# Transcript of Record — Railway Clerks v. Association for Benefit of Noncontract Employees > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0165%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1965 - **Citation:** 380 U.S. 650 ## 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, 7. ; 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 \ wy 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 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 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 a) —_———— - | 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 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, 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 on : ‘ 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: . I : 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 © .* 6 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. | i 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 a] 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. x 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 + +s e & 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 - it 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 § a? 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 ad Arcue.io. Giomettt. McCarty « ‘Arex L. ArauELLo : 2 ° Attorneys for Plaintiff fe 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 Se 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- | 4 C : 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. (c) In the event that insufficient facts ‘are presently on 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 « ° ee ~9 _ 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 2 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-. a Ae : | ’ . 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 9 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 re 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 te 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 4 ga place for a“‘‘no>* * | " or hb +3” \ 18 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 . * . - ‘ a . \ 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- er 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 22 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 ~~ ~~ a ~~—~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} 25 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’’. # § i. * / 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 e — 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 / ae — > | 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 9 &> q 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. 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 — / / / 38 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 —— i ‘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 1D '. 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- 9 soe ei Re nba eRe otal bien Atta ort OA BE QRS ve = 41 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. ~ ak 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. — yw =“ ? ; K 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 : : i ry ki s we +] a : 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--—_—_——"— 45 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. . XN 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. A 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) . a. 48 , 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 49 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- - ’ 2 50 ; 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, 51 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.’’ _ ee _ 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 52 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 x 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 5 - me. nag 53 - 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 ¥ ie A F & = 3 By s 4 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 56 - : : 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 ? \ cy -% *, ¥., the evidence upon which this recognition was. based and ~, CHarte®’M. Mason - Charles M. Mason - Senior Vice President Personnel — eae \ i. 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 at - 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 aa *. 72 .- . + & . , : + 4 « > ‘ i — . ¥ ° .* > 4 F - 4 - 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 o £ “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 ; . , EX ny b] ° — ~ Qo. . s @ 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 Geo. M. Harrison ~ , i Grand President — f Exhibit 9. I : UNTTED AIR LINES- © . 1200 aLeonquin ROAD, ELK GROVE TOWNSHIP, ILLINOIS o~ ‘ . Mailing Address: P | — “ / 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- ° ferred to as janitors and laborers to the highest type of © _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) . ° S ®, 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 = ? : we “pe 65 ' . - > $ ; Oy, a] 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 — 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- 74 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 without any public hearing whatsoever, © . - 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 eS 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 .» oo 76 ——~« 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 ) 77 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 thade in your January 25th letter. As you are aware, the © 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 g ' 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” | Wn. F. J. Klatte © ty io 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 _ - Telephone 625-1400 © ae - 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 > /. am ve) ) e ee hours in order to provide the fullest opportunity for them to express their decision. = ae wa - 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: | . ‘ 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 isclosing which metliod of contractitig the majority. © 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 Q. _ .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- © - ing, rather than take’such chances of an unknown repre- 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. _ ©)‘ We sincerely hope that the National Mediation Board will | \. / 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, - \y ‘e Since sending the telegram we have contacted: or been contacted by groups of employees of UNITED AIR LINES ‘in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Salt Lake SSE Boise, and can state that their feelings are identical as ours, Sr) scat TERRY ase ,; 101. : . | on this issue. We are speaking for over 1,200 people on the a West Coast alone. , ‘ Today: we were informed by the San Francisco employees that they have been contacted by Customer Service em- ‘ployees in other cities on the UAL system ‘including Salt . _ Lake City, Denver, Kansas City, Chicago, Detroit, Phila- delphia, Omaha and Pittsburgh, who expressed an identical view. . aos Pa’ ¢ . We earnestly repeat our request for an open hearing : where we can make a detailed presentation of ‘the reasons why it would be unreasonable and undemocratic to have an election with the voting class or craft including such dif. - ferent elements and interests as the one presently being eS RR RS RT ee proposed. ; Very truly yours, _/8/GrorcE W. Jansen ey. Instructor Passenger Service “GWJ: jm att. cee: W. A. Patterson, President UAT, i. . Senator Warren'G. Magnuson i _ ° 956P PST JAN 23 63 ae oo