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

Supreme Court brief1965

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

- bell RY * :

fe af 2 eae

\ é s f ‘SOurr, u, S&S

| UNITED AIR LINES, INC, PETITIONER;

in 8.

"NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Er AL.

°S

4 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 70'THE UNTTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DOE OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

“ad 4

is Oe

“4

_ PETITION POR CERTIORAILI FILED JUNE 1, 1964 cane

CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 12, 1964

; =

cee INDEX. ie

Pe ee eer 5 8 ei’

a ae 4 =.

a2 ; eC ni, _ “PaGE :

Affidavit of C. P. Hutchens: biteweneuie eer eee ee

_ Affidavit of Charles M. Mason:............. eens 14°"

Exhibit A cee cece recce eee cccces ET SP Pecceee Pos 31. .

Mabiblt Bs .... cst ys POM ae See $

SC aia pn iets 3g

i—_— «ss cee evuwus ius Cwclan absent “41

SS Seep ee gulecisetubees ek 43

ree EE RPL FOO jee

SERRE nen TER nae ea e- <A...

SESE Sas ae DS. aoe es

ap WE Too af eae Mes cet ‘*

i coe te ore om rere kee Pe

a, OEE AF eal Wp ge seb esh ce 55,

‘Exhibit L ............ saveustavdion a ee ee |

-» 4 , Mxhibit M ,.:...... ned aventeneeviecsecstes GB -. Gerd,

aac: = ear OAR Le Fee eee Peery a wy. >?

+ B,C ED ee eee a

Exhibit P ....... Age RI Re a se gies Soak ale ae

dk SO ek. SOR eem . 82

NT ise 0% sce Ob ak ce as a a Or 85

RI isa son cadens cuter ccs; ahha a ru

Exhibit T (etevuges write tees ences eeweewe 95 ey

IPCs a eee pace esl, OO ,

Exhibit .V .:........:; AA as Dt AO 101,

Affidavit of Francis A. O*NGIN, TE. vi vevececes. eeu 142 o

~ Affidavit of David 8. any hn 4

. - Affidavit of. Eugene C.. Thompson bur een ene ewan uaa 5111, A

: 2 ke ee Rare eae. ‘s,. EPS eee ‘sg0-<0190

Ss ot | ee ee eee ....+-Omitted

CY ; P

LOL ee

Sete , ;

Be A

&, f ae . es P

YS © a hs " -@.

cs ora viiniedgescentieketioa NR.

Exhibit No. 5...... oc epesesccegecsecce : .i...Omitted

Exhibit yee pevecees eer re wine 122 ;

Exhibit No. Mvegeedecvccecesvscvevcsscesvecees 126

Ja Exhibit No. ‘8.. serrate reeeoes a Pes ee eee 127

| ii ‘Exhibit No. 9.... nents sete f oocyte wee eees cakeus 128-

in Exhibit No: 10... veneees weap ee eens eeeeees ees 129° oat.

Tree ee eee teen ees 131

Complaint for ‘Injunction. ../...........seeeeeeeeee 8

. Docket Hntries ....60.......00. keen enrdesaacien 1.

Motion for Pidtatases Injunction.’. tos SANE Doe AO 11

be ‘Motion. of Defendants to Dismiss the Oumplaint | or,’

in the Alternative, for Summary J eT .-- 110

| Notice of Appeal. ., ny pee dei incow enti Mes oes tae 145

Ore r Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

— ent and Dismissing Complaint. ao vesesneessey, 144

Supplemental Affidavit of. Charles M. Mason. wie ciaie

Exhibit A \, oo be eee dee e reece eees ae a. Keen ae

—* OF <hscgeveess nine deeens teeca we Chee eds 140

Original Print ,

Proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals

' for the District of Columbia Crear tiadiatiicandiastacts 146 -146~

¢ | Opinion, Per Curiam .....: : 146 146

'~ “Opinion concurring in part and eens 3 in part,

Wright, J. : «149. 149

Judgment : halle 156 = s-155

‘Petition for reheating (omitted in printing) Scciities ¢ 157 157

» Order denying petition for spbtarjng ‘- 167 - 157

Clerk’s" So pag in ee - solids pe 157

_Order allowing certiorari - sent nensenton -. i Me.

os Rf e a

\ .

ad e

Pdle

re)

Be | “

° : e = : , inte, .

