Transcript of Record — Railway Clerks v. Association for Benefit of Noncontract Employees

Supreme Court brief1965

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

cheese __ 0% NEITS OF GEETonant 70 te UinTED stats COvET oF eee ge

een ~ APPEALS PoR THE DISTRICT OF GoLUMEIA CIRCUIT aS tae ws

~ ve

AS “ > oy e P : te . ‘ : _ . . re . *

;

x SS

° -

H ost - . . .

' % y ;

‘ .

t -

b a \ ’ be f

‘ 2 . Son. . . . ‘ 1

‘

j : . . '

~ 7 .

is eK,

; oe - ‘

' * .

[ $ > ‘ ¢

- . Sal ¢ $

~ ~ ‘

. : .

; t

° a

| pam \

Oo. . & 7

fone ad TABLE OF CONTENTS

; \: * Page

1. Relevant Docket Biitries - hacdibtue Vem nk budline cas 2

2. Complaint with Exhibits A ‘through C, filed April

me AB, TOUR) i.e lsc dYewdewcs cas pelea eee eeeds 2

See (a) Exhibit A: Letter from AB ito Chairman, ce

a i NMB, dated February 11, 19637:.......... a an

33 (b) Exhibit B: Letter from NMB to President, :

y | , ABNE, dated March 27; oe ee 14

Boer.) (c) Exhibit C: Letter from ABNE to Chairman, »

| NMB, dated April 3, 1963 ............ Te he 18 .

4 "3. ‘idsiten for Preliminary Injunction, with Affidavit, ois

4 sat chee, bon Be Eee its Bena . 2

] (a) Affidavit of James F. Sheahan ......2....->~24

Ws 4. Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, .

{ . filed April: NU ais as edendinsesagiiasscc.... ss: .

5. em aiaeaed ‘Restraining Order, entered April 18, ee

| a VN ces: ey eat lease aa aa A tm salaries ipa Svtnoe eae bia allg dere te Be 4 cals

i ! 6. inetetibac Opposition, to” Plaintiffs Motion for +

| ' -Preliminary Injunction with Affidavit and Exhibits,

' te ace a i ee a ra 35

‘ (a) Affidavit of. Eugene C. Thompson, Executive :

oO vs ‘Beoretary, NMBw...... fcc alecceegeeeees 35

Hil Aa a cea - Defs. Exh. 1: Letter ha Siasans C.

cae é Thompson, Executive Secretary, _NMB, to

iy: Sa George M. Harrison, Grand President, BRC, ‘

a ~ dated Anu 1962 Knee Nba Nien ally aieda.d 48. .

> _Defs. Exh. 2: Letter froin Rorge M.

| BY a ‘. Harrison, BRC, to Eugene C. Thompson, .. -

a dated August: 37, NUE aa aden tenenocL... 49 .

‘Defs. Exh. 3: Letter from Hiugene-7 ol

Thompson to Charles M. Mason, United Air

. Lines, and A. J. Hayes,’ IAM, dated Angust 7

- 30, WER ears eet eegeceteeeteeseente 53

ba pao ta

, ew ~~

\ -

ha ; a

a ve ‘Mable of Contents Continned

‘3 United Air Lange

S dated September 7

to gene C. Thompeon, dat

~ ~ Defs. Exh. 6:-Letter trea George Harrison < ~

... BRC, to Eugene C. Thompson, dated Octo- iy

ber 5, 1962 °. 2.6... 804 Fi ebe eheeedaws t's 59~

‘De Exh. 7: NMB Dete tion 0 raft

or Class No: R-1706 eines €

22 “Defs. ‘Exh 8: Regulations. of the’ National

., Mediation ages agg beg

: fer. from C. ‘M5Mason,

: ~ Bete 3 Air GinteSto Bug

~ dated Janudty 11, 1963 ©. . > ee, tO

Defs. Exh. 10: Letter. froin ‘Bnge

Thompson, NMB;~to .Charles- M. M

Untted_Air Lines, ‘dated January 17, 1963%>, oF, ys

Defs. Exh. 11: Letter from United Air Lines

’ to Leverett Edwar y Chairman, NMB, ©

: Letter. from Seistins -C.

or to C. M. Mason, UAL, .

da February:4, 1963 «....2...00.-. 6%

: Bal to Posie O'Neill, Jr; Chairman |

~ NMB, dated January 18, 1963”. EY

‘Defs.: Exh. 14: Letter from. Eugene / C. 7

: Thompson, NMB, to C. M. Mason, yal j

< dated January 24,. ADGS aye es even enced Wee 86

F Defé> Exh, 15:° Letter rin C. ML. te

- UAL,’ to’ Leverett Edwards, Chairman, |

NMB, dated February 1, 1963... 23a se RED 89 .

- Defs. Exh. 16: Letter from Eugene’ @:

' Thompson,.NMB, to C.' M. Mason, UAL,

dated — Ty 1968 . Laaes oro otevdscc cts: 06>

ne C, mn: SO oe

—_————

- |

Table of ow . ..

i ‘Page

Def Exh. 17: Lathér trina C. M. Mason,

AL,. to Eugene C. Thompson, NMB, dated -

Defs.. Exh. 19; Later from Genes W.-

son to’ Eugene C. Thompson, Executive:

retary, NMB, with sane y gram,

ee ee Gated January 24 1988 5.06256 33 aie. SOS.

Defs Exh. 20: sae from James F.

Sheahan, et al. President, ABNE, to

. e - Leyerett Edwards, Chairman, NMB, dated =

_February 11, 1963 963 ese eer eeeaeeenere ee: 102° *

ee _—Pefs- Exh. 21: Letter from J. F. Sheahan,”

' President, ABNE, to Eugene C. Thompson,

NMB, dated Febrasry 25, 1968, with attack-

Ws cw be oa eG anche toes tate ise ee ten ss 106

Defs. Exh. 22 ; Wien from Eugene C.

Thompson, Executive Secretary, to to Alex. eae

Arguello, dated April 12, 1963 ............ 11

Defs. Exh. .23: Sample Ballot Form, filed <A

eg 1963 grcetorevorsewise ness Se

Defs. Exh. 24: ‘Sample Ballot Form .... i 4

3 Defs. Exh. 25: Sample Ballot Form veeees 115

~ Def. Exh. 26: Sample Ballot Form aks . 116.

~ Defs, Exh. 27: Sample Ballot Form ...,.. 117

- Defs. Exh.-28: , es:

(a). NMB Certification, ‘Benployees of. n

Aloha Airways Ps ihe wails hain wrt 119

(b) NMB- Gimnineit of Rierisentation

, «© .: Application, Employees of Southern -

Sane _Aarways, Inc. ....... Niocseee eNe¥ Ren ‘Agi

ae 3 Order Extending’ Temporary: Restraining Order,

_ entered 7 24, 1963 eked ves siabheastedesebeis San

: »

°C: ID

“February TUE fe Nastittcccessesset.

Q Defs. Exh. 18: The Railway Labor. Att.

omitted)

‘ oe ay ‘Table of Contents Continued — ee ee

cone Gow os ige LS

NS Baniit, Notice of Election, filed May 3, 1968... 194

9. Order Granting Preliminary Injunetion and. rl

-randum, entered May 3, ME oo ices ras 133

10. Motion of Brotherhood of Railway ana ‘Steamships, |

~ ete., for Leave to Intervene as’ Party Defendant,

filed May 8, 1963-....5.... ccc see tec ceeeeeeeces 157.

"42, Extraet from, Plaintiff *g Memorandum in Opeee- Z

- tion to Motion fe for-Leave to:Intervene, “filed M

WM erie ee core. a

12. Response to Order to. "Show Causs, filed: May 10,

c Beart een soe pepe rey ee EP 158

3, Motion of Defendants ‘ ‘Dismiss the Gaiiiaiat o or

in the Alternative for Summary Judgment sup- =

ported. by Affidavit, filed Aisy 10, 1908. :. 5... oe eS

(a) Affidavit of Francis: K.. O'Neill, Jr, Member,

NMB 160

15. Memorandum Opinion filed May 29, 1963 - ees . mes 166 2

16. Order Granting Permanent ——— filed May: 7 He

° 17; Order. Grating Permission ‘to ‘acon’: as. Party

* Defendant, dated May 29, WOE iss coe etree ss 171

18. Notice of Appeal by Brotherhood of Railway. and

' _- Steamship Clerks, filed July 16,1963 .........55. 172

19. Notice of Appeal by NMB, filed July 26, 1963 .... 173

: - for the District of: Columbia Circuit

| ‘Opinion, Per Curiam ircui

ON ats RB a ee : =

aan Fe Judgment lam

Ba pecan hath

| Ke eee fo pla Continued

ie We \ Peaceetingy in n the snags Court of :

_ Opinion coneurring: Part and dsenting in part, |

rs ._ Llerk’s certifipate te (ofhitted in printing). |

3 “ : e3 Foi"

7% aie ie 2 ely

° -- > f

« /

° : . \ /

Es :

INTHE

Fos THE Dusraicr oF Cotumpia

aa Mepution: Boak ¢ Ae A. more JR.,: ©

al edia- r

‘Gar Bose, and, as irman of the Nation

on Board; Le

» ". *** Member of the National Mediation Board; and Howarp

\... . -G. Gamser, Individually. and as Member of the -

f.- WS. ne Methites Board, Appellants

Vv.

| AgsocrATION FOR THE rane OF. Now-Compaicr EMPLOYEES,

: baat rete .| Appellee.

: - No 19072...

‘BrorHernoop OF Ratuway: AND SreamsHir CLERKS, FREIGHT

-HANpiers, Express AND Srartox, Neca: —

| 7 oy, <i . moe

» Assoctattox. FOR THE : Benerrr or N on-CONTRACT EMPLovEEs,

BAe oe . Aaeellee: @

‘ ; ox ‘ — =

KN ; On Appeal from the United States District for the

. . = of Columbia , :

A . ’

Ee | |

Vion ye | ima ot emo Sa eae

commna bonita

a’ . ee . :

i \ o— >

eee

‘ 2 ;

3. : Ne N

v ' $ Ny ar . No \

. ‘ " ; ‘ed i

' }

- Thited States Court af b pels

Epwakrps, Individually and as\_

* ~ 5

a mN ¢ ~ es:

” aq : ao ae a) ; “SS

\ © > .

‘a> g By .

A nN " "~,

* on

Se 1963 : : . Sn at ee ee

= Apr. '13—Complaint, appearance ox bits. A thru ee

Apr. aeee, copies (6) 1 copies, @. ae

100.00 ‘wailer: =

Nee: 24—Motion for preliminary in unction argued &

'* submitted; temporary restraining | order continued to”

ei 1963. A

Apr 25—Exhibit by ‘pliff, numbered 2B,

. Apr. 24—Order extending temporary. L etusiiiing order to

*, 10:00 A:M. on April 25, 1963, & fhereafter until: the.

- Court files its order.’ All ser. 4.94, Atty. Gen. ser,

“4-26; US Atty. ser. 4-24—Youngdahl, J.

“May 3 Exhibit (notice of election);

May 3—Findings of Fact, conclusions of Law; ‘line grant-

, ..ing motion for preliminary injunction, deft ‘to have

one week to show cause why injunction should not be

permanent, & emanding to the Board the re- |

quest of pit? for hea ig relating to ap sropriateness

of class or craft; eed (N), eG é

: ‘ we :

sare of Ve} \

ey Pac duly 16—Notice. of Appea of interve or deft, ;

7— July. 26—Notice ‘of appéal o ‘deft 2, 3, & 4. |

1963“ x = g

May 8—Motion of the rotherhood of Railway and Steam-

ship: Clerks, Frei ht Handlers, Express and Stations

Emplpyees for “a e to intervene as party deft ; 2

wee May 10—Oppositidn qe pitt to applicant's motion to in- |

| ae \ . { :

g. he summary ‘so ent affidavit P& A; sta ment

‘of niatariel facts; Ya

ship| _

Clerks Freigh ‘Han lers, Express & St ons: =e F

ae ‘| _ leave to interv e as deft; . ae

‘A

na |

e F May 29--Order deal i g otions of ate to reconsider’ ae ce

| | ote summary judgme

AS Beanie ng 5-3-63 ; remand to. deft. va the re-

May ‘29—Order permit itt i of

Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, \ Ex

tion Employees to fantervente a as deft. (N) |.

+ May 29—Memorand

ie | Bint cs memorandum | of

ys os ‘dglive d toUscA.

¢ 7 = 4

IN THE UNITED STATES. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 973-"63 .

| AssocraTIoN FOR‘ ont Bava: OF Now- .

‘Contract EMPLOYEES, , Plaintiff,

Vs.

Nationa Mgpratton- Boar, Leverert Epwarps, Individ-. .

é ually, and as Chairman, of the National Mediation .

Board, Franots A. O’Nenx; Jr., individnally“and as a

* member of the National Mediation Board,.and: Howarp

G. Gamszr, individually and as’ a member ¥ the

' National Mediation Board, asco -,

Plaintiff, Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract

‘Employees, complains of the defendants as follows: .

: Plaintiff is a non-profit Le organized ey ex-

isting under the laws of the-State of California. Member-

ship is-composed of personal service and clerical employees

of United Air Lines,-a common air carrier; said members

’ are employed in the several States of the Union wherein

. United Air Lines maintains offices.

i} I :

” ‘The detendbnt?, LEvERETT E/pwarbs,. Faivom A. O’Nent,

JR. and Howarp G. Gamszr are members of the National

Mediation Board (the ‘‘Board’’), appointed thereto by the

ss | _PYesident of the United: States: The defendant, National

Mediation Board, is an agency established under the Rail-

way Labor./Act (the ‘‘Act’’). 45 USC, $151 et seq. All

., defendants are located in the Digtrict of Columbia. ~“

3 rit | . ; o i

The action arises under the Constitution of: the United

States and the Railway Labor Act. Plaintiff seeks to en-.

join deferidants from. conducting a representation election

within a certain designated “‘craft-or-class” of employees

. ' of United Air ‘Lines, among which plaintiff’s members have

been included; and to enjoin defendants from: certifying

anyerepresentative for such craft and class until the Board

_ granfs a public hearing allowing plaintiff. fo be heard

with respect to appropriateness -of the class and craft .

designated. Plaintiff further seeks to enjoin defendants

from conducting “any- election wherein the form of the

ballot ordered gnd used. by defendants does not afford

plaintiff’s ‘members the right to. vote for or against -.

representation. eee |

— . o

Plaintiff ’s ie are » employed by United Air Lines

- under individual:bargaining agreements. Plaintiff’s mem-

bers desire the opportunity to vote,as to whether such

individual bargaining agreements may be retdinedby them.

The matter in controversy, exceeds the sum of Ten

Thousand. ($10,000.00) Dollars,’ exclusive re of interest-and——__

costs. Federal ca is based on 6 USC, S$ 1331 and

1337. j |

ee “IV ;

The Act applies to both air and rail carriers ; in substance ie

it provides that carrier employees shall have the right to

* organize and bargain collectively through representatives _

. of their own choosing; that no carrier or agent thereof

> shall require its: employees to sign any agreement promis-

_ing to join or not to join a labor erganization ; and, that ©

- the majority of employees of any craft or class shall have

the right to determine who their representative shall be.

‘(45 USO, § 152, Fourth and Fifth). . It further anti brizes

the Board ‘in the event.of a representation dispute to in -

» as ‘, 9°

oF a © .*

winlignte upon the request of ‘a party to the iene and

to eertify individuals or organizations to represent: the.

class or craft of employees involved. (45; USC, § 152 Ninth).

v. fe

On or about August 24, 1962, the: Brotherhood of Rail...

way and Steamship Clerks, Frieght Handlers, Express and -

Station i 8 (the ‘‘Brotherhood’’), a labor organi-

zation proeceding under USC 45, ‘§ 152, Ninth, requested

the Board to investigate a represenation. dispute concern-

ing employees of-United Air, Lines described as clerical,

office, stores, fleet and passenger service employees. The

other party to.the dispute was the International Associa-’

tion of Machinists (the ‘‘ITAM”’’). ‘The Board took jurisdic-

tion and docketed it as ease R-3590, recognizing the

Brotherhood and the IAM as pores! in interest. ,

A VI se

The class or craft involved in the dispute consists of

approximately 12,300 employees of United Air Lines.

6,400 members: of the plaintiff are included in this class

-or craft primarily in dlerical and passenger service

categories. ve .

Nal

_ The employees of United ‘Air Thad: in sienitien: 1962,

were informed that the Board proposed to call an election,

-. for a bargaining representative of the above class or eraft ~

-, of employees. Thereafter; plaintiff, a non-profit corpora-

| | tion,. was Organized and formed to petition the Board.

| On February 13, 1963, plaintiff petitioned the Board for

| a public hearing to: (1) Divide the craft or class into

, three units, passenger se service, clerical, ramps and stores. -

(2) In. the event of a denial, to prdvide a ballot upon ~

which plaintiff’s members would have an = to ;

' vote for or pocaeeh representation. |

j ees is

The Board on March 27, 1963, denied said petition.

Copies of plaintiff’s petition and the Board’s décision are

attached hereto as Exhibits “A”? and ‘‘B’’ respectively

» and expressly made a part hereof. Plaintiff on April 5,

1963, "filed a’ request for re-consideration of the decision.

~~ ‘The Petition for Re-Consideration is attached hereto as |

~ Exhibit ‘‘C’’, and expressly made a‘ part hereof. The

- plaintiff’s Petition for Re-Consideration was denied by the

Board on ebeseta 12, 1963. |

i. ee

'. ‘The craft. or class concerned was. designated by the

Board soine 15-years ago in. docket R-1706. It is made up

of diverse and unrelated classifications, such as baggage

handlers, accountants, stenographer, passeriger agents and

electronic computer technicians. The members of these

_. Classifications have different working conditions and re-

- dations with United Air-Lines. This combination creates

a ¢raft or class for which.a single bargaining agent can-

not ‘fairly and adequately represent the diverse interests

_ of all concerned. _Plaintiff’s members seek the opportunity

to preserve individual bargaining agreements by voting

kor or: against Tepresenation.

