall be made in the . cepg as provided in wroversy to arbitra- this Act. wtify both parties rates of ay, rules, or working conditions or establish practices Ad im-effeet prior to the tume the dispute arose Section 6: S te Ope ‘See. 6. Carriers and representatives of the employees. shall give at least thirty days” written notice of an intended, change “« ° im agreements affecting rates of pay, miles, or working condi- tions, and the tune aie! place for the beginning of conference ‘ between the representatives of the parties interest@d 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 be®e given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the . : ‘ rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as Board shall at once, ‘tidh 10 of this Act)’ shall be refused by . we & *. ethom service, the Mediati troversv in the Mech ai Lou Lear have toate’ RBowrd bas proffered its se sey cords tions shatll met eon Poverny haSMrecny tinadl - HL Meret iested bv either rs party, or said rmoces, rates of pay, 4 rules, or work. be altered by the carrier until the deted upon as required Maeectign fhis Aet. bs the Mediation Board. untess a period of ten days has elapsed after tert ati oof conferences without re dilestelop or prot? éheoserviees of the Mediation Board ‘See TO) ]f a. dispute he sot adyusted, under the shimild, in the J jpelen ent a stantially to mnterriupt te deprive aN section of Who tay thereupon. in hi tieate ane repeert respect het weeh a terstute Prue’ pacet. Va ing such dispute. Suet Chipos@R of stich nugiher sepm alostrat ie Provided? hall be poemmimridy or oth ref empl psa idl earn} earrier and oats emplovees forevoine provistons of this Net and tothe Mtedtiation Board. threaten stib 7 i Vadoadecree such as thi aed o eo sential Transporta Board shall notify the President, s aliseretion. ereate a board te inves e | board shall be as ty the President hia », That no tuember appointed ‘ of prerseni fiecm@aue Wise ciiterestedd i any OP ni Zit log: er The cetupensation of the mens tied bys ‘the President Such fy board sStadil be greated separately in each mstanece and it shall hvestioute premstiv the facts as te the dispute and niake a repert theren: to the DPresplent wathin thanty days from the date gt @s cheation. x~ Ti ere os bie redoy geagth wized tis beg Ipropriated stich SHINES Gis - reas be nefessary for the e erestra dea tyscgbived anal the tie perses qethally neared hd hh ard All raid on the presentation proved by the ehairman “After the création of sie stich bored bas ria its except by nureement. st . » * . e = “$ . ° ’ > = . ~~ ® “. ° * ¢ a ’ e e* e . . + expencdiar all beomacde eouaditians at senses Of stele board, ineluding the veska ry raveling expenses and. ex for stibsistence, of the members of wy esoof the bes 1 shall be allowed and ~ af itemizedBvouchers therefor a hebowrd, amd for thirty davs after rfport te the Presidept. mo change, by the partic s © the con - 11% ‘ t WH lk i the hisyy ite arose \ 2+ a, $5, ° , ‘ a a e* 4 - . g * _* ‘ “ . Py zi «@ . . » : . . “4 . > ; ie . 7 e 2 . . . ‘ “ -* 3 ‘ . ? . . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0811%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.