Gs: —. Civil Docket. -- \

bs _ \ >

Unrrep States District CourT FoR THE :

. District or CoLuMsia.— |

United Air Lines,Inc. == =")

vs. ’ -

Nationa’ \ ediation, Board; Lever-

' ett Edwards, Individually and as Sremwy t 402-68,

‘Chairman of the National Media- Inj ti m

tion Board; Francis A. O'Neill, (07°

Jr., Individually and as ‘Member

of the National en Board |

Attorneys: ieee. Ges m

* James Francis Reilly, 1625. K St., N. W.

John W. Donglas, Donald B. MacGuineas, Harlan F.

Leathers, Richard §. Beatty, Dept. of Justice. :

1963 y: bade

Feb: 12 Complaint, appearance filed

* Feb. 12 Summons, copies (5) ard copies (5) of Complaint

Benn, issued D. A. Ser. 2-13-63 A. G. Ser. 2-14-63 -

oe (#1, 2, 3 Ser. 2-13-63). | 25

Feb. 21 Motion of pltf for seidiadtones injunction; P&A;

affidavits (3) ; ¢/m 2/21/63; MC 2/21/63. Ex-

hibits A thru We . filed

* Mar. 8 Opposition .of detts to motion for preliminary

~—injunction; P & A; c/m 3-8-63._ App. John W.

Douglas, Donald -B. MacGuineas, Harlan F.

Leathers and Richard S. Beatty. + filed

Mar.

"Mar.

‘Mar.

-.% > te ame

z | Motion bf defts to dismiss or for summary judg. .

ment: P & A; Statement; Exhibits 1-11; Affi-

“davit ; ¢/m 3-5-63. M. C. : filed

. 18. Supplemental affidavit of Charles M. Mason in

support of pitf? s motion for preliminary in- .

’ junction ; exhibits A&B. « filed

18 Opposition of, pltf to motion to dismiss or fdr

summary judgment; ¢/m. 3/18/63. : , filed

. 21 Reply memorandum of defts i in-support of motion -.

to-dismiss. or for summary judgment ; affidavit;

c/m 3/21/63. : filed

25 granting motion of: defts ‘for summary

‘judgment ; dismissing complaint with preju-

dice ; and, dismissing motion for preliminary. .

“jrijunetion as moot. (N) _ Matthews, J. ~:

27 Notice of appeal’ by pltf from order 3/25/63. —

Deposit by Reilly cual Copy mailed 'to H.

Leathers. Ae filed

2 Cost bond on appeal in sum of $250.00 with Hart-.

: ford Accident & eeney Co., “Approved.

- (fiat) ooo ae Jones, J.

- 12 Record on appeal delivered ies USCA forthwith.

' Deposit by Reilly $.95.

. 12 Receipt from USCA for original papers. filed

. 12 Order directing Clerk to transmit entire original —

* file to USCA forthwith. (N) Micro 4/10/63

: ; | — “ . Matthews, J.

ee af

Ix THE Usrrep § Sains Disraict Court

For: - District of Columbia ”

\ United Air Lineé, Ene. O'Hare In-)

‘ternational Airport, P. O. Box ‘

8800, ee 66, Illinois, - ~

. Plaintiff. | ‘

. SE ERA ee

National Mediation Board; Lever-

- ett Edwards, Individually and as | Civil Action, ~

Chairman of the National Media- [ No. 402-63.

tion Board; Frantis A. O’Neill,

A Individually and as Member

_ of the National Mediation Board,

1230 Sixteenth, oe N. W., :

bibs Dt.