The Board set forth three grounds upon wi ch it made

_ its decision denying plaintiff’s petition. One, that plaintiff

_ was not authorized to appear before the Board for col- -

lective bargaining. Two,- that plaintiff did not seek to be

on the ballot. .And three, that plaintiff did not intend .to

bargain, collectively. This decision is arbitrary, capricious.

“ and discriminatory, and exceeds the jurisdiction of the

Board in that it. denies to plaintiff’s members the right to

express themselves as either for or against representation

- and ‘continues them in a craft or class in which a single

bargaining, agent cannot fairly represent their rights, ‘The

procedure of the Board wherein an opportunity. is denied

. to a majority of the class’ or craft to. vote_for or against

_ representation- and fails to advise: them of that right,

deprives the plaintiff of its right-to.due.process under the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

a ot

‘XT - ; F : oat

The Board ’s decision that plaintiff is’ snot entitled to a

hearing on the ground that it did not seek or intend to

bargain collectively violates the Due Process clause of the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in that it is a depriva-

, tion of bargaining rights, in that it denies the correlative ©

. rights to bargain or not to bargain and-is arbitrary, capri-

cious awd discriminatory and is outside ‘the. powers of the -

a 4

Board.

_. a, ’

“The Board has scheduled an election for this craft, atid”

class on April 22, 1963. In providing a ballot for such

election, the Board has stated that it will use a ballot form

on which no space — ee is provided within which & _

voter can vote no. form of ballot will afford only the

op rturtity to vote for the Brotherhood, the IAM, or a —

write-in representative. For the reasons set forth hereih

* this action is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory and -

in excess of the powers of°the Board, in. that it deprives

plaintiff’s. members of their bargaining saa under the

Act. (aes

_ There is no statutory procedure for review of the Board’s

procedures, if the Board refuses to recognize plaintiff; if

the Board refuses to conduct a hearing as to the composi-

tion of the craft or class; holds an election ; and, refuses to

- provide a-ballot | form which permits a yor for or hoa:

eae

hs §

representation, plaintiff’s members will ‘be without ad-

3, equate remedy at law with which to seek a review of the

Board’s unlawful acts or to assert their constitutional —

rights to due process. Unless restrained the Board will

~ conduct such an election and plaintiffs: members will suffer .

- irreparable i injury and damage to their rights and: property.

_ Waensvore, plaintiff-prays: vas-follows: —~™ ae

ee For a preliminary ne to. be mae remanent

after a final hearing. | cae oa fa

(a) Restraining defendants from ‘conducting any elec-

..tion in the class. or: craft referred to herein, among the

‘- employees" of United Air Lines under National Mediation ~

- Board number ‘R-3590 or any. other number, unless. the

Board shall: 1. Conduct a hearing relative to the ap-

. propriateness ‘of the class or.craft designated; 2. Afford

plaintiff status as a party in interest at saidchearing; and. .

3. Offer a ballot upon which voting oe can vote

for or against representation. :

‘2. For whatever further relief. the Court ay: deem meet

; and. proper in the premises. ,

Daren: April 12, 1963

AssocraTioy. FOR THE BENEFIT OF

toe - Non-Cowtract EMPLOYEES

By.

Be James F’.. SHEAHAN, President

Arcue.io. Giomettt. McCarty

« ‘Arex L. ArauELLo : 2

° Attorneys for Plaintiff

ee, ne ag

Starz or Caurvorntua Ct Gaia toe

Crry axp/ County or San FRANOIB00 -

JAMES F: ‘Sumanan, being first duly sworn, deposes and Ai

«Bays: e. ; |

That he: is the President of the Association for the -

- Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, a California corpora-

tion, the | above named plaintiff; and is authorized to make

' this verification for and on behalf. of said corporation ;

pe ber read the foregoing Complaint and ‘knows the. .

" contents thereof; that the same is true of his own know!-

| , except as to those matters which are therein stated

on his information or belief, and as to those Racanets he

BB crotcsacies to bé true, ate le

. Ke: Pate - Assocation for THE BeENerit oF

| Non-Contact EMPLoveEs

se x ee “Saar w= w

James F:“Sueanax, President —

: 4 fe

= f c=

_. Subscribed and sworn to before me

,, this 12th day of April, 1963. e

| \ Marvin G. Gromern

. Injand for the City sad County of .

ae Francisco, California. ..

. (Commission Expires: 4/26/63)

fre

Vemeg™

4 phe

ee een

SD pew Sir:

; \ : 2 ‘ ; 3 -

Mr.\ Leverett Epwarps, Chairman

of : ‘ .

\ : ~

-\ 11

February 11, 1963

National, Mediation Board se ; o

Washington 25, D. C. Spe nee a

__ Re: Case R-3590

-» Association For The Benefit of -

| Non-Contract Employees :

” We ‘submit herewith on behalf of the Association For 4 7

- The Benefit of Non-Contract- Employees and the five un-

"‘dersigned individuals a Petition For Relief before: the

National Mediation Board as ao

1. The petitioners herein andth ¥_ Association For The

- Beneftt of ‘Non-Contract mployees,-as of this date, repre-

sent 5100 employees, in the Customer ‘Coritact and Office

and Clerical group, of United Air Lines. This representa-

tion is evidenced by signed representation cards from each —

of said employees.

2, The saltiiotieve hereby apply for leave to inlenvene i in

National Mediation Board Representation Case R-3590, as:

a party in interest on behalf of: the 5100 employees who

_ have appointed the petitioners. In addition to being

/ granted permission to intervene, the undersigned do fur-

ther” request the following specific action from the National

: Mediation Board.

“(a). That the Tee a election in case R-3590 be de>

. ferred until there be a re-determination of ‘the class or

otal} of employees. to be involved in the election.

6) That the National Mediation Board, basing its

pos on information already before it, make a re-deter- |

C :

«¥

> nats the cabal sibicilie s in the bargaining unit .

into three groups compromised [sic] of: on

1. Office: and clericai employees. aide = Ne

2. Customer contact employees. _ ;

e Ramp and. ‘stores employees. es a

each of which dsonil be determined-to be a separate “lass

_or craft-for purposes of this representation case, and for

future . representation proceedings myerveng these em- _

/ . ployees. _- (coe.

file or if the Board déclines to re-determine.the class and

-erafts on its own motion, the undersigned hereby’ petition.

the National Mediation Board to fix a time and place for a

hearing, at which petitioners and all interested parties and

. : persons may present evidence, argument and authorities -

_. bearing on that issue; and that on.the evidefice thus pre- -

- sented, the- National Mediation Board re-determine the

class. and craft as requested.

(d) In addition, to the toxtacitig init notvithetanding

the ultimate determination of class and craft of tlie

National Mediation Board in Case R-3590 petitioners

hereby request the National Mediation Board to prepare

and use in this representation election, a form :of ballot

which provides on its face, a place for employees to vote

affirmatively that there be no bargaining agent elected to

represent their class or craft. This request i is based on

. ..° National Mediation Board practice of using ballots which

provide the voter only the opportunity of choosing between |

bargaining agents.

(e) In the event that the National ‘Mediation Board de:

lines to use a ballot as requested, (i.e. a ballot providing a

' place for a ‘*no-union”’ vote), then petitioners request the

Board to issue a 7 to petitioners, in‘advance of the « °

_ have never been unionized in the system. (2).

_ separate classes and crafts is easily accorhplished b

they. are. readily identifiable units under both com

personnel procedures ard nature of work performed. (3

_ The ‘National Mediation’ Board detérmination, in’ R-1706,

‘January 31, 1947 was prior to the significant \post war

aay election, explaining how a voter. may register-as his choice

that no union be certified to represent him.

3. The request for re-determination of the class sind

craft is based upon numerous reasons, including the fol-

‘lowing, each of -which will be proved by petitioners with

: appropriate evidence and authority in the event of.a hear-

~ ing. (1) The class and craft heretofore established by the

Natignal Mediation Board.

r this election includes ap-

‘proximately . 12, 500 employees of United Air Lines in

ere is no history of

widely different job categories. .

colleetive bargaining common .to these diverse groups. In

fact, one group (ramps and-stores) is presently unionized,

while the others brea: er contact and o

Jetermination

of customer contact. and ‘office and clerical employees to pe

operational developments of the airlines industries. These

. developments show that office and clerical, ramp and stores.’

‘employees and customer contact employées are separate

classes and crafts and should be treated as such. (4) The

and clerical)

emp egs_in these ‘classes and érafts do not desire to be

joined in one bargaining unit. (5) There‘is widely. differ-

ent job-training ‘in the’ different job categories. ( 6) The

nature of their work is niga different. (7) There is

ho aspect of interchangability of personnel between the

different job classifications: (8) Vital interests of each

category prevents fair representation of all three groups .

‘by one bargaining agent without a serious conflict lof in-

terest or a potential conflict of interest.

Copies of this petition are being sent to the Broth rhood

_ of Railway Clerks, International Association of Machinists

and United Air ‘Lines. It is requested that all communica-.

: | ’ .

is oe a

i) \

tions regarding this petition be sent to the undersigned in.

care of the Association For the Benefit-of Non-Contract

'. Employees, 244, Kearny Street, San Francisco, California. -

‘Respectfully submitted,

| ASSOCIATION ¥OR one BEnerir oF

oe SB elite S ._. Non-Cowrracr Empioyegs e

s = ; 4 .. Ew A f

. . : “4 oe . President

| Exhibit “B”

~ NATIONAL MEDIATION: BOARD

ae es ‘WASHINGTON - eee :

~ March 97, 1963

_. Case R-3590

aes Mr. J ames F. Sheahan, President

Association for the Benefit of 7 ~

Non-Contract Employees.

244 Kearny Street at

San Francisco, California a j inte

Dear Mr. Sheahan: ae aed ;

Reference is made to our letter of March 8, 1963, making .

formal acknowledgment of communication dated February

11, 1963, signed by yourself and several others on behalf.

of the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Em-

ployees. Your communication, . referred to above ap-

parently constitutes .a petition for action by the National

; _ Mediation Board on various subjects. The communication

_ has been considered by the Board: in-executive session.

“In paragraph 2° of said ‘commpnication, the ‘petitioners

* apply for leave to intervene in Case: No. -R-3590 as a party~

eh future representation proceedings Siivolving these

" at interest on behalf of 5, 00 employees. This imi was anv

'’ subsequently amend a oe by Attroney Alex~ Li ° 5

Arguello’s letter dated March 8, 1963..--The petition re-

quests the following, specific’ ‘aétions by the 9

1. Defer the pending election in Case R-3590 until there

_ bea redetermination of the class or craft .of om

af ““ployees. involved in the election. pets

2. Make a redetermination of the employees presently at

involved into three groups composed of:

—ta) office and clerical e ployees e

ployees. _

ployees

oe b) customer ‘contact

(c). ramp and stores

each to be determine 4s a separate craft or class

for the purposes, of this representation case and for

employees ; and, | oe

3. In the event, that insufficient facts are, alll on

file, or if the Board declines to redetermine the class

or craft on its own motion, the petitioners réquest

the Board to fix a time and place for a hearing at”

which the petitioners and all parties at interest may .

_. present evidence, argument and. authorities bearing‘

on that issue;.and on. the evidence thus presented, a

the Board | rediptorstine the class or craft as re-.

quested ;

_4, Prepare’ and use in this iieinwadiiies election a

form of ballot which ‘provides, on: its. face, ; ‘@ place ©

for employees to vote affirmatively that there be no

bargaining agent elected to represent _— class. or -

craft; and, eae oe Le

5. In the event: the Sasa declines to u os —

requested (i.e. a ballot i

* union’’ vote e petitioners request the Board

ga place for a“‘‘no>* * |

" <

‘

ee ae

“to. issue. a statement. to lacihisinades iff advance of the

election ing how a voter may register his

tion to all the points raised: im your petition, and has con-

cluddd that each and all of the Tequests made in your peti-:

’ tion,

is enumerated above, should be, = ire ‘barely denied

for: the following/reasons:

’ The Association for sai Benefit of Nak- Contract Em-

ployees, in this petition, does not ask leave to intervene in

' this representation dispute as a party to-that dispute, as

‘described in Rule\ 1206.5 of fhe-Board’s Rules, which ap- °

pears i in the Code ‘ederal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter

xX. An. intervendr as described ‘in Rule 1206.5, is .con- |

strued to méan an organization or individual which presents

_ to the Board proved authorizations from. at léast 35% of .

the craft or class involved, which on their face authorize

/such organization or individual to represent the employees

concerned for the purposes of collective bargaining under

the mepaker Act. Also, the purpose of intervention,

‘under Rule 1206.5, is to ‘“warrant placing the name of the

\ intervencngpa ‘the ballot. ae

e The “authorization”? ‘iuiile submitted on _ behalf of

NE contain ‘the following language:

ey hereby authorize the hereinafter named persons to

i. a in. my- behalf as incorporators and directors for

e purpose of forming-and directing the affairs of a —

‘corporation to be known as an ‘Association | si _ =

Benefit of Non-Contract Employees’ of: which I

be a.member. .

: = é‘These same individuals are dias authorized ‘aad

empowered to represent . ‘me before the National

Mediation Board,

Sat

ee Se

choice that o union be certified to Fepresent’ him. .

e National ‘daa x Board has given fall ‘considers-

Sere MO ete RR

tien ta

”

te OS Oe,

hy Acts

Serie Ord te gtr RE SY.

‘‘The execution of this instrument revokes any au-,.

thorizations heretofore mpde for the ad ened of a

ne a dla an

This language does not dtheaitin the ABNE to sain .

the’ signatory for the purposes of collective bargaining

. under the Railway Labor ‘Act, and the cards, therefo

cannot be Tecognized by this Board .as “authorizations”,

as mentioned in Rule 1206.5, for the purposes of a proceed-

’ ing unger Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act.

In addition, the Board has taken note of the statements

made in the postscript t to a letter. of February 23, 1963, .

which you: published, namely, “ (1) We are. not seeking

recognition as a: barg#ining agent;'we do not want our

name on the ballot’’; and ‘‘(4) Our Association will be dis-

solved after such time as it: has served its purpose.’’ It is

‘obvious from these. statements’ that the ABNE doés not’

hold itself out as a representative for the purpose’ of

collective bargaining under the Railway .Labor .Act, and

accordingly, the Association cannot be considered by the

National Mediation Board ‘as a bona fide intervenor in ,

Case No. R-3590. :

Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act provali for. .

=; certain actions by the National Mediation Board to resolvé ~

- disputes’ among a carrier’s employees “as to who | jare the

representatives’ of such employees designated and author.

ized in accordance with the requirements of this Act...

This language implies contests, between ‘‘parties’’, for the

right to represent the employees involved in the dispute. By 3

your own statements, you have disavowed any intention of

the ABNE to bargain collectively for the employees con:

-= cerned. .Under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, .

therefore, the Board is unable to recognize the Association

_ as @ proper “party at interest’? in Case No. R-3590.

/ pete sal re ; 2s > or

hb +3”

ewe that essential siitedtion, the tition from the

Association for ffs Benefit of N on-Contenct ne is

hereby dismissed.

By direction of the Nartowan Mepurion Boarp. .

/s/ KE. OC, ‘THomPson |

E. C..Thompson _

Executive Secretary

“ee: "Harrison, Hayes, Mason, Arguello

_ Exhibit “C” :

| eS pil 8, 1968

Mr. Leverett rege 0 Chairman {-*

National Mediation Board —

Washington_ 25, D. af

Re: Case R- 3590

ssociation Fer the Benefit of |

| Non-Contract Employees . ee

a, eA gS es

Dear Sir: he .

This letter | ‘is in n reply to the ddcision of March 27, 1963,

wherein the National Mediation Board denied the petition

of the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract ee

ployees theretofore™ submitted on February 11, 1963. + —

Request is made herewith that the Board reconsider its

denial made as above stated and review. once again the

various points ‘and requests made in that petition and i in

this letter.,

As of Marek 8, 1963, the Astcliation for the Benefit of‘

Non-Contract, Employees represented 6,400 of the em-

ployees in the.|\class or craft with which this case is con-,

cerned. Since that time additional members of the class

or craft have —" themselves with the Association for

* .

- ‘

o ao ex ; ; 7 ne 19

the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees. The petitioner

represents a: majority ofthe bargaining unit with which

the Board intends to deal. The, Board’s-denial is based

upon the ground that the Association for the Benefit of .

Non-Contract employees does not, wish-to act as a repre- .

sentative for the purpose of collective bargaining under

the Railway Labor Act. In this regard, it is respectfully

called to the attention of the Board that the term and right

‘eollective bargaining’’ must necessarily contain in‘it the

right to act or not to act. In this instance and at this time,

the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees

has ‘petitioned the Board "Seales on that co-relative-.

right not to act.

It is difficult to’ realize how the Board on any ground, —

however technicgl, can refuse to hear from the representa-

ative of the maj rity of a class or craft.. If.the Board fails

“to. reconsider {ts position, any action taken with respect

* to this dispute will create the anamolous situation i in which \

the very employees which the’ National Mediation Board —

is charged to protect are being _— ecaasecanes |

against.

“The Board’s decision has sffectivety limited ‘the right ;

of these employees to be heard, even through the medium

of the election now: being arranged by the Board. With-

out regard fo the technical status of the petitioning parties

the Board is now sufficiently advised, with respect to the

will of a large number. of. employees. in the group that a_

‘no vote’’. should appear on the ballot, ‘so as to permit

this large group to express themselves even though with-

out the status demanded by the Board: Previous action |

_ on the part of the National Labor Relations Board has_

established precedent wherein a ‘‘no vote’’ has appeared

on the election ballot. Without regard to the action taken

- with reference to the Association for the Benefit of Non-

Contract Employees petition, the Board can ‘still, on its

own motion, take this action with respect to the election —

ballot and thus provide a fair’ axid non-diseriminatory

atmosphere in which the forthcoming election can be con-

It should be further noted that prior to the wibiitidinn

of ‘the petition on behalf of the Association for ‘the Benefit

of Non-Contract Employees, representatives of the em-.