SEATTLE WASH'23 eo oe E. C. THOMPSON. « bles _ EXECUTIVE SECRETARY © ; °~ .) NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD ae _ 1230 SIXTEENTH ST NORTHWEST WASH DC SS DEAR SIR: THE UNDERSIGNED SPEAKING FGR THEMSELVES AND FOR 170 '_ OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CUSTOMER CONTACT CLASSIFICATION ' OF UNITED AIR LINES IN THB SEATTLE AREA, HEREBY FOR- _ MALLY REQUEST THAT THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD HOLD ate +. ae | is] fe} Z 3 : Z 3 es) 4 ed el ~ 2) 4 | ee) ea | | = by 4 3) ‘a eS & oa 197) Ss & _ WISHES OF HUNDRED OF UNITED AIR LINES EMPLOYEES IN SIM. TLAR EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES IN OTHER CITIES. THE UNDE® no arenes nema, STITUTE A DISTINCT CRAFT OR CLASS IN UNITED AIR LINES’ 102 ie SYSTEM, AND STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME BARGAINING AGENT THAT SPEAKS FOR SUCH TOTALLY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSONNEL AS RAMP, . AND STORES EMPLOYEES. PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR RULING ON THIS DEMAND FOR HEARING ‘ TO THE UNDERSIGNED, CARE OF GEORGE. W. JANSEN AT 2807 - 31ST AVENUE, SEATTLE 99, WASHINGTON. WE UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATION OF THE N. M.B. NO OTHER ' FORMALITIES ARE REQUIRED:OF A PARTY TO A BEPRESENTA- TION CASE TO INVOKE A HEARING OTHER THAN A WRITTEN _ BEQUEST SUCH AS THIS TELEGRAM. IF YOU PRESCRIBE ANY ADDITIONAL FORMALITIES TO BRING ABOUT A HEARING, WE ASK YOU TO ADVISE US WHAT THEY ARE AT YOUR EARLIEST CON- VENIENCB AND WE WILL PROMPTLY COMPLY. GEORGE W. JANSEN INSTRUCTOR PASSENGER SERVICE SAM N. KONTOS AGENT, PASSENGER SERVICE DICK WHITNEY AGENT, RESERVATIONS Exhibit 20 Bs ime as February 11, 1963 Mr. Leverett Edwards, Chairman National Mediation Board - WaShington 25, D. C. ; -' Re: Case R-3590 Association For Tue BEnerir oF Non-Conrract EMPLOYEES Dear Sir: “We submit herewith on behalf of the Association For the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees and the five under- signed individuals a Petition for Relief before the National Mediation Board as follows: | 1. The petitioners herein and the heitiiélies For The Benefit of Non-Contract. Employees, as of this date, repre- ‘sent 5100 employees, in the Customer Contact and office 103 and clerical group, of United Air Lines. This representa- tion is evidenced by signed representation capds from each of said employees. : : 2. The petitioners hereby apply for leave to intervene 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 further request _ the following specific action from the National Mediation Board. , (a) That ‘the seciltne ieatieis in case R-3590 be na ferred until there be a re-determination of the class or craft of employees. to be involved in: the election. (b) That the National Mediation Board, basing its ac- _tion on information already before it, make a re-determina- tion of the employees presently in the bargaining unit into — three groups comprised of: 1. -Office and clerical employees.. 2. Customer contact employees. 3. Ramp and stores employees. ait of which should be determined to be a separate class or craft for purposes of this representation case and for’ -future representation proceedings involving these em- ployees. . (c) In the event that insufficient facts are 1 on file or if the Board declines to re-determine the class and craft 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 evidence thus pre- sented, the National Mediation Board re-determine the class and craft-as requested. 104 (da) ie addition to the Seventies and notwithstanding *the ultimate determination of class and craft of the Na- tional 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 pro- vides 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 - declines 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’ statement to petitioners, in advance of the 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 and craft is based upon numerous reasons, including the following, each of which will be proved: by petitioners with appro- ~ priate evidence and authority in the event of a hearing. (1) The class and craft heretofore established by the Na- tional Mediation Board for this election includes approxi- - mately 12,500 employees of United Air Lines in-widely dif- ferent job categories. ‘There is no history of collective ‘bargaining common to these diverse groups. In. fact, one group (ramps and stores) is presently unionized, while the others (customer contact and office and clerical) have never . been unionized in the system. ,(2) Determination of cus- . tomer contact°and office and clerical employees to be sepa- rate classes and crafts is easily accomplished because they are readily identifiable units under both company personnel procedures and nature of work performed. (3) The National Mediation Board determination in R-1706, January 31, 1947 was prior to the significant post war operational develop ‘ments of the airlines industries. Thesé developments show that office and clerical, ramp and stores employees and cus- 105 tomer ‘contact employees are séparate classes and crafts and should -be treated as such. (4) The employees in these classes and crafts do not desire to be joined in one bargain- ing unit. (5) There is widely different job-training in the different job categories. (6) The nature of their work is significantly different. (7) There is no aspect of inter- , changeability of personnel between the different job classi- fications. (8) Vital interests of each category prevents fair representation of all three groups by one bargaining agent - without a serious conflict of et or a potential conflict of interest. Copies of this petition are being oma to the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, International Association of Machinists and United Air Lines. It is requested that all communica- tions regarding this petition be sent to: the undersigned in - care of the Association For the Benefit on Non-Contract Employees, 244 Kearny Street, San Francisco, California. 7 ies submitted, - /8/ James K. Lamona /s/ Ratex C. Jounson /s/ Puyuus Rurener /s/ Patricia S. Leany /s/ Heten M. Crisman Association For Ture Benerir OF Non-Contract EMPLOYEES : 2 /8/ JAMES F. SHeanan President (SEAL, / . 106 Exhibit 21 7 San Jose 29, California February 25, 1963 Mr. E. C. Thompson Executive Secretary National Mediation Board Washington 25, D.C. dh eared oe Dear Mr. Thompson: . jo Attached is a letter from the Adbeciailon for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees that has been directed to all Senators and the Representatives who have evidenced an interest in our case (R-3590). We sincerely believe that. ~ our cause is’ just, and of course are seeking aid from many sources. I feel it only fair that you have a copy of the letter. so that if any questions are directed to your sarc you will | have the proper background. re Mr. Tracy, I Believe, had. asked at our last meeting for the address .of the company that processed our IBM run. It is, Data Computing Corporation, 105 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California, Attn: Mr. Wright. We are still . - actively campaigning for memberships, and to date have in excess of 6,000 signed cards from non-contract employees. We hope to be able to complete our IBM tally by the end of this week; upon completion, the remainder of. our petition cards will be forwarded to you. I would [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0165%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.