’ ‘ployee group traveled to Washington, D. C. and met in a

body -with Mr. E. C. Thompson, Executive Secretary of |

___the-National Mediation Board. At that time a copy of

the authorization card was shown to Mr. ‘Thompson and

his comments thereon were elicited. While it is reeog-

nized that Mr. Thompson’s action did not constitute an

official act of the Board, the representatives of the Associ-

ation for the. Benefit of Non-Contract Employees were at

that time advised by Mr. Thoinpson that the language of ~

the cards was sufficient to evidence the act of. the indi- ©

_ yidual employees in authorizing the ‘Association for’ the

Benefit of Non-Contrdct Employees to act on their behalf.

The Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Em-

- ployees, as is known to the Boatd, is a new association, .

formed quickly, ‘to meet the demande of the situation ©

created by the Brotherhood-of Railway Clerks, and the an-

nounced intention of the Board to hold.an election wherein |

this group of employees: is to be afforded an opportunity

to vote for one union or another. This alternative does

not meet with the approval of these. employees, and this

association manifests its intention .to avoid: that» choice.

The expedient of destroying a ballot of the National Medi-

-ation Board, or otherwise disposing of it, does not appear ©

_ to the Association of: Non-Contract Employees: to faith-

fully reflect the democratic process. . The Association for

_.the Benefit of N on-Contract Employees therefore sought’

and seeks the opportunity to record its.‘‘no vote’’ on the

ballot circulated.by the Board which represents the United

States in this dispute. No official action of the Board of

Directors of the Association fér the Benefit of Non-Con-

21: ©

tract Employees has authorized the Association or any

_ of its representatives to refuse to collectively bargain with

United Air Lines. On the contrary, the Association for the —

- Benéfit of. Non-Contract Employees does seek status as

_ the bargaining agent for this class.or craft. The majority

employee group represented by the Assoéiation for the

Benefit of Non-Contract Employees in this regard desires

no union representation: The Association for the Benefit

of Non-Contract Employee’s. bargaining position must

therefore be against union representation. The only man-

- ner in which this bargaining position can be maintained is

. by the expedient of obtaining a ‘‘ne yote”’ on the ballot.

The Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Em-

ployees again respectfully urges that the interest of this

majority group is in equity and in the light of the funda-

mental and traditional rights of the workers one_ which

should not.be ignored.

“While the Association for the > Benefit of Non-Contract

Employees does not seek to evoke its right to union repre-

sentation, it seeks an equally important right, the freedom

from union representation, which ‘is an inherent right 3

granted to employees in all American labor concepts.

The Association for the Benefit of Non- tract Em-

' ployees does not in any sense by this. petition waive any

of the other points. propounded in its original petition, and

in this light repeats the request that the class or craft

established by the National Mediation Board some 15 years

ago is in the light of intervening developments i in changes

in the industry so héterogeneous and diverse as to group

together such widely disparate occapations within the air-

line as to create an unwiédly and dissonant Givision of

, employees. This inappropriate grouping can do nothing

more than create further problems and difficulties for both

the Company and the employees concerned. It is our. con-

tention that the Board already has sufficient information

‘before it upon which it can make a redetermination of the

class or craft, whether or not the petition of the Associa-

tion for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees is granted.

This action should be taken. It is further our contention

. that if the Board does not feel that it has.sufficient infor-

. mation before it; more than adequate reasons now exist for

‘the calling of-an open hearing so that these facts wed be

elicited.

The pétitionse Kesewith requests that the National Medi-

_ ation Board ‘review. its prior findings and denial of the

-petition of the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract .

Employees and reverse its findings heretofore entered so

that the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Em-

ployees,, the representative. of the majority of the employees

in the class or craft with which the Board now intends to |

deal, be recognized and heard. .“« —

| Respectfully’ submitted,

»' /8/ Ratpu C. Jounson

AsscraTion For.THE BENEFIT oF

Non-ConTract ‘EMPLoveEs

President

te a anette

~~—~Motion for Preliminary Injunction .

Comes Now, Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract

Employees, plaintiff herein, by ‘its attorneys, and moves

this Court to enter a preliminary injunction pursuant to

Rule 65 of the Federal. Rules of Civil Procedetre, and in -

support thereof states:

1. Plaintiff’s verified Complaint for ‘eihanmntians par other

relief was filed herein on April 13, 1963.

2. As stated in the Affidavit of James F. Sheahan, Presi-

- dent, filed herewith and said verified Complaint, defend- |

ants intend to hold an election among a certain group of

OOTP

WARES

employees of United Air Lines before trial can be had:

- That said election is in violation of the statutory and con-

. stitutional rights of plaintiff’s members: and bao irrepar-

ably damage them.

3. Plaintiff has ‘filed herein on April 13, 1963, a Memo-

randum of Points and Authorities | in ‘support of this

motion.

Wuererore, plaintiff moves the Court to enter a pre--

-*. liminary injunction:

(a) Restraining. defendants from. conducting any elec-

tion under National Mediation Board case number R-3590 ©

* or certifying any representative of said employees, pur- -

- suant to said case ‘or any other proceeding before the Na-:

(tional Mediation ‘Board without first conducting a hearing

nd permitting plaintiff to be heard as a party in interest

rélating to the question of the appropriateness of class or

craft of employees among whom such election is to be held.

‘(b) Restraining defendants from conducting. any elec-

tion among said employees in which the form of the ballot —

does not permit’a voting employee to cast a Vote for or

against representation.

Pursuant ‘to Rule 9(b) of the Rules of this —. plain-

_ tiff requests an order for hearing on this motion..

Hee | By Atex L. ARGUELLO

ArauELLo. Giometti. . McCartHy

\ . ; 94

fidavit of James F; Sheahan

Crry anp County ‘or San FRANCISCO t wh

- Srate or CaLirornia /

. JAMES F. SHEAHAN, being first duly sworn, says:

* That he is “President of the Association for the. Benefit

- of Non-Contraect Employees, a non-profit corporation com-

prised of 6,400 employees of United Air Lines, said em-

ployees serving in a class or craft designated by the Na-

tional Mediation Board to” include ‘*clerical, office, stores,

fleet , and passengér service”’ The total group numbers

~ |

about- 12, 300. employees. to

‘The’ Association for. thie Benefit of Non-Contract Em:

vlevees was formed to represent the interests of its em-

ployee-members before the National Mediation Board in a

dispute involving the class or aft* ‘mentioned. The dis-

pute, of which the National M on Board has taken

cognizance under its docket number R-3590, concerns the

desire of the Brotherhood) of Railway and Steamship .

Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees

(‘‘the Brotherhood’’) and the International Association of

Machinists (‘‘the IAM’’) individually to become the bar- -

gaining representative for this entire class or craft.

Up to’ this time, the IAM has, represented the ramps

and stores employees. The passenger service and clerical

. employees have had no union representation. This group

’ of employees working | under individual bargaining agree-

ments with ies.

On J annary 28, 1963, with certain other . speieiiaibins

(28 in number) of this employee group, .affiant met and

‘discussed the case with Mr. E., C. Thompson, Executive

Secretary of the National Mediation Board, at the Board -

offices in Washington,.D. ©.- At that‘time, an authorization

~ eard to be circulated among the employees was shown to

Mr. Thompson, and his comments on it yoquested. He

on}

stated that, although some surplus language appeared on

the card, the paragraph containing the delegatidn of the

employees right of representation was adequate ‘and was.

sufficient to establish the Association’s representatives be-

fore the Board. » Said card is attached hereto as

“¢ A’’.

* /

completed, and the cards were psc ‘and return

\ after signature, by some 6,400 employees. At the firs

\- meeting of the \Board of Directors of the Association, the

\ . ‘purpose and intention of the Association was stated. That

\ . is to establish the association before the National Media- -

\ . tion Boardy to seek relief from that Board in the form of

\ a hearimg to disclose the inappropriate nature of the class:

or craft designated; to accomplish division of the’ class

or craft into three parts, passenger service, clerical and

ramps and stores; and to secure a ballot form which in-

cludes on it a space wherein a vote for or against union

‘representation could be cast. Broadly, ¢hese requests for °

relief reflect the Association’s desire. to express the inten-

tion of its members to assert their right to rio repre-

~, sentation. © sae

This position is due to the inappropriate nature of the

class or craft as it now exists. Created by Board decision

some 15 years ago in Docket number 1706, the grouping

amalgamates the interests of a number of totally unallied

and unconnected classifications. Widely -diverse and dis-

parate occupations such as cleaning-woman ‘cal passenger

agent or ‘baggage handler and electronie computer tech-

nicians are contained in it. It is-the feeling of the mem-

bers of ‘the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract ——

Employees, \that nO one bargaining representative can

either fairly or equitably represent the interests and de-

_ sires*of such variegated classifications. If divided into

three parts as requested by the Association, the new groups -

would be much ‘More closely identifiable in function and

26 ©

interest. The Association feels that a hearing before the

National Mediation Board would establish the unreason-

able and unwieldy nature of the class or craft:as desig-

—

nated. s . rote

a To accomplish these purposes, the ‘Association on Feb-

~—ruary 12,1963, petitioned the Board for the relief de-

scribed above. The Board on March 27, 1963, denied the

Association’s petition as to all requests.

_. The grounds of the. denial were that the authorization

‘cards used bythe Association for the Benefit of Non-Con-

‘ tract Employees did not authorize it to bargain collectively,

that the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract’“Em-

ployees did not seek a ballot place, and did not intend to

bargain. collectively. st ‘kA

Affiant.avers that the Board of Directors of the Associ-

ation for the Benefit. of Non-Contract Employees has not

. directed or authorized any officer or representative of the

Association to refuse to bargain collectively with United

Air Lines or under Board procedures. On the contrary,

the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees tien

seeks ‘to bargain for the — ey pease no represen-

tation. 3

The National Mediation Board has ifevened one of the

attorneys for the Association for.the Benefit of Non-Con-

tract Employees that it is proceeding’ with arrangements —

for the holding of an election under the procedures: of the

Board on the 22nd day of April, 1963. Unless restrained,

the Board will proceed with that election in derogation of

the rights of the Association for the Benefit of Non-Con-

tract Employee’s members as set forth in detail herein.

* The decision of the Board refusing to grant either status.

or relief to the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract

‘Employees is unjust and unlawful in that it ‘denies to the

majority of employees i in this class or craft a fundamental

—

OT: f

right, inherent in the Railway Labor Act and the Consti- |

tution of the United States, the corollary of right to ba."

gain collectively, the right to not bargain collectively.

The. ballot form proposed to be used by ‘the National

, Mediation Board contdins no space on it whereig a voted

ean cast a vote for no representation. On the cont

the ballot provides only the opportunity to vote for one of

the unions named. While there is a line wher¢in the voter

could write the name of another representatjve or organi--

zation, the total effect of the ballot is to require the voter’ J

‘to vote for some representation: The .only nor gl

is. respectfully urged that ‘this method /of action is not.

commensurate with the democratic processes: of the

United States. With such a ballot there is no method by

which the voter can unequivocally vote for no representa-

_ tion. The absence of defacement of his ballot being possi-

bly construed as the act of a ‘‘disinterested minority’’.

-The employee who desires not to. be represented las no

available method by which he can indicate to the Board

. his determined desire to avoid representation. The mem-

bers of the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract

Employees are in this situation... By virtue of the election ~-

procedure proposed to be used by the Board these em-

ployeeg are being discriminated: against, and are being de-

nied their. bargaining right to have no representation. Al-

though the Association has requested that this situation f

be changed by the Board by the simple expedient of adding ©

a space for a ‘‘no vote’’ on the ballot form the Board has

refused to gravt this relief. — ; /

The inference which the ballot leaves with: the employee

receiving ‘the ballot is that the voter must vote for one “

‘of the unions named or for another or for a. representative

of his choice. The authority of the Board is to certify a

representative as*elected by the employees. It is not to

—

> | 28 :

eS dele the aes to elect a union, this: action places the

Board in the position which €xceeds its. :

The Board should be restrained from holding the election

_— until a condition is created in which the employee can as- ,

sert a free choice to have no representation. “ ae

The ballot form which was adopted in 1934 by the Board .

does not reflect the changing and developing nature of the

air lines industries. Certain areas of employees have been

_ ' developed wherein large delegations of responsibility and _

' authority now exist; highly trained technicians are used —

-in the newly discovered fields of ‘electronic computers.

- Many individuals serving in such capacities prefer to rely

_on individual bargaining agreements to determine their

rates of pay, advancement, tenure and other emoluments.

Ne statutory authority or constitutional bar exists. with .

respect to the right of the worker to bargain individually

if he so desires.. On the contrary, the Railway Labor Act

implicitly guarantees to the employee freedom of choice in-

his actions. The actions of the Board have effectively de-.

- ‘nied the Association’s members an opportunity to exercise

- that freedom. If not restrainéd the election will succeed

in designating a bargaining agent, a union, not desired but

c against the wishes of the majority group of =: in

the craft of class.

‘The Board *s rales declare that a: majority of the ae

cast in an election determines the union representative,

| provided a majority’ of the class or craft votes: The

% ' danger created -by this procedure is especially applicable

- to the present case. Here a large number of the class or

craft.in a bargaining unit of approximately 12,300 em-

ployees will be compelled, in order to express their desire

for no representation to refrain from voting. A number. -—

will vote. The winning union}although having a minority Se:

of votes cast would be certified by the Board. This in- °°

equity would be corrected by the eae of a “no vote’’

‘on the ballot. ee ee

29 /

em pilosa a space for a ‘‘no”’ Li the ballot the Board

would not be acting without, precedent.. Usider the pro-

cedures of the National Labor Relations Act; a space for

‘io union representation i is regularly provided on the ballot

form. Neither the National Labor Relations Board or the

‘National Mediation Board are given specific directions

under their statutory” enactments as to the manner in

“which the ballot is to be prépared. However, the National { -

Labor Relations “Board has acted in a manner designed to °

_-~protect the-will of those employees seeking no union repre-

is sentation, while the National heaupccues Board has refused

\— todo so.

As mentioned, the Board also ‘jeitele the Asscciatins for

: the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees request for a hear-

ing to determine the appropriaténess of the class or craft,

AS and the request for a new division of the class. Affiant -

avers that an investigation by the Board.and an open hear-

ing would immediately expose difficulties of working with .

this designation made some 15.years ago. Through such °°

a “hearing the National Mediation Board would discover

that as stated by the Association for the Benefit of Non-

Contract Employees, a large number of the employees in

this group have established valuable individual bargaining ~~

_ agreement. These agreements have come about after.

years of service and in a labor market wherein: remployees

of great skill and technical knowledge and ability are well

able to bargain individually, because of a-great demand for

their services. To group employees with such occupations

as janitors,.laborers and| baggage-handlers, creates a prob-

lem which canpot be h ed by.a single bargaining repre-

sentative. The interests, aims and purposes of these dif-

ferent groups require different approaches. and dif- ~

¥ ferent bargaining methods and agreements. The National

Mediation Board’s refusal to permit a hearing” has pre-

vented the Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract °

Employees from. placing this evidence before it. ‘The °

ee sentation. The Board’s tmnlawfal

-any and all relief. The Nation ediation Board has de- Vv.

| 30

Board’s refusal to anes the, asnsiietion status as a ne

in interest has prevented the Association’s: presenting the

desires of: its members for no representation. Bince the.

Board’s ruling in case number R - 1706 made 15 years ago, ~

in the very beginnings of.the air line industry and upon

railroad concepts, many advances in service and method _~

aps = made. Those advances have required the train-

tilization of a new group of highly trained afid

hed ‘individuals. In a limited sense, these indi

constitute the heart of the modern air line. Sy

uals are-involyed here. They desire. to

desire to express their desire to vote foror against répre-

ion has denied them |'

nied them their statutory ri t to a free election and will

deprive - them of valuable property rights in their indi-

vidual bargaining agreements without’ due process of law

» under the Fifth~ Amendment’ of the Constitution of the

ae Pate Such damage will be irreparable. - .

7 ‘ Association For THE BENEFIT OF

eae , Non-Conrract EMPLoyees

Tie | - By |

| /3/ James F, Sueanan, President

| “Subseribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of

- Aprit, 1963. <e

‘kine G. isiieenete

Notary Public

. In and for the City and County of San ‘Prantisco, State

“of California. (Commission Expires: 4/26/63)

»,

. ’

port of the motion.

EXHIBIT “a” i253 x |

I Thee authorize the hereinafter nam a ED to act.

on my behalf as incorporators and di rs for. the ‘ppr-

poses of finding and directing the affairs. of the corporation

to. be known as an ‘‘Association for the Benefit of Non- d

.Contract Employees” of which I wish to be a member.

The same. individuals’ are hereby authorized and em-

powered ‘to represent me before the National Mediation_

: Board. .*'- . -

The execution of this sestieatilt revokes any sathoriza- ;

‘tion menenenn Ore made for the — of a —

tive. .

Motion for hibit Restraining Order”

Plaintiff; Association for” _the- *Benefit- - of Non-Contract

Employees, hereby moves ‘this court ‘to issue a temporary

restraining order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and in

support thereof states: ~ ;

\ Plaintiff has filed herein on April 13, 1963, a verified

- Complaint for injunction and other relief; Motion for Pre-

liminary Injunction, Affidavit of James F. Sheahan, Presi-

dent; and Memorandum, of Points and Authorities in sup-

2. Defendants have ‘been’ served with summons. and

_ copies of the. aforesaid documents, but the time for defend-

‘ants to respond thereto has not yet elapsed. :

3. As stated in the said Affidavit of James F. Sheahan,

President, and in the said verified Complaint, defendants |

intend to hold a representation election pursuant to the

Ballney Labor Act: § 2, 44 Btat. 577, as athended, 45 U.S. C.

eer i :

§ 152, ‘among a certain group of allots of United Air

Lines, including some 6400 employees represented by plain-

tiff. and that defendants. intend to hold such election on

April 22, 1963, before trial of this action ‘or hearing on

plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction can be had.

‘4, As further stated in the said Affidavit of James _

-*Sheahan, President, and in the said verified Complaint,

plaintiff petitioned to intervene as a party in interest in

the proceedings before the National Mediation Board des- _.

ignated as Case No. R-3950_requesting a hearing-as to the |

proper ‘designation of. the class or ‘craft of employees sub-

‘ject to the election ; plaintifé ‘ further petitioned that if its ,

request for a hearing,were denied that defendants provide

an election ballot which would permit a voting-employee:

to cast a vote against any representation ; that said petition

‘of plaintiff was denied by. the Board-in its entirety; and

that the scheduled election will bein violation of the statu-

tory and’ Constitutional rights of plaintiff’s members and

will irreparably damage them.

5. Immediate and’ irreparable injury, ae ‘and damage

i will result to. plaintiff if defendants are permitted-to con-

‘duct such election before notice can be served.a hear-

ing had on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminatry Injunction,

inasmuch ‘as plaintiff is without an administrative or

* judicial remedy : to: review defendants’ illegal .action in

conducting the election in the manner complained of by

plaintiff. .

| WHEREFOK., plaintiff moves the court to issue a tempo:

rary restraining order:

1. Restraining dotondante from conducting any ‘election |

under National Mediation Board Case No. R-3950, or.cer- .

tifying any representatives of said employees, pursuant to .

said case or any other proceeding before the National

"7? Mediation Board without first conducting a hearing and

| permitting plaintiff ‘to be: heard asa party in interest re-

Dated: April 18, 1963

a serge 33

lating to. the ‘iets of the appropriateness of the’ class

or craft of employees among whom such election ‘is® to be

\ held; and .

| m4: 2 Restraining defendants from conducting any election

among said employees in which the form of the ballot does

- not permit a voting employee to cast a vote either for or

against representation.

Avex L. Arcvetio

‘244 Kearny Street

San Francisco 8, California :

~ SUtter 1-5080

Jerome C. Muys

~ Jerome C. Muys

Tower Building

Washington 5, D.C. ~

: . MEtropolitan 8-6474 -

a. | . . Attorneys for iat

Sie) Temporary Restraining Order

This cause came on to be heard on plaintiff’s : mite

complaint and its motion fora temporary restraining order

pending hearing on plaintiff’s motion for .a preliminary

injunction, from which it appears to the. court that defend-

ants are about to conduct a répresentatiqn election under: °

Section 2° of the Railway Labor Act, 4 Stat. 577, as

- » amended, 45 U.S.C. § 162, on April 22, 1963, which will

affect some 6400 employees represented by plaintiff as set

forth in plaintiff’s complaint, and will carry out .such

election unless restrained by order of this ‘court. It fur-

ther appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss,

and damage will result to plaintiff’s members if, the elec- .

tion i is conducted before a hearing ¢ can be had on plaintiff’s ,

motion for a eiiaiiies Saicnitliann in that if defendants

are permitted to carry out the election.in the manner com-)

“plained of by plaintiff,. plaintiff’s members: will be with-

out any administrative or judicial remedy to:review°the

action of the.deferidants, which action plaintiff contends is

in excess of the defendants’ statutory authority» and will

deprive plaintiff’s members of their rights and en,

without due process of law.

Tr Is OrvereD, therefore, that:

1: Defendants, and each of them, are hereby restrained

_. from conducting any representation election under Na-

tional Mediation Board Case No. R-3590, or certifying any

representatives of the employees — by that case;

provided that (see below) ;

2. This order shall expire April 24; 1963 at 5:00 P. M.

unless within such time the order. for good cause shown is_

extended or unless defendants consent that it may be ex-

tended for a longer period ;

-3. Plaintiff's ’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction- be it

down for hearing on April 24, 1963 at. 10:00 A.M.; and

i Copies of this Order be immediately served by the

United States Marshal upon defendants. ©

Dated: April 18, 1963.

' /s/ G. L. Harr, Jr. :

United States District Judge

Issued at: 2:27 P.M., April 18, 1963 —

/s/ G. L. Harr, Ju

Plaintiff, or his agent, first file an undertaking with surety,

or cash in lieu thereof, in the sum of $100.00 for payment

of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered

by any party who may be found to be wrongfully restrained

or enjoined. ;

. &

“Opposition of Defendants °F Piaintif's Motion for

Preliminary Injunction — ag

Come now defendants by their attorneys and in opposi- .

tion to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction sub-

mit-the Affidavit of Eugene C. Thompson, Secretary of the

National Mediation Board, and a memorandum in opposi-

tion, both attached hereto, and made a part hereof.

S Je OHN W. DoveLas

_ Assistant Attorney General

Civil Division

Dowap B. MacGurngas

Haruanp F. Learners —

- Ricuarp §8. Beatry

’ Richard S.-Beatty .

Attorneys, Department. of Justice

‘Attorneys for Defendanvs

AFFIDAVIT

Ciry or WasHINGTON is

District oF CoLUMBIA

Evcense C. Txompson, being first duly ‘sworn, deposes

‘ and says:

1. I am the Executive Secretary of the National Media-

tion Board, and as a part of my official duties have eustody -

of the Board’s files and records. I have examined the

Board’s files and records relating to NMB Case No. R-3590 :

involving representation of. Clerical, Office, ‘Stores, Fleet

and Passenger Service employees of United Air Lines,

‘Inc. (hereinafter referred to as United), and find the fol-

lowing information therein.concerning this case.

2. On August 24, 1962, the Brotherhood of Railway and

Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station

ee we ss

Employes. (AFL-CIO), (hereinafter referred to as BRC)

_ filed application pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, of the Rail-

‘way Labor Act, amended (45 U.S.C.A. 152.9) for investi-

ee gation of a representation dispute among the eraft or

class of employees of United ‘‘Commonly known as clerical, .

office, stores (excluding stores employes represented as of

* August 24,1962, by the International Association of Ma- |

chinists), fleet (excluding fleet service employes repre-

sented as of August 24, 1962, by the International Associ-

ation of Machinists) and passenger service employes.”?

As a result-of preliminary examination to which all such

applications are subject, t craft or class designation

above stated was questioned by the Board in letter dated

August 27, 1962, (copy attached marked Exhibit 1) to Mr.

George M. Harrison, Grand President of the Brotherhood

of Railway and Steamship Clerks) Mr. Harrison’s ex- _

planation of the craft or class dociualicn shown in his.

application was contained in letter.to the Board dated

August 27, 1962. (Copy attached marked Exhibit 2). -

3. On August 30, 1962,United and the International As-_

sociation of Machinists (hereinafter referred to ‘as. 1AM)

~were advised of this applicatiori and requested to submit

their statements in respect thereto. United was also re-

quested. to furnish the total number of employees covered

by this application. (Copy attached Exhibit 3).

_ 4, On September 7, 1962, United responded to our letter:

of August 30, 1962, (copy attached as Exhibit 4) stating it

is the carrier’s position that the BRC application involved

only a part of a group of employees which the Board had

found to éonstitute a craft or class, and it should, :there-'

fore, be dismissed.. The ‘carrier also advised: they would

not, at. that time, furnish the number of ‘employees in-

volved. On September 11, 1962, the IAM replied to our

letter advising that in their opinion the craft or. class

covered by the BRC application did not conform to the

SOE EM

SSS ee

——

ET AGN, EP °

e eo. .

Board’s findings, particularly as set forth in NMB Case

. No. R-1706, et al., (copy attached affidavit as Exhibit 5).

5. The BRC; on October 5, 1962, amended its application

. _to cover the craft or class commonly known as Clerical,

Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service employees |

(copy attached as Exhibit 6). After further exchange of |:

correspondence with United and IAM, the amended appli- -

cation, covering the craft or class of Clerical, Office, Stores, .

‘Fleet and Passenger Service employees, as established in

determination issued by this Board in Case “No. R-1706,

et al., dated January 81, 1947, (copy attached marked Ex-

hibit 7) was docketed as.NMB Case No. B-3590, on No-

vember 8, 1962.

6. Mediator William F. 5, Klatte was assigned to con-

duct an investigation of this case commencing November.

19, 1962. This investigation consisted of checking the au-

thorization cards furnished by the BRC in support of their

application against a list of employees furnished. by the

carrier for that purpose.- On December 19, 1962, the Na-

tional Mediation Board authorized an election be conducted

among the employees. involved based on Mediator’s ‘report

_ that his investigation showed. sufficient-evidence to warrant

finding that a representation dispute existed among these

> employees under the Board’s Tules, ( rr attached Joan

Exhibit 8. See Part 1206). cate yeliga

7. On December 19, 1962, prior to recessing this case ten

the\ holidays and to allow the Mediator,to attend the

Board’s Annnal staff meeting, the Mediathr advised the

officers of United that the National Mediation Board had

ordered an election among the employees in question and

requested a list of employees involved showing names, oc-

cupations, locations, and- home mailing addresses to be

ready when the Mediator returned on January 14, 1963.

Upon his ‘return on January 14, 1963, the Mediator in- — = ~ g

‘quired about the status of the preparation of this list, and — /

was informed the carrier had decided the request for this

list was premature in \the absence of a: ruling from the -

Board on United’s request, dated’ September 7, 1962, that

a public hearing be held to establish the proper craft or

class of employees involved in/ this case. The company, ..

- renewed this request in \letter dated January 11, 1963.

(Copy attached as Exhibit 9). / After consideration of this

letter the Board replied 0) date’ of January 17, 1963,

- (copy attached as Exhibit 10) calling attention to the fact.

‘that in the Board’s opinion the carrier is not, and cannot —

be, a party to this representation dispute. This opinion is

based on the National Mediation Board’s policy, formu-

lated early in the Board’s history under the 1934 amend-

ments to the Railway Labor A¢t, which has been enunciated

many times in our annual reports and communications to

rail and air carriers subject to the Act.

'g. “Our letter of January 17, 1963, also denied the car-

rier’s request for a hearing on the craft or class established

under Case. No. R-1706, et al., for the reason that the

carrier is not, in the Board’s view, a party to this dispute. .

The Board also called attention to the fact that no such

‘request had been received from either party to this dis- —

‘pute, namely, the BRC and the IAM. On January 25,1963, ©

__(eepy attached as Exhibit 11) the carrier addressed a letter

to Chairman Edwards asking the Board to reconsider its

denial for a hearing contained in our letter of January

17, 1963. In executive session on January 31, 1963, the

Board gave full consideration to the position of the carrier

with respect to the craft or class of employees involved in|

this dispute, and on February “4, 1963, addressed a letter

to the carrier fully outlining its reason for again denying

their request for a hearing on the craft or class (copy

attached as Exhibit 12). | Si

9. On January 18, 1963, United addressed a letter (copy

attached as Exhibit 13) to Board Member O’Neill taking

.the position the Board should use a form of ballot which

PPG ROLLEI Piss 43M

- would provide a space fora vote for‘‘no representation”.

‘The Board replied on January. 24, 1963 (copy attached as

Exhibit 14), advising the Board sees no reason to deviate

from its customary form of ballot in the current dispute.

This form of ballot hasbeen used by the Board in over

3,400 . representation “elections among’ various crafts or

classes of railroad and airline employees since 1934, among

which were several elections involving other. classes of

‘United employees, at which times the company made no: ~

objéction to the form of. ballot such as they have now

‘ yaised. On February 1, 1963; the carrier wrote Chairman

Edwards (cop attached as Exhibit 15) referring to our

letter of January 24, 1963; and requesting reconsideration

of the decision. made in our letter to the carrier of January.

24, 1963, supra) is request was again given careful

consideration by the Board and under date of February

7, 1963, the Board replied to the carrier (copy attached as

Exhibit 16) reiterating their reasons for denying the car- .

rier’s request for a change ig the form of ballot.

10. During this exchange correspondence the Mediator

was in Chicago waiting for/the Carrier to furnish the list

of employees which would enable him to proceed with plans

- for conducting the apr On February 4, 1963, the

Mediator again inquired a font the status or preparation of

task was a large one and the list would not be completed ~

until approximately Fe ry 11, 1963: On that date the

Mediator further i \inqui ed concerning the status of the list

and was advised \ \by the Carrier’s- officers that they had

decided to decline \to-prepare and furnish the list. The

Carrier so notified this office by letter of same date (copy

att marked Exhibit'17). The list referred to in the

- the eligible list) and was ‘tet by the carrier that the

“second paragraph of the Carrier’s letter of February 11,

1963 is the one furnished the Mediator on November 27,

1962, for checking the authorization cards submitted by

the BRC in support of their application and contained orily

STA ee ee ee ——

‘the names, occupations and locations of the employees, but

did not include the mailing addresses which would be re-

quired, to conduct ‘the elegtion. The list containing the .

mailing addresses is the one which the Carrier has refused . -

to furnish. ‘It will be noted-the Carrier. advised that if the .

_ Board wished\to exercise its statutory authority to make ©

-eopies of revelant ‘‘hooks and records’’ of the company

. (Section 2, Ninth; of the Railway Labor Act, copy attached

marked Exhibit 18), they would make them available.to the ©

- Board’s representatives at. the carrier’s executive offices.

On February 12, 1963 the Board directéd its Mediator to

securé this information from the Carrier’s records. .

11. In several places in the Motion for a Preliminary |

_ Injunction filed by the Plaintiff ; the affidavit filed by Presi- . ~ |

dent J. F. Sheahan of ABNE; and the Memorandum of-~

Points and Authorities filed by the Plaintiff, the statement /

is made that on-January 28, 1963, certain representatives :

of the employee group known as the Association for the

Rights of Non-Contract Employees (hereinafter referred

to as ARNE), including Mr. Sheahan, met with the under-

signed in the Board’s- Washington Office at which time it is |

stated the authorization cards that would be-circulated to ~

the employees was shown to the undersigned who was re- -

ported to have said: ‘‘the paragraph containing the dele-

gation of the employees right of representation was ade-:

quate and was sufficient to establish the Association’s

representatives with the Board’’. This statement does not —

coincide with the facts of What transpired in the January

28, 1963 meeting between the undersigned and the em-

ployee committee. | ws aa

'. The-undersigned, accompanied by Assistant Executive

_g Secretary Thomas A. Tracy, met on January 28, 1963 at

_. 2:30 P.M., with Mr, George W. Jansen, an employee of

' United who acted as spokesman for the group of approxi- —

mately 27-persens identifying themselves as United ‘em-

soe ei Re nba eRe otal bien Atta ort OA

BE QRS ve

ployees. Mr. Jansen stated he then spoke for approxi-

mately 1,200 employees of United, on the West Coast and

demanded the undersigned furnish him with a reply to his

request for a public hearing dated January 24, 1963 which .

was in the form of a letter accompanied by copy of’a. tele-.

gram (copy attached marked Exhibit 19) received on the

sic of January 28, 1963. This group included.Mr. |

James F. Sheahan who subsequently has identified himself

as the Presi ent of the Association for the Benefit of Non-

Contract Employees (hereinafter referred to as ABNE).

Mr. Sheahan stated he represented approximately 500 em-

_ ployees of United who were menibers of ABNE which was °

then being organized on the West Coast. Mr. Sheahan

stated this Association was then engaged in incorporating

and was circulating authorization cards among Customer

Contact Employees stated. by, the group .to be epproxi-

mately 5,000 in number and further stating the employees

intended to petition the Board.on behalf of the Association

for certain action in connection with the forthcoming elec-

tion. The undersigned was ‘unable to determine from the

‘eonversation with Messrs. Jansen, Sheahan_ and others

whether they intended to intervene formally as “a party to

this dispute, or whether they intended to petition qn behalf _

of the signatories to the authorizations for a hearing on

the subject of craft or class. During the J anuary 28, 1963

_ meeting a document was presented to the undersigned by |

Messrs. Jansen and Sheahan. containing writing which they

stated they intended to have printed to include on the

author es cards being circulated among United em-

ployees’ This writing contained the language set forth

below:

ied | onto authorize the hereinafter named persons —

to act in my behalf as incorporators and directors for

the purpose of forming, and directing the affairs of a

corporation to*be known as an ‘AssocraTIox For THE

-Benerit or Non- Cowrract EMPLOYEES’ uf which Fshall

be a member.

tion Board’’ as -sufficient, under the Board’s rules and

regulations to secure recognition by the National Media-

42 eR eon

‘These same individuals are hereby atithorized and

empowered to represent me before the National Media-

tion Board. .

‘‘The execution of this instrument revokes any au-

thorizations heretofore made for. thé appointment of

a representative.’’ 3 Sige ae ire Baier

The undersigned took particular pains to ‘point out to

Messrs. Jansen and Sheahan and others in the.group of 27

employees that he, the undersigned, did not consider the

language ‘These same iridividuals are hereby authorized

and empowered to represent'me before the National Media-

tion Board for ARNE as an intervenor in Case R-3590 for

the reason the-language did not authorize ARNE to repre-

- . gent the signatories for the purposes of collective bargain- —

ing. under the Railway Labor Act. The undersigned in- —

formed Messrs. Jansen, Sheahan and committee that

although he could not speak for the Board, generally an

authorization card containing an authorization to represent

the signatories for the purpose of collective bargaining -

under the Railway Labor Act is considered by the Board

_ as neéessary to secure recognition of a petitioning organi- .

zation as an intervenor under the Board’s -rules for: the

purpose‘of securing’a place on the ballot, provided author-

ization from 35% of the employees in the craft or class in —

question are presented to the Board in support of such '

petition. The undersigned further endeavored to ascertain

from Messrs. Jansen and Sheahan if this group intended

to intervené as a party to this dispute and secure a place

on the ballot as a candidate in the election. The under-

’ signed was informed a decision on that point had not yet

been reached by the employee group, and they intended to

__ make‘such a decisfon upon their return to the West Coast.

~~and at the time the new association was to be incorporated. —

=“ ? ;

them ‘that as a. Board representative I coutd not promi

“any specific time in which they could conduct a-eard-

' -paign-and present their petition. They were in possession

«43

The employees further asked how much time wedi: be..

given them to circulate their cards and come in with eS

petition. The undersigned advised them he could not give ©

a positive answer to. their inquiry. They were advised,

however, that the Board’s mediator was at that time ‘en-

gaged in preparing a list of eligibles from the carrier’s -

records which task had not yet been completed. I informed

of the Board’s rules and regulations governing the handl- \

ing of representation disputes under the Railway Labor’

‘Act appearing, in the Code of Federal manent Title

“\ 29, Chapter X.’

/ 12. On February 14,°1963 Mr. James Fr idtinn, ac-

; : companied by certain other individuals stating themselves.

to be employees of United appeared at the Board’s Wash-

ington Office arid presented the undersigned with a letter

bearing the date of February 11, 1963, addressed to Chair-

man . Edwards of the National Mediation Board. This .

letter incorporated a’ petition to the National Mediation

Board for certain action which is described therein. (Copy

attached marked ‘as Exhibit 20) ‘That letter stated the

ABNE, as of that date, represented 5, 100 employees in the

- Customer Contact and Office Clerical groups of United, evi-.

denced by signed authorization cards from each of said

employees. Mr. Sheahan brought: -with him a bag contain-

ing these cards which ‘were displayed to the undersigned

"but not turned over to him at that time for the reasori the

employee committee stated they wished to take them back

and have certain records made therefrom for their files

after which action the cards would be. presented to the —

Board:as evidence supporting the petition. On February

25, 1963 Mr. Sheahan wrote the Board stating ABNE was,

still actively campaigning for membership and to date had

_____jn-excess—of 6,000 signed authorization cards from non-

er ee a

py : an

-eontract employees. This letter stated that upon comple-

tion of the IBM tally the. remainder of the cards would be

forwarded to the Board. Subsequently the cards were

brought to the Board ’s office by Mr, Richard Harrell, the

Washington representative of the ABNE ’s Board of Di-

rectors. Copy of Mr. Sheahan’s letter of February 25,

1963 together with copy of the attachment metioned therein

is attached marked Exhibit 21, the postscript of which con

reads as follows: - stiecP : :

: 7 “PS. Perhaps to answer some unasked questions,

‘these points should be made clear:

1. We are not seeking recognition asa bargaining

agent; we do not want our name on the ballot.

2. We have no intention of becoming a Company union.

3. We are not sanctioned, recognized, or assisted. in

any way by United Air Lines management.

4. Our Association will be dissolved after such time:

as it has served its purpose.” - . 7

ditional cards were presented by Mr. Harrell and all

_ _/ cards are presently being held in the Board’s offices. The

’- KBNWB has stated they have presented a total of approxi-

ly 6,400,cards. No attempt has been made by the

oard to verify this number. or to check the signatures on

the cards against the eligible list which has been prepared

by the mediator for the reasons which are fully explained

in Board’s letter of March 27, 1963 denying the February if

11, 1963 petition of the ABNE. (Copy of which is: at- —

‘tached to Mr. Sheahan’s’ affidavit marked as Exhibit B).

13. On April 3, 1963 Mr. Sheahan addressed a letter ee

‘Chairman Edwards of this Board requesting reconsidera-

tion of the denial of February 11, 1963 petition made in,

_ the Board’s letter ‘of March 27, 1963. Copy of this letter = « ©

is attached to complaint filed by the Piaintiff ‘marked -Eix--—_—_——"—

hibit C. This letter was considered by the Board in execu-

tive sessionon .April 11, 1863 at which time. action was

taken denying the April 3, 1963 request for reconsidera-

- tion.: Advice of this denial was given to the attorney for

ABNE in telegram dated April 12, 1963. (Copy attached ,

marked Exhibit. 22).

14. Section 2, | of the Railway Labor Act reads:

73 ** 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 con- x P

fer,. respectively, by the carrier or carriers and by ‘the. .

employees thereof inter@sted in the dispite.

- An authorization .to represent employees before the

Mediation Board by a group which states that- it:does not __

‘wish to be on the ballot is not considered a’ claim to be a

representative for collective bargaining under the Railway

Labor Act. The sole function of the National Mediation

_ Board in handling representation disputes-under Section 2, -

- Ninth is to act as a referee between the contesting parties -

to determine who is the representative and to certify such .

representative in’ writing to the carrier.

15. A copy of the ballot to be used in this aéition is

attached marked, Exhibit 23. This form of ballot was first

authorized by the U.S. Railroad Labor Board in its De-.

cision No. 218, dated July 26, 1921 (Copy attached marked

“Exhibit 24). The ballot was later revised by the U.S. Rail-

7 road Labor Board im its Decision No. 418, dated November

19, 1921, by omitting’ identifying Anformation (Copy at- ~

tached marked: Exhibit 25). Following creation of- the

National Mediation Board on Juné 21, 1934, the Board on

August 4, 1934, formulated and approved rules for con-

ducting representation elections. The ballot sanctioned by

this action’ is attached marked Exhibit 26. The Board. .

4 .

ae puihoeine’ a modification i in this ballot éffective. Ju uly 1,

. 1956, copy of which is attached marked Exhibit 27. .

16. The Board has given careful ‘consideration to wheth-

er or not a-hearing is required for the purpose of determin-'

ing the composition of the craft or class, and has concluded

for the reasons stated in the February 4,1963 letter to Mr. .

Mason, Exhibit 12, that there is no necessity for holding m%

* guch a hearing for the purpose of an election in this

dispute. :

17. The Board does not i issue a certification ‘alter a rep-

jenenialials eléction has been, held unless’a majority of

those eligible to-participate i in the —— have cast valid

ballots. A valid ballot is one that is marked. to indicate

that the voter desires to be represented by one of the con-

testing organizations, or by. a representative designated by.

‘the voter in the space provided on the ballot. If a ballot

, is blank, or is markéd by the. voter to indicate he does not

desire representation, itis not: counted as a valid ballot,

in determining that a majority | of those eligible have par-

ticipated in the election.

18. The certification is issued by the Board i in compliance

. +with its duty under Section 2, Ninth, of the Act to certify

the duly. designated and authorized representatives of ‘the

employees.in the craft or class with whom the carrier shall:

treat for the purposes of the Ac™ A sample form of certi-

‘fication is attached as ‘Exhibit 28. Wages, rules. and work-

_ing conditions are not established by a certification. The

certification merely authorizes an employee representative

to bargain.. Thereafter, conditions of employment become

_ .& product of the- collective bargaining process.

19. Because of the unique circumstances in a few cases

‘. (R-2788, C-2252 and C-2389) the’Board exercised its dis-

~” eretionary authority in relation to the craft or class and

authorized a vote among Stock Clerks as the most effective

‘way ‘to implement the purposes of the Act. In pabesquent

gal . re 4

‘ 2 ‘ e

i said

we uw tits ee abel sh meine

PRG

47 ie ;

cases, the full oratt or class of Clerical, Office; Stores, Fleet

and Passenger Service employees as set forth i in Case No.

_R-1706, et al. was. used. in elections held under Cases R-

2953, R-3013, R-3048, B-3105, R-3119, R-3165, R-3191, R-

3222, R.3256, R-3278,. R-3307, R-3347, R-3365, R-3399, .

BBG, B-3488, R-3535 and, _aeee.

20. The Board’s records on. his R-3590 show this case

has been under active handling by the Board since August

27, 1962-and a-dispute was found to exist among the craft

or class of employees involved on December 19, 1962. The

_. Board’s mediators have spent approximately three months

in preparing a list of the eligible employees from the car-

rier’s records due tothe refusal of the carrier to furnish

_ that information to the mediators. The eligible list has

now been completed and agreed to by the contesting organ-

izations, namely the BRC and the IAM. The notice of

election and ballots ‘have been printed and the mediator

is now in the process of preparing the ballots for mailing

to the eligible employees. Any further delay at this time

would nullify much of the —_— os ava by the Board to

- condutt an election.

E. C. Tompson ~

K, C. Thompson, -:

Execute Secretary.

NATIONAL Mepution Boarp |

Subscribed and sworn to°before me

this 22nd day of April, 1963.

WiiuaM B. BrInswANGcER

-. (SEAL) .

, Exhibit 1

August 27, 1962

Mr. George M. Harrison

Grand President .

Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,

Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Building

_ Cincinnati 2,Ohio gt

' Dear Mr. Harrison:

This will acknowledge your letter dated August 24, 1962,

attaching representation application covering ‘‘Commonly

known as clerical, office, stores (excluding stores employes

represented as of August 24, 1962, by the Internatiorial

Association of Machinists), fleet (excluding fleet service

employes represented as of August 24, 1962, by the Inter-

national Association ‘of Machinists) and passenger service .

employes,’ employees of United Air Lines, Inc. —

_ We observe from the craft description that stores em-

ployees represented as of August 24, 1962, by the Inter- .

national Association of Machinists, and fleet service em-

ployees represented by the same Association as of the same

date, are excluded from the application.

Please advise us of the significance of-the date contained

therein. Is it the position of your organization that em-

ployees hired. in the excluded categories after August 24,

_ 1962, would be covered by the application? —

Very truly yours,

E. C. THOMPSON

Executive Secretary

RENT Ee

ee ree ss Bxhibit 2

: GRAND LODGE ~~” a

~“ShorHERHOoD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS |

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS BUILDING

CINCINNATI 2, OHIO

Geo. M. Harrison

Grand President

| File 230-449-7

Subject : Organization—United Air Lines, Inc. ©

| | August 27, 1962

Air Mail _.

Mr. E. C. Thompson, Exec. Secy. °)

National Mediation Board

Washington 25, D. C.

_Dear Sir: |

‘Please be referred to ‘in letter of August. 24, 1962,

requesting the services of the National Mediation Board, :

under Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway’ Labor Act, as

amended, for the purpose of securing certification as: to

who is the representative designated and authorized, in

accordance with the requirements of the Act, of the follow-

ing craft or class of employes of United Air Lines, Inc.:

‘Commonly known as clerical, office, stores : (exclud-

-ing stores employes represented as of August 24,

1962, by the International Association of Machin- .

‘ists), fleet (excluding fleet service employes repre-

'.sented as of August 24, 1962, by the International

Association of “Machinists) and passenger service

oe.

Ti te oak guaibion' thet all sauacoan of United Air ao

Ine., who were formerly in the employ of CapitalAirlines

in the craft-or class for which our Organization was certi-

’

; fied by the National Mediation Board as the collective

bargaining agent, shall be given the right to vote in any

secret ballot conducted by the National Mediation Board

‘for the fdtlowing reasons :

1. In Interpretation No. 93, pe No. A-6037, tes Na-.

tional Mediation Board found:

“ce @ *, this Board is of the opinion that the lan- —

guage-of Article 1(b) of the agreement of August 3, .

1959, reading ‘all provisions of this agreement shall be |

binding upon the successors and assigns of the com-

pany’ is clear and unambiguous. In other words, the

. _ language means just what it says and we so find.”’

2) The agreement ‘between the Brotherhood of Railway

Clerks and Capital Airlines has an effective date of Au- a

gust 3, 1959, and provides in Article 44 that it ‘‘shall con-

tinue in full force/and effect until February 1, 1962, and

_ thereafter unless ,thirty (30) days written notice is served.

by either party signatory hereto, as provided in the Rail-

way Labor Act,.amended.’’ Neither Capital prior to the

effectuation of the merger-with United, nor United subse-

quent to the merger, has served a notice upon our Organi-

zation in accordance with the provisions of the Railway

‘ Labor Act, as amended, as provided for in Article 44 of

.the agreement between our ener and wire Air-,

lines, mentioned above. :

3. Article 3, paragraph (a), of the above-mentioned agree-

ment between Capital Airlines, Inc., and the Brotherhood

of Railway Clerks establishes the seniority districts of the

employes of Capital in the craft’ or class ommonly known

» as clérical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service em- |

ployes.' Seniority District No. 1, as provided by Article

3, paragraph (a), of that agreement, is composed of ‘‘Gen-

eral: Officés and Stores.’? Employes engaged in the’ per-

formance of Stores work held seniority on a systemwide

clerical roster, known as ‘Seniority District No. 1, Roster,

covering all General Office and Stores Department em-

ployes. Thus the employes engaged in the’ occupations. ~

on that seniority roster for Seniority District No. 1 held

seniority which was valid for exercising rights to all posi-

tions engaged in the performance of General: Office work

as well as all clerical positions in the Stores Department

not represented by the I.A.M. on United.. —

4. Article 3, paragraph (a), of the shcvvnieitigned

agreement between Capital Airlines, Inc., and the Brother-

hood of Railway Clerks establishes the seniority districts

of the employes of Capital in the craft or class commonly

known as clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service.

employes, Seniority District No. 2, as provided by Article

3, paragraph (a), i that agreement, is composed of ‘‘ All

Field Stations.’’ Kmployes engaged in the performance

of fleet service held Seniority on a systemwide clerical

roster, known as Seniority District. No. 2 Roster, covering

Cargo, Operations, Reservations, Ticketing, Sales, etc.

Thus, the employes engaged in the occupations on that

seniority roster for S niority District No.°2 held seniority _

which was valid for exercising rights to-all positions. en- -

gaged i in the performance of work of Operations, Ticket-

ing, Reservations, Sales, ete., which are. not represented.

by I.A.M. on United, natin to the positions engaged in

the work of Cargo Handling and Cabin Service which are .

represented by the LA.M. on United.

5. The Civil Aeronauties Board, in Docket 11699, issued

Order No. E-16605—In the matter of the Unrrep-Caprrau |

Mercer Case—which provided in Item 2 perenne (c),

-as follows:.

‘‘That, except as noted ir United aa be sub- |

ject to the’labor protective provisions set. forth i in the

appendix to this order.’’

_ United, should entitle them to vote in the determination of ©

the representative for collective bargaining purposes for *

the employes occupying positions to which their seniority ;

TA ee PE Ry ST FN aera eer eae TLIC OPES BERS, oi

Section Vof Appendix A—Labor Protective Provisions— |

to the Civil Aeronautics Board’s order, reads as follows:

‘‘Insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights

of the carriers’ employees, provisions shall be made

for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and

equitable manner, including, where applicable, agree-

ment through collective: bargaining between the car-

riers aiid the representatives of 4 employees affected.

me ear

This provision requires the: vaientlan of all.seniority rights

for Capital employes | under our area with that corpo-

ration.,

By operation of our iaiiail with Capital ‘Aivlines:

which provides in Article-1(b) that ‘‘all provisions of this

agreement shall be binding upon the successors and as-

signs of the company,’’ and which the National: Mediation

Board in its Interpretation No. 93, Case No. A-6037, has ©

‘found that ‘‘the language means just what it says and we

so find,’’ and by reason of the provisions of Section 3. of

Appendix A—Labor. Protective Provisions—In the matter

of the Unrrep-Carrra Mercer Case~—Civil Aeronautics

Board’s Order No. E-16605—which provides that the. sen-

iority rights of Capital Airlines’ employes shall be dealt

with in an equitable manner, the seviiority rights of the

_ former Capital employes now in the ‘employ of: United, who

Occupied positions with Capital‘in Seniority Districts Nos.

1 and 2, mentioned above, and which extended to positions

in occupations not now ‘Tepresented by“the I.A.M. on

‘is valid and not now 9 akoptcese by any other organiza-

‘tion. nee

. The’former Capital employés occupying positions now —

represented by the I.A.M. on United are, in effect, in a.

o~ OR Pe meager Enema teeney

me. nag

furloughed status ‘with regard to all wiiilibaien ‘to which

their seniority was valid under our agreement with

Capital and are’ now represented by the I.A.M. Since the

- former Capital employes in that status have a valid claim

to the exercise of their seniority to some positions ‘in the

craft or class (as limited) designated in our. request for

certification by the Board as the collective bargaining

representative on United, such employes have a valid right

to cast a ballot to determine such Tepresentative. It is.

requested that the Board permit such —e to partici-

pate i in the vote.

Very sraly yours,

Gro. M. Harrison |

Grand President

BA? Wom Te Fa “s

: . kh

Exhibit 3

Stier ' August 30, 1962

Mr. Charles M. Mason . : een

---Senior: Vice President Personnel _

United Air Lines, Inc., 5

P. O. Box 8800 iif ~. o8

O’Hara International Airport — :

Chieago 66, Illinois

“Mr. A. J. Hayes. |

International President ~~ =

International Association of Machinists

New Machinists Building ,

1300 Connecticut “wra N..W.,

Washington, D. C.

Gentlemen:.

‘We have an ae ers from the Brotherhood of Rail-

way and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and |

, Station Employes, to investigate a representation dispute

: ape the provisions of Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway

EE LPS LE RON VTE MEDS PAS OTT 1A) UE Op ETL ONT PEWS MS. ~ = —

S 1s me aa A a Be aa

‘ °

: :

La hk among the — employees of the United

‘Air’ ines, Ine. -

; Commonly. known as clerical, office, stores ‘cada

stores employes represented as of August 24, 1962, by

the International Association of Machinists), fleet (ex-

é cluding fleet service employes represented as of August

24, 1962, by the International Association of Machin- “

_ists). and passenger service employes.

a”

A copy of Mr: Harrison’ s- letter to the ‘Board, dated

* August 27, 1962, setting forth additional information per-

taining to this —— is attached for each of you

gentlemen. © | . : :

Mr. Mason i is requested to furnish total coutloes of oon

ployees covered by this applicatjon, _ with any state-

‘ment he-may care to make. ca

Since the IAM is the current representative for stores

and fleet service employees, Mr. Hayes is requested to sub-

mit an® statement he may care to make with respect -to

this application. 7

Very truly yours, Pee ay sos

E. €. Tuompson * a

Executive Secretary .

- 6:ec ce: Mr. George M. Harrison

ap Oras

RI) POLI St

STA Qa tye Ry,

rks sae

A F

55 4

Exhibit 4 :

UNITED AIR LINES | mee

1200 ALGONQUIN ROAD, ELK GROVE TOWNSHIP, ILLINOIS)

~ Mailing Address P. 0. Box 8800, Chicago 66, Mlinois,

| ‘Telephone 625-1400

EXECUTIVE OFFICES 9° September 3 1962 siege Meal:

Mr. E. C. Thompson — ve

National Mediation Board = | /

, 1230 Sixteenth Street, N. W.

, ‘Washington 25, D. C.

‘Dear Sir: :

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of hea: 30° in

which you advise United Air Lines. that the National

Mediation Board has received an application from the

.. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks ‘to investi-

gate a representation dispute under the provisions of Sec-

‘tion 2-Ninth of the. Railway Labor Act among the follow- °

*. ing employees of the United Air Lines, Inc.:

_ Commonly known as clerical, office, stores. ( excluding —

‘stores employes represented as of August 24, 1962, by

the International Association of Machinists), fleet (ex-

cluding fleet service ‘employes represented as of Au-

gust’ 24, 1962, by. the International Association of

Machinists) atid passenger service employes. -

Since the Brotherhood’s application excludes .certain em-

_ ployees represented as of August 24, 1962: by the Infer-

national Association. of Machinists, the application is in-

consistent with the National Mediation Board’s deter-

_ Mination of craft or class in Case No. R-1706 et al. The

application, therefore, is for a group of employees smaller

than the craft or class. which the Board has found to exist

in the airline and industry. .

As United has previously advised the Béard on.a calelie

of occasions, it is our long established policy = practice

SOP IY IE RL RA NIE ESE RSE EIT YL RE OR Ee

"position on the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam

in |

‘ ae ae

Uke

- : : fa) 2 ‘

to treat only with a labor organization certified by_ the

_ National Mediation Board pursuant to;the Railway Labor -

* Act which requires certification of.a duly authorized repre- ~

‘sentative for an entire craft or class. The filés of the Na-

- tional’ Mediation Board will show that United -Air Lines

voluntarily recognized the International Association’: of

Machinists as the collective bargaining representative of

ramp and stores employees in 1948. At the time of this

voluntary recognition United supplied the Mediation Board

‘i ca © a

SR BBM AA SELEY LAL LIL CGE LE — —— —_ 7 .

? tia’ ES ALL CGE igre ae ait ieee seidideaeiiaihidi Oo ;

i) *

Y ?

¥.,

the evidence upon which this recognition was. based and ~<

the reasons why an exception was being made to its estab-

lished policy. The National Mediation Board replied, re-

minding United and the International Association of Ma-

chinists that this voluritary recogniztion did not preclude

‘a subsequent: determination by the National Mediation ©

Board of the proper craft or class to which the employees

would belong. - Zl ; |

It is United’s position, therefore, that since the Brother--

hood’s ‘application requests investigation of a representa-

tion dispute involving only a part of a group of employees

ig to determine whether or

not the proper craft or cl

determinations by the Boardfor whether the, proper craft

or class is something other than that previously deter-

' “mined by the Board in these previous cases. Only in this -

manner can the processing of this application result in the

certification to United Air Lines of a duly authorized

representative of its employees'with which United will be

legally obligated to bargain. In making this reply, United

does not at this time take: any position as.to-the extent of

-- the proper -eraft /or elass of its employees who may be

Bre

involved in the Brotherhood’s application.

In view of United’s position as stated above, we will not

. which the Board has found to constitute a craft or class, it, -

should. be dismissed. In the event the Board does not see ,

fit to dismiss the Brotherhood’s application, the Board 7

- should then hold a public hea

is that expressed in prior ~

at this time furnish the total number of employees or reds :

Dp.

_ letter to Mr. Hayes for his information

‘Dear Mrv Thompson: - Pde y / :

Clerks’ contention with respect to the -eligibility. to vote of

employees formerly represented by it on Capital Airlines ~

who are now represented by the International Associa-

_ tion of Machinists on United “ir Lines. .

- Since .the Board’s: decision if it inn not dismiss the —

Brotherhood’s application will vitally affect the / existing

representation of certain employees by the Inte tional

Association of Machinists, we are sending a copy of this

Sincerely, ;

>, CHarte®’M. Mason -

Charles M. Mason -

Senior Vice President

Personnel — eae

ce: Mr. George M. Harrison -

Mr. A. J. Hayes:

; Exhibit $

INTERNATIONAL ,ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS ~

1300, CONNECTICUT ANE. WASHINGTON: 6, D. C.

OFFICE OF THE \ oe . |

INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT | 49-United

September 11, 1962

Subj: ‘United Air Lines, Inc. _

“Application Representation |

Dispute filed by BRC

Mr. E. C. Thompson .

Executive Secretary

. National Mediation Board fe a

Washington 25, D. C.

This wit acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated _

August 30, 1962. wherein you advise of the —7 apa »-*

Pig

- Ni “te 2 q

ge i 2 ae 58

° od

: by the Brothérhood of, Reilway ami Steamship Clerks,

= Freight. Handlers," Express and Station Employes, to in- -

re ebtigate a representation dispute involving. certain em-

loyees of United Air Lines, Inc. “You also enclosed a.

‘eopy of Grand Pfesident George M. Harrison’s letter”

dated August. 27th. Betting forth the position of the BRC

- with respect to this ‘application...

In reviewing this entire matter? ‘ineluding \the - informa- .

. tion contained in Mr. Harrison’s lettar,of August 27th, it

is our’ considered 6pinion that the craft or class, of em

: ployees. as requested by the BRC doés not conform to the -

findings of your Board, particularly with reference -to the:

craft, or clges determination as ‘eet forth in Case R-1706, ©

et al @. ti, Ne es :

tm ie Beapebttilly. yours, =

aa £ ge. Hayes : ie

AAW. Hayes ‘ern’

ae | International President Sa.

H/FPH/ac ae

ce: Reeves : re

| . : cy 0

ae ; a

- ee

\ as 5

72 .- . + & .

, : + 4 « > ‘ i

— . ¥ ° .* >

4 F -

- 7 ee oc 59 >

=. eer .

i ot ° 4 3 ; . : .

a UC« ° # @: ; GRAND Lopemg. ° |’. Se

‘) _ BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERES,..

3 se ‘FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

ee BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY: CLERKS BUILDING

e CINCINNATY 2, OHIO :

4 Geo. M. Harrison, ee ;

By Grand President: >,

- : . ' i AL;

coe. File 298%G0-7

4 E 7 . i . . a es y nef ’ A

3 Subject: Organization—United Air Lines

ee | ° - .*. October 5, 1962 « |

a | Mr. E: C. Thompson, Exec. Secy. (2) =: Li

3 ~ National Mediatiow Board ~: : : Eee

£ “Washington 25, DC.

S| Dear Sir: — *. Ry ere se S

i _ This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of Septem-

ber 13 with regard to our application. dated August 24,..

1962, for investigation of a representation dispute.among

certain employes of United Air Lines, Ine. You atta¢hed

. to your letter a copy of one addressed to the Board, dated ’

September 11, 1962, by Mr. A. J. Hayes, International

_ President, International issociation of Machinists, com-

| menting upon our request. ¥ou were cérrect‘in your state-

} ment that Mr. Charles M. Mason, Senior Vice President,° -

Personnel, United ‘Air Lines, had furnished me a copycat x

his letter of September 7, 1962, address to the Board, .

commenting upon our request for the Boara’s services. It °

. _, Should be nof&d- that a copy of Mr. Mason’s letter was also

furnished to Mr. Hayes, | iy

Under the ‘Railway Labor Act, an. employer is not an-

titled to participate in .a representation dispute, and,

therefore, the Board may not take ‘cognizance of Mr.

“ee

Mason’s comment concerning the apprepriateness af the

se ‘

; : e a ; . ,

ny b] °

— ~

Qo.

@ ts

rs ee . 60 i

craft or class as défined in my request for’ the Board’s

‘services dated August 24, 1962.. ‘3 a |

_ It is noted that MrHayes is collaborating with the man-

agement of United Air Lines by also raising the question

as to the appropriateness of the craft or class as defined

in my letter to the Board dated August 24, 1962. In the -

. last paragraph of Mr. ‘Hayes’ letter, he says) “‘it is 6ur -

considered opinion that the craft or class of employes’ as

requested by the BRC does not conform to the findings of

‘your Board, particularly with reference to the craft or —

_ _¢lass determination as set forth in Case R-1706, et al.’

fe . a

x » Mr: Hayes indicatés"that the Board furnished him: copies

of my letters of August 24,°1962, and August 27, 1962,

addressed to the Board. It is presumed. that since the

_ Board<furnished him copies of those two letters, that it

also furnished Mr. Hayes a-copy of my letter of August -

29, 1962. In.each of. those three letters I made it clear

that it was not the intent. of our Organization to include

a in the graft or class description for which we had requested

the Board’s services in the investigation of the representa-

tion dispute any employe of United Air Lines, Inc.,-sub-

_ ject to an agreement in existence prior to August 24, 1962,

~ the date on which I requested the services of the Board. |

The only inference to be drawn from Mr. Hayes’ state<:

ment, as ‘quoted above from his letter to the Board dated

September 11, is that he is of the opinion that our request.

for the Board’s services in this dispute should have in- ee

cluded as well the employes in occupations covered by

the agreements between the International Association of

- Machinists and United Air Lines.< I am, therefore, hereby

advising the Board of my desire to amend the statement

of thé craft or class as ‘set ‘out in.my request for the

Boéard’s services under date of August 24. Please substi-” °

} / tate for the description of thé craft or class for which the

Xe “ sényfices of the Board are requested, the following:

me. .

: \ , ‘ey

United for the -purpose of holding an election in reference

case. We believe his request is premature in the absence

of a ruling from the Mediation Board on the request of

\ e@ e

: a ees

a Commonly known as clerical, office, stores, fleet and

} passenger serviceemployes. = ~~ . nw

4 ' The National Mediation Board is urged to process our

S og request of August 24, 1962, as amended herein, without

1... <fprther delay. ©... 3\- CS |

. ier. Peal . Very truly yours,.

> Geo. M. Harrison ~ ,

i Grand President —

f Exhibit 9.

I : UNTTED AIR LINES- © .

1200 aLeonquin ROAD, ELK GROVE TOWNSHIP, ILLINOIS

o~ ‘ .

Mailing Address: P<O/Box 8800, Chicago 66, Illinois

ae _ Telephone: 625-1400. :

Executive Offices oe ark es BR

eae “. ; . January 11, 1963

' Mr. KE. C,'Thompson. | | a |

Executive Secretary .

_ National Mediation Board, .

1230 Sixteenth’ Street, N. W.-

Washington 25, D. C..

Re: NMB Case No. R-3590

Dear Mr. Thompson: et cpt TENN sal

Mediator Klatte has requested certaiti~ information from

United made September 7, 1962 that a public hearing be -

- held to establish the proper crafts and classes on United.

~~—We hereby renew our request that such a public hearing be

held and set forth herein at some length the reasons

necessitating a hearing. _ eee Te

a> |

—

“

a oe . MB ed ee

Wg wish to point out to the. Board that the ‘group. of em- |

ployees covered in the representation application filed in .

the above case does not coincide, either in its original or

amended form, with any currently applicable craft or class |

_ determination. . Further, there are distinguishing features | ,

between the members of the heterogeneous group of em- F

ployees involved in this‘application which, the Board -has a

not had the opportunity to fully consider in apy prior ~~

proceeding. Ata public hearing, the Board will learn of

_the wide variances in the training, skills. and responsibili- :

ties of -the employees, of the absence of cross-training and

cross-utilization between them, and of the absence of a com-

. munity of interest, for example, between the highly skilled - #8

@" pice employees and the janitorial and cleaning employees, ~- | . ;

_* Whe lack of unanimity in the air transport industry iw * § |

. general and on United in particular with reference to the

3 organization of operations, the selection, training, use,

Yepresentation and lack of permanency in respectto these -

factors in’ this dynamic and rapidly changing industry i

can and should be considered by the Board.

In 1946, in R-1706, the Mediatiof Board was asked to

establish for the first time on an @irline a craft.or class .

grouping of employees ranging from what the Board re- °

_technical office employees. The Board attempted in that .

ease to establish a mold to apply to all airlines in the

’ future. Since most-of the employees in this heterogeneous

grouping were unorganized at the time in the air trans-

port industry, the Board was forced to treat with the im-

portant subject of craft or class-in somewhat of a-vacuum

with the ‘‘hope’’ that its prospective determination would

provide @ basis for stable labor relations in the future on

_ airlines only because such a‘craft had been found: to pro-"

vide such a basis in the past on railroads. Although the

‘Board did avoid a multiplicity of crafts or classes by its

. . determination in. R-1706, ‘the Board simply did not have

knowledge at the time of its decision (January 31, 1947)

. °

®,

4° .°

- coe

of the changes that would and: did later o¢cur in the

' transport industry, OB, te Fe tem

The. BRC_contended during the public hearing in R-1706

that because the Railway. Labor Act was amended to cover

airlines, the same craft or class treatment on rail linés

should be followed by the Board on airlines. Although

' this specific contention ‘was not accepted by the. Board, :

+ the-Board—nevertheless -found a < 7 irkine

employees that was the counterpart of the railroad craft +

or class of clerical, office, station and storehouse employees. —

The IAM, on the other hand, requested a Separate craft

or class. of ramp service and stores employees. This vi Ww

- Was rejected by the. Board as was the LAM’s later iam

for a reconsideration of ‘the Board’s findings; ~ ~

\ 1S Wee |

AMhough dhe IAM’s request for a reconsideration of the

. R-1706 findings was denied by the Board in 1947, the Board

. *

air

then stated that its denial did not prevent a re-examination —-~

‘of:craft or class as applied to these categories of employees ‘-

in any future airline representatiom\disputes. This posi-

tion was taken in 1947, as the Board later explained in

_. R-2783, in ‘recognition of the fact that the airline indus-

try was still in a state of de¥elopment,”’ and further, ‘‘that

the clerical and related employees on many of the major

air carriers were then unrepresented.’ Thus, the Board _

recognizes that the lack of représentation of the bulk: of.

these employees on-many of the major air carriers is a

significant ‘factor.to be taken into account in representa-

. tion questions... . | i |

— the invitation of the Board, United was’ present at the

' public-hearing in R-1706 and United’s views on oa or::

class wert received by the Board. Based upon its limited

experiénce and in the interests of avoiding an unknown

‘and possibly ‘wndesirable multiplicity of crafts or ‘classes,

United had recommended adoption of a craft or class sub-

‘Stantially the same as the one adopted by the Board. be

e .

‘wv

- had definitely concluded, in light of

Can

' that arguments advanced for reconsideration of the proper —

groupings of the various occupational classifications of —

\ ie aa ‘

As early as Sepieaiber 20, 1949, however, Gaia Ai Lines

advised the National Mediation Board that developments |

‘in, 6rganization after 21706 had led Uniteg, to beligve it

" may liave been in erro¥ in the position it took’ befare th

~ Mediation Board. United advised the Board that the o

ganizational development by 1949 among the employees,

on United after R-1706 and changes in. United’s own opert:

tional organization-were such that the Board’s determina-

* Hop R-1706 had become impractical both from the em-_

oyee’s point of view and’ the carrier’s, Re

In 1951,. in a matter concerning the proper craft or ies

grouping of equipment service men, stock clerks or jani- ~

tors of N orthwest Airlines in R-2357, the National Media-

stion Board agcepted the Statement of United Air Lines. .

lence, that

not provide for

“*

In its. Statement; ‘United advised the nee that United.

’ the ‘Board’: ’s determination in R-1706

a proper craft or class for the air transport industry.

in R-2357, decided February | 22, 1953, the “Board stated

employees which may comprise the craft or class of clerical,

‘office, stores, fleet and passenger service employees im-

pressed the Board,as having conside vias ot merit. The .

. Board announced in’ R-2357 that in v f the lapse of

five years after R-1706 and because of ms law and

growth of the airline industry’” as well as the ‘‘develop-

~ ment of representation of airline employees,’’ the Board

was then of the opinion that upon proper: application, it

would be advisable to re-examine the determination in R--

| 1706, with a view of making such modifications as might .

be found to be justified at the time in question. ““¢

In R-2783, ‘decided February 161954, in a case concerning ”

a request by the IAM to represent stores employees of

Northwest Airlines ’ separately. from the broad clerical

group included: in R-1706, the Baard did examine its R-

. .

roe

wey

fA ‘

£ive

. i ° . << $

cata) s > = ?

: we “pe

65 ' . -< Lr

‘ ‘ >

> $ ;

Oy,

1706 findings. While it did not re-examine the entire craft

or class, the Board concluded that stores employees are -

_ & separate craft or class for the purposes of the Railway

_ Laber Act. ae : Poles eee

‘In C-2252{and Py decided November 9, 1956, in eom-.

panion cases relating to the request of the IAM to separate

_~——~gtores employees. of - 'Trans-Texas Airways and North

Central Airlines from the efftting clerical groupings, the .

Board again re-examined ‘R-1706 findings with reference

to stores employees: In so doing, the Board noted that

by that time (1956) the representation of the entire clerical -

-~ eraft as outlined in R-1706 showed that such craft was not

represented as a single unit on ‘any air carriers except six.

See ane a

The Board went on to-saythat its reeords showed that

—<y~ stock and stores employees were organized and covered.

a ee

“5

‘by collective bargaining agreements on 24 air cirriers,’

independently of the craft as designated. in R-1706.

United was included by the Board as one of the Board’s -

24 examples. where stock and stores employees were repre-

sented as a separate unit by the same organization repre-

senting airline mechanics on those ¢arriers. On the basis

of:evidence presented at the. hearing and the-development

_. Of representaticn among stock and. stores employees, the

Board concluded. that the general’ purpose of the Railway

Labor Act would be mor€ readily achieved and the ‘general

duties as specified in Section 2 of the Act would be more

readily aecomplished by a determination that stock and

stores employees are considered separate crafts or classes

- of employees. The Board’s conclusion was reached only.

after a public hearing.

Inasmuch ag United knows of no findings of the Mediation

Board subsequent to Cases C-2252 and (-2389 reestab.

lishing the stores employees as a part of the clerical and

related group covered by R-1706, it can only be considered

now that the R-1706 findings are.no longer controlling.

It should'be noted that the amendedapplication of the

‘pact upon the organization structu

. ‘ . . ——

' 66° a

BRC.in the current case is based on the now obsolete

R-1706 findings," —~

National Mediation Board. ‘As a necessary corollary, the

| The importance that‘the Board’s craft or class determina-

tions have. in: settling of disputes and the promotion of

stable labor relations ‘has -been clearly recognized by the —

Board’s determination may well disrupt instead of ‘pro-—

_ mote stable labor relations and encourage rather ‘than,

settle disputes among employees. The Board’s class or

craft determinations have, of asiviat a demonstrable, im-

ciency of an air carrier.

. . The Board itself has recognized that it stherefore should

review and even revise its class or craft determinations

wifh respect to airline employees ‘after a ‘public hearing,

. and has done so. In R-1447, for example, ‘the Board

altered the craft or class of airline mechanics. In R-2357,

the Board concluded that ‘R-1706 should be re-examined

and in ‘R-2783,C-2252 and’ C-2389, it concluded that stores

employees are no longer properly grouped with’ the various

and operating effi- * ~

other components in what had been a craft or class of 3 ty

clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service employees

as determined in R-1706. Also, and’ as recently as 1961,

‘the Board, in C-2946, made a drastic change in the group- |

ing of fight deck crew members of the United Air Lines.

“= As @ restlt of the findings of the National Mediation

Board Committee in C-2946, decided January 17, 196], in -

‘the matter of representation ‘of employeés of: the United

~* Atr Lines, Incorporated—Flight Deck Crew Members, the

Board conducted an election on the basis of @ single craft or

class in face of a long history of collective bargaining of

two separate crafts or classes which had existed not only

- C-2946 is significant in several respects. In the first place,

the Committee found, among other things, that— =-—-—i«‘

__* “The airline industry, as distinguished from the rail-

Toads, is still in the formative stage and in a period

‘ A

a A

of expansion, with strong p 5’ of further tech-

nological change. The diterensy between the rail-

oN roads and the airline industries gffects the application

_\: | of graft or class’ principles and criteria with the result

that the determination made’herein may not be con-

| \stdered, as such, applicable to the railroads.’’ pie the

‘C-2946, ‘“When governmental’ . -

tion of craft and class issues - 3

1 nd air transportation industries,

_ the two branches were in entirely different stages of matur-

ity’? and that there is no ‘thigh ‘degree of crystallization

in craft and class lines” in the “‘comparatively new air ~~

*. carrier pap abl that the years have brought on the rail-

5. ; roads. The teaching of C-2946 is that the Board is not, —

eek. necessarily’ bound by past craft or class groupings; on

i _ the contrary, the Board will take a fresh look at crafts or

ee classes’ in the air transport indpstry. sip peng Aaa

Congress has imposed upon United Air Lines, as a sched-

: uled air carrier, the obligation to follow the ‘declaration

6 of national policy to provide ‘‘ecoromical and efficient -

/ “service by air’ carriers at reasonable charges.’’ United

| q Air Lines is also under the statutory command of the-

“| *_- representative of its employees as,certified by the Board

for a craft or class determined by ‘the Board. Because of

_ the impact that the-grouping of employees ‘into crafts or

“classes can have upon an ‘air carrier’s organization id

operation, it is necessary that the Board establish a cra t

7 _or class or revise,one only after the fullest chearing and

after obtaining the views of all concerned—ineluding the *

carrier. The carrier is obviously ‘in the best position to

‘furnish evidence to the Board on the effedf}that craft or r

class groupings may heve on interruptions of its service ;

to thé public. For example, the Committee appointed by _

the Board in C-2946 requested information from United

~ &§ _” before making the important craft or class determination

we ALY PETIT RS aft

fil

which. had such‘a dramatic effect upon the entire air trans-

port industry that the President of the United States and

_ the Seeretary of Labor intervened”. |

The inappropriateness . of the Board’s* R-1706 findings of

1947 have been apparent for, some tinie not only to United

but to others, as pointed out above. The Boatd itself, as

noted, recognized that. .the R-1706: findings are no: longer

-appropriate.. The fact that 16 years ‘have elapsed since the -

R-1706 findings and the ill is no representation of the

- clerical and_related employees on.many of the major air

carriers renders R-1706 even more obsolete. United has

enlarged to where it is the largest domestic scheduled air

carrier. -Thus, ‘any, craft or class determination made in

1947 for another airline.on the prospect of future em-.

ployee representation, which has never occurred, ” ot

properly be apphied 16 years later to the organizational

-- and operational structure of United. A determination of. -

what craft or class groupings are now appropriate — :

ony be made after a public hearing.

; in’ ‘summary, United Air Lines believes a wailic hearittg

is not onty appropriate, but necessary to ere. the public

interest for the following reasons: ?

The Board’s determination i in R-1706—issued sixteen

years ago—was not based upon actual airline experi-.

ence and history, but was carried over from’ the rail-

roads. Whether it would become suitable for the air-

lines had to be left for future —

Experience in the. airline industry. since 1947 has dem-

. onstrated that the Board’s determination in R-1706

has not been suitable for the airlines, as witnessed by’ -

‘the fact that the Board itself has reexamined’ and

departed from its R-1706 determination in various . -

. subsequent cases (R-2783,. C-2389, C- 2487), and the.

organization ‘of employees on major air carriers has

not confornied to the BIW fading».

. 7 ‘

‘United’s own “experience over the sixteen-year poled Fe

. which has elapsed since R-1706, during which time

‘there has been. a substantial growth and evolution in

the Company, clearly establish the. inappropriateness

of R-1706 to present day conditions. .

The carrier’s ability to operate efficiently ani to have

- ‘stability in labor relations would be severely hamp-

. ered by imposition of the now obsolete determination —

on United since R-1706 lumps together. heterd$eneous ‘

groups of skilled and unsiklled employees in a manner .

-°wholly inappropriate to the. Company’ s present or-

eet , ganizational structure. .

The Board, as noted dais has committed itself to take

_a@ fresh look in a public hearing at the appropriateness of

a, craft or class when appropriateness is ene te in

light of changed conditions. ‘ie

Based upon United’s study and experience, as wall as

observations in the industry, United. believes that the.

groups ®f employees under discussion probably logically

| separate into three large crafts or classés.. At the Board’s

hearing, United will be prepared to ‘supply the Board with

_.. full historical and present facts upon which the Board can

o %

; “_ the stapes d of what is proper under all the facts.

Me A Ow ne Mo So

Senior. Vice President-

eee: _ ‘Personnel got"

ec: Mr. George en si

‘Mr. A. J. Hay: ay

Mediator Klatte

Exhibit 10

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD

by Bt WASHINGTON ecu ee

| January 17,1968 . -.

i... NMB Case No. B-3590

‘Mr. Charles M.. Mason, Sr. Vice’ President

United Air Lines, Incorporated ;

~ P.O. Box 8800 is eee

Chicago 66, Illinois - Saas tae ee

_ Dear:Mr. Mason: s |

_ Acknowledgment is made of your ‘letter of January 11,

1963 in re NMB Case No. R-3590. . You state you believe .

the request made by Mediator Klatte for certain informa-

tion from United Air Lines, for the purpose of holding an

election in. this case, is premature in the absence of a-rul-

ing from ‘the ‘ National Mediation Board on the request |

of United Air Lines dated -Septembey’ 7, 1962 that a public .

hearitig be held to establish the prdper crafts-or classes - -

on United Air Lines. “~~ ete nies

Reference to your letter of September 7, 1962 shows

_ the specific request you made was as follows: =! °

“It is United’s position, therefore, that. since the: —

a representation dispute involving only a part of a __

group of émployees which the’ oard has found to

_. constitute a craft or- class, At should be dismissed.

~ In the event the Board does not see fit to dismiss the .

Brotherhood’s application, the Board should then hold. _

‘a public hearing to determine ‘whether or not the ,

_ proper craft-or class is that expressed in prior deter- -

“minations by the Board, or whether the ‘Proper craft /

-o¥ class is something other than that previously deter-

mined by the Board in these” previous cases.”? — ;

| ce my aie |

' “S<fthe. application ‘filed -by. the’ Brotherhood of Railway &

_ Steamship Clerks on August 24, 1962 was not dismissed,

‘and was subsequently amended to cover the craft or class:

. commonly known.as Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet and Pas-

senger Service Employes. You-were so advised by:copy of

__Mr. Harrison’s Jetter of October 5, 1962 transmitted with

y of our letter to Mr: Harrison dated October 8, 1962.

_/ In gur letter of October 24, 1962, addressed to you and

' President: Hayes of the International. Association df Ma-

furnish the number o ‘employes in this craft or class as:

requested in the last paragraph of our letter of October.

8, 1962. On-November #1962 you replied and stated ‘‘the ~~

records of United: Air Lines indicate there is a total of,

12,451 enrployes as of October 15, 1962 in such craft as

-we utiderstand it’’. You further stated this figure did not.

include 339 employes. classified as Lead Janitors, J anitors

or Cleaning Wonien as of October 15, 1962. Yenetetter _

gf November 2, 1962. indicated‘ a clear ‘understanding of.

what is meant’ by the craft or. class only known . .

Employees as referred ‘to:in the Board’s determination ~

issued.in NMB Case No. R-1706, et al. ER Sd oa

. ; ° a

_ The various comments made in the. remainder of your.

. eration by the Board. The Board wishes to call your

attention, first, to the fact that the carrier ‘is not/a party

. to this representatien di pute. Secondly, no request for

. @ review of ‘the craft or class established by the Board’s .

determination in Case No. R-1706, et al has been, received |

.from either organization party to. NMB Case No. _B-3590. |

The request contained i your letter of January 11, 1963, .

is not timely ‘made, since the Board, on December 19, 1962,

found that a representation dispute, existed among the As

employees in this craft or class; and has authorized an

-election. f. ea ae

- 2 ° : | 72 Ry

For the. above reasons, the Board must deny your re-

- quest of January: 11, 1963 for a public. hearing’ on the

subject of a ‘review of the determination made ‘in ‘Case

No. R-1706, et, al, ee :

It is, therefore, requested that you furnish promptly to

Mediator Klatte the necessary information regarding the

employees of United Air Lines, Inc. in the craft or Class -

at issue, so he may proceed with plans to hold an election |

among these employees. Your cooperation in furnishing

this information promptly to Mediator Klatte will be

appreciated. ™~ cern

By direction of the Nationa Meptation Boarp.

: cs E. C. Tompson

| ore Executive Secretary

-ee-to: Mr.G.M. Harrison _

; Mr. A. J. Hayes — . eres one

Mr, W. F. J. Klatte - rane

ot A

"Exhibit 11

. . UNITED AIR LINES

1200 ALGONQUIN ROAD, ELK GROVE TOWNSHIP, }LLINOIS

. Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 8800, Chicago 66, Illinois

ee ere Telephone 625-1400 ~’ me :

‘EXCUTIVE OFFICES - -. January 25, 1963

Mr. Leverett Edwards

Chairman - oo,

National. Mediation Board .°-»

Washington 25,'D. C. —

Dear Mr. Edwards: »

Acknowledgment is made of the.Board’s reply dated Jan-

uary 17, 1963 to.United’s letter of January 11, 1963. The

Board in itsreply denies United’s request that the Board

—~y= —"

: supplement my letter of January 11, 1963. ..

(73

hold a public hearing to establish the proper crafts and

classes on United. - . .

~ The purpose of this letter is to protest the Board’s refusal

ae to ask that the Board reconsider United’s request. .

In support of our request for: reconsideration, I wish to .

We in United are astonished that the Board would make

a. decision vitally: affecting 12,700 employees and which -

will have a long lasging and adverse effect upon the operat-

ing efficiency and etonomy of United .withont obtaining -

the views of everyone concerned. The. Board’s denial of

United’s request indicates that the-Board is somehow pro-

hibited from obtaining or considering United’s views on

the craft or class question on the ground that United is

not a party to this representati dispute. This is indeed ~

strange since on a number of occasions, the Board has

specifically invited United to. express its views at public -

hearings on the question of what*constitutes a proper

craft.or class. . Indeed, both of the contesting labor organi-

zations have at one time or another in the past compli-

mented United for its expression of such views and have

urged United to express them at subsequent public hear-

ings.

_ In stating that the carrier is not a party. to this representa-

tion dispute, the Board’s reply attributes to United a

position it has never sought and does not now seek. United

is fully aware that it is not a party to any-controversy ~

over the choice of representatives by the employees; jn- ;

- deed, United .has no desire to be such a party and recog-

* nizes.the légal and proper right of the employees to choose

eir own representatives, if they wish one. United sub-

mits, however, that it has a legitimate interest in the scope .

* of a ¥raft or class. In: other words; the only ‘jgsue .in

which Wuited asserts a right, to be heard concerns the scope

of the erpft or clags—not the identity of ‘the representa-

tive, if any, of the employees of. such craft or class in an

election. ~ ;

The Board’s faijure to recognize United’s legitimate inter-'

est in the scope of a craft or class will interfere with the

efficient conduct of United’s business. The refusal by an

administrative agency of the Federal government to afford

United an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing

in a matter which will so seriously affect United’s ability

to conduct its business is in fact a denial of due process ~

Further, the Board, on its own initiative and in the exer-

cise of its own discretion, should hold the requested public

' hearing. .Any rule of the Board that a carrier does not.

__ have a-status which ‘entitles it to be heard on the breadth

- of a class or craft: is as archaic as the railroad craft or.

class in which an election is proposed. The Board. has a

responsibility under the Railway Labor Act te work for

_the establishment of stable labor relations in the airline

industry. As the Board well knows, a craft or class deter-

mination can have a serious and disruptive effect on inter-

state transportation: This was clearly shown when Presi-

dent Kennedy, on the day of his inauguration, had to

-assign the Secretary of Labor to mediate airline strikes

resulting from a craft or. class determination which was

arrived at after lengthy public hearings stretching over ~

‘many /montks. It cannot be said that the purposes of’

the Act are better served when an ‘inappropriate craft or

class determination is imposed upon over-12,000 employees

- You seem to imply in .your letter that United’s Tequest 3

for a public hearing is tardy and should have been re-

peated at the time the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks

_ amended its representation application. United: had no

_ way of knowing at the time the Brotherhood amended its

.. application that an election would in fact be held. -This

was not known until Mediator Klatte had chetked au-

thorization cards and on approximately December 19, 1962, .

t .

TTR REE SRNR HED Ys, aw

3 75 :

advised United that the Board had authorized an election.

Prior to that date, we could see no useful ‘purpose to be

served in pressing for a public hearing on the subject of

how employees should be grouped for voting purposes

_in an election that might never be held. °

. You further point out that United had a clear understand-

- _ ing of what is meant by the clerical, office, stores, fleet and

passenger service employees craft or class when, on No-

vember 2, 1962, we advised you of the total number of

United employees in that craft or class. We do not-under-

stand\ the significance of this statement. The fact that

United did advise you of the total number of employees.

in the group described as the craft or class did not, of

course, imply that United. considered that the grouping ~

was a proper one. Our request for a public hearing was

not for the purpose of being advised by the Board where

the boundaries of that craft or class lie. Our request was

based upon the firm beliéf that the Board should review

its determination of craft or class. in R-1706, et al, and

* determine, in light of the lapse of 15 years; and the other

factors set out in our letter of January 11, whether the

-1706 determination was still a proper grouping.

Finally, the imposition by the Board of an inappropriate .

railroad craft or class upon 12,700 employees of this: dy-

namic and changing air transportation industry is illogical.

The ‘‘clerical, . office, station, and storehouse employees

-craft or class’? grew up out. of the historical development

of the railroad industry. To say that a craft or class

springing from the history of the then static and now

declining railroad industry should be forcibiy imposed on

the airline industry, which has an entirely different history ° .

and is still growing, is illogical and improper. If the

Board restricts air carriers: to railroad rigidity, United

will not be able to discharge fully the obligation imposed

_ upon it by Congress through the Federal Aviation Act to

provide: efficient and economical service at reasonable

.»

——~« Charges to the public. In fact, my personal observations

of the operations and organization of Capital Air Lines .

before Capital had to be merged into United-or face bank-

ruptcy convinced me that part of Capital’s difficulties re-

sulted from the Board’s action in 1947 in forcing a vast

and heterogeneuos group. of ‘employees into a single craft

or class because that craft or class had been satisfactory

on rai}roads in the past and the Board ‘*hoped’’ it would

be in the future on air lines. ee: 3

For these reasons, we strongly urge the Board to recon-

sider its denial of United’s request for a Public hearing.

om ; Sincerely ‘yours,

ears C. M.: Mason

C. M. Mason ae

- ‘Senior Vice President—

alse ) Pérsonnel ~ |

ec: G. M. Harrison tues ee

A. J: Hayes a cae ‘

| W.F. Klatte mae

Exhibit 12

. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD __

a ~_. Washington

: ” ° February 4, 1963

~ NMB CASE No. B-3590

Mr. C. L. Mason, Sr. Vice President ~~

Unitea Air Lines, Incorporated

P.O. Box 8800 eee

Chicago 66, Illinois

Dear Mr. Mason:

“Acknowledgement, is made of your letter of January 25,

1963 addressed to Chairman Edwards of this Board, pro-

testing the Board’s refusal to hold a public hearing on the

)

question of craft or class in NMB Case No. R-3590, and ask-

ing the Board reconsider United’s request. .

The Board, in executive session on January 31, 1963, -

gave very careful consideration to the various statements

two organizations which are parties to this dispute are in

determination issued January 31, 1947, is the proper and

appropriate grouping of these employees ‘for. the purposes

of an, election under Case No. R-3590.° i

The Board-has received a number of letters and telegrams

_. purporting to be from-employees of United in this eraft or ;

~ class, protesting against a vote embracing the-entire craft”

or class, and in some instances, asking that the Board ine

clude a space on the ballot for a vote for ‘‘no representa-

tion’’.: A statement’ of the Board’s position on these two

questions has been prepared, dated J anuary 25, 1963, copies

attached. A large number of the communications ‘referred

tifying a hearing on craft-or class in Case No. R-3590.

Your remarks concerning the carrier’s interests in a craft

or class determination have been given full consideration.

Over the years, since the creation of the Board 1934, hun-

dreds of determinations of craft or class have been made. -

governing caryier employees in both the railroad and airline

_ industries. Accommodations to the crafts or classes found |

. appropriate by the Board have been made by the carriers”

concerned, when necessary, and with practicaily no protest.

_” agreement that. the craft or class of Clerical, Office, Stores,

Fleet and Passenger Service employees established by the’ ’

Board’s findings in NMB Case No. R-1706, -et al in the<.»

t. 3

_ to appear to have been inspired by your circular letter of

January 14, 1963 addressed to all United Employees eligi-

«ble to vote in the election under Case No. R-3590. The total

“number of such communications, however, represents only

_a small minority of the approximately 13,000 employees in

the overall craft or class which you have reported. The —

Board is not in position to recognize these requests as jus->

' 78

Under all the circumstances existing in this case, the

Board can see no justification to’ open the class or craft

_. question on its own motion. ‘Your request for reconsidera-

tion of the Board’s decision contained in our letter of Janu-

ary 17, 1963 is accordingly denied:

Mediators Klatte and Pierce, who are assigned to -the. -

. handling of this case, report that to date the carrier has not

furnished ie a list of the employees involved in this

dispute. The-tecord of this case shows that requests for

’ this list-have been made on the following dates:

December 19, 1962 by Mediator Klatte verbally to Mr.

Berhoud and Mr. Hill. “ees | Re

_ January 14, 1963 by Mediator Klatte to Mr. Berthoud

~ ’ January/47, 1963 in the Board’s letter to you

. January(21,.1963 by Mediator Klatte to Mr. Berthoud

January 28, 1963 by Mediator Klatte to Mr. Berthoud

Your attention is directed to the last sentence of Seetion

2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act, reading as follows: “_

‘‘The Board shall have access to and have. power to

make copies of the books and records of the carriers

to obtain and utilize such information as may be

‘deemed necessary by it to carry out the purposes and

provisions of this paragraph.’” :

You are hereby requested to furnish the list of employees __.

involved in this dispute, in the form requested by Mediator ‘

Klatte on December-19, 1962, and“corrected to January 14,

1963 without further delay. Your prompt advice as to when

. this list may be expected will be appreciated.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

E.C. Tompson .

| Executive Secretary

éc-to: G. M. Harrison — - -

A: J. Hayes” |

f «

oe a

ee)

Exhibit 13

Fi UNITED AIR LINES

1200 Algonquin Road, Elk Grove Township, Illinois

-,'. Mailing Address:’P.O. Box 8800, Chicago 66, Illinois _

- Executive Offices :

é * January 18, 1963

Mr. Fréheis J. O'Neill

Chairma).

, National Mediation Board

? Washington 25; D.C. :

~. Dear Mr: O'Neill:

Mediator Klatte has asked whether United Air Lines will

allow’the National: Mediation Board to ‘hold~a ballot: box

election on United Air-Lines property at points where fifty

(50) or ntore of United’s employees involved in Case: R-

3590 are located. Gd PASS

~ United Air Lines is willing to allow a ballot box election

_ on Contpany property provided the ballot follows the form

used by. the National Labor Relations Board in similar

union represéntation elections held under the National

. Labor‘Relations Act. In other words, the ballot would have

a space for the employee to vote against representation as

well as space for the employee to vote for représentation

by the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks or the International

* Association of Machinists. The ballot also could provide

space to vote for ‘‘any other organization or individual’’

or riot provide such a space, as the Board might deem

proper in the light of the revision of the ballot. We would

also expect that the customary rules would be established

and followed toinsure that the election is conducted without:

any undue influgnce upon the employees eligible to vote, If

the balloting is conducted in this manner, United also would

be willing to have the employees vote during their working

ve)

) e ee

hours in order to provide the fullest opportunity for them

to express their decision. = ae

- We want’ to make it very clear that United Air Lines -

- Tecognizes that how a representation election is conducted

is the function.of the National Mediation Board. We feel

‘strongly, however, that the employees eligible to vote in

the ‘election should know all the choices available to them

at the time the voting takes place and how to express‘ their

own free choice. The’ form of ballot customarily used by

the Board in elections: does not do this since. it provides

spaces only to vote for. a collective bargaining representa-

tive.. It does not offet any way for an employee who does

‘not want a collective bargaining representative to express

his choice to remain unrepresented.

We are, of course, aware that under the Board’s rules

the employees can remain unrepresented if less. than 51%

of the craft or class cast valid ballots in the election. In

effect, however, this mearis that the employee expresses his

choice to remain unrepresented only in a negative manner

—by not voting or by invalidating his ballot in some way.

Further, to the best of our knowledge, neither the Notice of

Election nor any other'instructions on voting issued by the

Board make clear to the employees how they can indicate

their desire to remain unrepresented.

_ We recognize that the form of ballot customarily used

by the National Mediation Board was adopted by the Board

in 1934, prior to the appointment of any of the Board’s*

present members. We further understand that the Board

in the past has/justified the form of its ballot on the.ground

that the Railway Labor Act contemplates that the em- °

-ployees shall have some form of representation. As stated

by the National Mediation Board in ‘‘Administration of |

the Railway Labor Act by the National Mediation Board,

1934-1957”, pp. 18-19: | .

‘<The above-quoted excerpts from the act show clearly —

that it was the intent of Congress in framing the..1934

pe) rie ge ote oe

——

81 .

Amendments to thé original Railway Labor Act of

1926, that both the carriers.and employees separately

hee designate representatives for the purpose of collective

_ bargaining. To effectuate this mandate of the -Con-

gress, the National Mediation Board, in 1934, designed

the form of ballot which has been used without material

change to the present time.. This valtot was drafted to

permit the employees to secure some form of repre-

" sentation, as’ contemplated in’the sections of the law .

quoted above. ‘It leaves to the majority of the em-—

ployees of any craft or class full freedom: to determine

who shall be:their representative for ‘the purposes of

the act.’’? (Emphasis supplied) — - * a

United suggests to the Board that:the legislative history

of the 1934 Amendments to the;Railway Labor Act in no

way supports the restrictive interpretation placed upon that

Act in the above statement. In fact, it lends strong support

to a contrary interpretation. ie )

enacted into law on June 21, 1934 as the 1934 Amendments

to the Railway Labor Act, ‘States in pertinent part, as fol-

lows:

“9: It (H.R.-9861) provides that employees shall be

free to join any labor union of their choice and likewise —

be free to refrain from joining any union if that: be

their desire and forbids interference by the carrier’s

officers with the exercise of said Tights.’’ (Emphasis

supplied) (House Report No. 1944 to gecompany HR.

9861, U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on

® Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d. Sess.,

1934 at p.2.) : cas pees

The bill being considered provided that ‘*Employees shall

have the right to organize ard bargain collectively through

representatives of their own choosing.’’ This is exactly

the same language used in Section 2, Fourth; of the Railway

"> Labor Act as finally enacted into law. It is evident, there-

fore, that the House Committee believed the right of em-

82.

EX ployees to. refrain from collective bargaining was implicit

‘in the language of the bill. |

It is also significant that the House Committee, unike the

National Mediation Board, saw nothing inherently incon-

sistent betwger the right of oyees to refrain from col-

lective bargaining and the - of Section 2 of the bill

. Which states. that one of the. purposes of the Act is ‘to:

provide for the complete independence of’ carriers and of

employees: in the matter of self-organization .. .”’

Further evidence that Congress,did not intend to deny

- employees the right to refrain from engaging in collective’

' bargaining is found in the following statement made by,

Commissioner Joseph P. Eastman, Federal Coordinator of

Transportation and draftsman: of the bill which was even- _

tually enacted into law, in response to a question raised by:

Mr. Huddleston in the House Hearings on H. R. 7650:

; “Mr. Houppieston : Well, as I get your idea it.is- the

purpose of this bill not to coerce organization and not

necessarily to imply organization. ° ii :

: ° ‘Commissioner Eastman : No, it does riot require

collective bargaining on the part of the employees. If

the employees do not wish to organize, prefer to deal

individually with the management with:regard to these

matters, why, that course is left open to them, or it

should be.’’ (Hearing, H.R. 7650, U.S. House of Repre-

sentatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- .

merece, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 1934 at p.57.) ae

Further corroborating the foregoing evidence of legisla- |

tive intent is the following statement by Senator Wagner’

* in the Senate Hearings on S.3266 -(the companion bill in

the Senate to. H.R. 7650) in which he defends the bill against

charges that it would tend to promote large national labor —

organizations : SE nate 2 p

“‘Senator Wacner: I am very glad you (Commis-

sioner Eastman) are bringing out these points so very |

_ Clearly. * * * (I) think that-is the purpose of the Act—°

» * wa 83

I- think it is so expressed in ‘language; to give the

worker a free choice to join ‘any union he wants, com-

pany union or no union, and yet they (i.e., the oppo- .

nents of the bill) have insisted (that) by giving him

. free choice that it creates a large national union. I do

* not know how that conclusion is reached, but it has.

been broadcast, go I am very glad you are clearing that

point.’”? (Emphasis—supplied) ‘(Hearings on’ S. 3266,

U.S. Senate, Committee on Interstate Commerce, 73d

_ Cong.,2d-Sess., 1934 atp.12.) eres

Finally, there is the following comment by Senator Wae-

ner at the Senate Hearings on S. 3266 in sponse to a

charge made by Mr. M. W. Clement, Vice-Pr ident of the

Pennsylvania Railroad Company, that the would have

the effect of compelling employees to join_#labor organiza-

tion: 7 v3

“Senator Waener: * * * I didn’t understand these

provisions compelled an employee to join any particular

union. J thought the purpose of it was just the o

posite, to see that the men have absolute liberty to join —

or not join any union or to remain unorganized. ;

‘‘Mr. Crement: That is the way we hope they will

read when they are finally amended.” ,

As. you also are aware, the form of the National Media- .

tion Board’s ballot was the ‘subject of. court review in

McNulty v. National Mediation Board, 18 F. Supp. 494

- (N.D.N.Y., 1936). In that case the.court decided that the :

form of the ballot used by the National Mediation Board

was improper because it did not afford the employees an.

;

as follows: 7 . ,

x _»2 Tt is manifest that this ballot. did. pot present the

_ issue to the eligible voters. a ae ie

| of course, as the mediator admittedly

ether the men desired to continue under

ntract method or the N ational Union -

opportunity to truly express their will, stating on pp. 501-02

:.') “The issue,

found, was wh

.—» the individual

' representation.

* choice between these meth

a Payer ade j . o

‘‘Concerning these two methods, the O.R.T. brief

says: ‘These two methods of employer-employee re-

lationships are diametrically opposite, both in theory »

and practice. They have nothing in common. There can |

be no representation under the first method and repre-

sentation is essential under the other.’ |

-“But-the employees had n cepoouicg to express a

ode! They were in effect told

that they must have representation for collective bar-

gaining and were ask to elect between the National .

Union (0.R.T.) and an nknown. ihe

‘‘Unless the statute in question is meant to compel a

majority of the employees (not an individual em-

ployee) to surrender their constitutional rights. to con-

tract for their own services, and the defendant O.R,T..

does not so contend, then ‘the ballot in question inno

real sense determines whether’ the employees: wish to

retain the old method of. individual bargaining or

’ prefer ‘to change. over to colléctive bargaining.

__,,“*In short, the ballot is an artificial thing in no wise

wish, but merely shows®hat, if they:must have collec- -

tive bargaining, they preferred the O.R.T. to some un-

known person or organization.

‘Tt is idle to say that ‘it was not necessary for the

' eontract men to affirmatively vote their desire in order.

to win but merely necessary that their vote be against

. representation bythe O.R.T.’: - - : oe - @

': “Fifty employees tried‘ to do just that by putting anx

‘mark in the sqgire opposite’the words -‘if you desire

' representation by any other organization or individual

mark an X in the square,’ but because they did not -

write“in the name of some organization or individual

as representative in collective bargaining, the votes

were declared void and not counted. , x

‘“‘The ballot gave them né op ortunity to vote

against representation by the ORT. for their choice

. was limited to representation by.0.R.T. or by some

own representative.’ 7

wk ys

_ .Continuing this line of reasoning, the. edurt stated: x74

“Confronted with such a ballot, many may have ,

-‘ ', feared that some militant group might want to write

in the name: of sthe president of the railroad or some

. \ obnoxious foreman, and, believing that: they had to.

select some one to represent them in collective bargain-

sentative, they. voted for the known O.R.T:

‘How they would have voted i the real issue be-

Tore them been presented by tlie ballot, no one knows

or can know until another ballot ‘presenting ‘that issue

is taken.”’ (p. 502) | Ey | Ne Pe iy

injunctive relief requested by O.R,T., explaining as follows :

..° Shall the court by: mandatory injunction compel

these .men to have collective bargaining when ‘they may *

. not want ‘it and: compel the road to treat: with the

O.R.T. ag representative.in collective bargaining in “

such circumstances as here exist. Clearly mot, “unless

the court has no other alternative. . . -’?-(pp. 502-503)

The court found that it was not absolutely bound to en-

_ Having concluded that the electi n was unfair, the court:

declined /to exercise its discretio ary power to grant -the

'. force the certification issued. by. the N :-M.B. under circum. .-

stances such as these where the manner of conducting’ the

election offended the court’s eonscience. No appeal was.

taken from the decision of the trial court, and although’ the

\ , . Supreme Court subsequently held in the Switchmen’s case

| 4820 U.S. 297 (1943)) that a certification by the N.M.B. is

‘ ot reviewable by a Federal District Co » the McNulty

| ease is still persuasive. authority in’ support of the proposi-.

\ - tion that the form of election ballot presently used by the |

|. N.M.B. doesnot permit a true expression ‘of employee |

| | _ sentiment.

\. / see its way, clear to revise its election procedures so’ that

\ Our employees and employees of other carriers im future

elections will have an opportunity to express their decision :

86 Mies te @

nee Se Cae eh 7. RP: eo

on all ofthe choices that are available to them, one of which

.is to remain unrepresented. We will be happy to discuss oe

this matter-further at the convenience: of the Board.:

a > &. Nery truly“yours,

¥ Charles M. Mason

ae ie * Senior Vice President —

. Personnel

. CMM: bg.

ec: G. M.; Harrison

_ A. J. Hayes

.W. F. Kilatte |

| Exhibit 140

| NATIONAL. MEDIATION BOARD

Washington :

Mr. Charles M. Mason, Sr., Vice President ae

United Air Lines, Incorporated . :

. P. O. Box 8800 , :

_ Chicago 66, Illinois i re oy

Dear Mr. Mason:

' Further reference is made td your letter of January 18,

1963 on the general subject of \the form of ballot used by

the National Mediation Board i conducting employee rep-

resentation elections under Section 2, Ninth-of the Railway

Labor Act. y.

As you have been previously.

sistently held, a'carrier is not 4 )

dispute involving the selection of\ a representative of its

' employees.. However, the Board welcomes the expression of

your views and will give youas ary of its practices and

rules in the matter of holding Tepresentation elections

ised, the Board has con-

rty to a representation

—

: are 87

which have been, developed as the best and most practicable

procedures to insure that such elections will be fair and:

free from interference, influence and coercion, - ;

As you state in your letter, ‘the form of ballot presently

used was adopted by the Board in 1934 and has been tised

‘Since that time as the form best designed to ascertain the

representation desires of a carrier’s employees for the pur-

pose of collective bargaining. The blank line appearing on

_ the present form of ballot ‘affords an opportunity to the

voter to vote for some organization or individual other than

those named on the ballot;-er he may refrain from voting at

all if he so chooses. There is no compulsion .that. he vote

for a contestant for representation. Introduction of a

“‘yes’’ or “‘no”’ ballot would contribute to, if it did not actu- *

ally encourage, an attempt to circumvent the mandate of

Congress that representatives be designated by carriers and

their employees for “the purposes described in Section 2,

First and Second of \the Railway Labor Act, which are

quoted belowefor ready reference - ;

‘First. It shall be the duty of all carriers, their

officers, agents, and employees to exert every reason-

‘Second. All disputes between a carrier or carriers

_ and its or their employees shall be considered, and, if

possible, décided, with all expedition, in conference be-

tween representatives designated and authorized so ~-

to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers and

by the employees thereof -interested in the dispute. ”’

The Board has reviewed your reference to the case of

McNulty vs. National Mediation Board 18 F, Supp. 494

(N.D.N.Y., 1936) contained on pages 4, 5 and 6 of your

letter. Your quotation from the decision of the District

Court omits reference to the fact the National: Mediation

Board was removed as a party to this case during the Court

proceedings. The Judge’s opinion contained the following .

' Statement not quoted in your letter:

‘‘The National Mediation Board not being a party to

this suit, the Court can make no order directly affecting -

that Board. ***** The conclusion then is that no party

is-entitled to affirmative relief. The complaint and the , —

cross complaints are all dismissed without cost to any

party against. any other party.”’

It will be observed that th

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.