Delesidunte. bi

Complaint for Injunction.

Plaintiff, United Air Lines, Inc., by its attorneys, com-

plains of defendants as follows:

1. ‘This action arises under the Constitution of ite.

United States and the Railway Labor Act (the ‘‘Act’’),

45 U.S. C.,§ 151 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin de- .

fendants from (1) proceeding with a representation elec-

tion under that Act among certain-€mployees of plaintiff,

» ¢ .

or issuing any certification respect thereto, unless

and until defendants accord plaintiff the right to be heard ~

as a party in interest on the appropriateness of the craft

or class with respect to which such election will be held,

and (2) conducting any ‘such election with a form of ballot

: which does not allow an eligible employee to cast a vote

against representation. | The matter in controversy ex-

ceeds the sum of. $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

ee jeriagietion is es on 28 U. 8. C. §§ 1331 and

2337.

oy 4 : -0

: aan ach

ee Count I... = 9

2. Plaintiff-is a corporation organized and existing |

* under the laws of the State of Defaware and is a com

carrier by air engaged in scheduled interstate air transpor-

tation within the continental. limits of the United States,

overseas to Hawaii, and internationally to Canada.

a Defendant National Mediation Board (the “Board ——

_ is an agency, gf the United States Government established —

under the Act. . Defendants ‘Edwards and O’Neill are

chairman and member, respectively, of the Board. All

defendants are located within the District éf Columbia.

4. The Act, which is.applicabled¢o air and rail carriers,

provides that employees.of a carrier shall have the right

to organize and bargain collectively through ee

of: their own choosing, and that the majority of —

~or class of employees shall have the right to d mine

who shall be the representative of the craft or class. (Sec-.

tion 2~Fourth; 45 U: S. C..§ 152, Fourth.) In the event

of a dispute as to who are the representatives of the

carrier’s employees, the Board has the duty to investigate

such dispute upon the request. of either party to the dis-

pute and to certify the names of the individuals or organi-

zations authorized to represertt the employees ‘in e dis- -

The carrier is then required to treat wi “such

BN for the craft or class. (Section 2, “Ninth;

C. § 152, Ninth.)

{On or about. August 24, 1962, the Brotherhood of

yay and ———— Clerks, Freight Handlers, Syotl

dispute among a group of employees of plaintiff described

- as the clerical, office, stores, fleet, and passenger service

ganization within the meaning of the Act; bidet’:

ices of the Board under the provisions of Section

. 2, Ninth bf the Act to investigate an alleged ‘representation

. 5

° , . ‘ * .

* ~ . - » Hh ~! *

an cece Pah 3 ‘ 5 my *

s ° Pd

- employees, cotisiling's certain stores and fleet cebviee omn- |.

ployees now represented: by” another labor organization, ~ ©

the International Association of Machinists (the ‘‘IAM’’).

The d docketed the case as R-3590, After the IAM

‘protes the grouping of em loyees. described by the

Brotherhood, the. Bro ood amended its application to

" deseribe the greup ) of employees as ‘ the clerical, office, stores, —

digs -fleet--and-passenger sérvice employees, without any - ex-

clusions, The IAM and Brotherhood arggrecognized ‘by

ee Board as parties in interest in R-3599,

_ 6. The composition of a eraft or class of eeapleyese

rights of plaintiff in the onduct of its business. The craft

or class the Brotherhood seeks to ‘represent in Case R-3590

73, numbers approximately. 12,700 employees i

a a in many different and unrelated

8 classification’, such as-Glectronic computer operators, ticket

agents, and cleaning women. The combining of these em-

ployees in a single craft or class for collective bargain-

~ (img-purposes will have a substantial and adverse impact

' -*on the operations and cost of conducting plaintiff ’s busi-

ness. Ga

7. Shortly (after plaintiff. was notified bythe Board of

its intention to conduct an election among the cleri

ce, stores,: fleet and passenger service ‘employees of

a plaintiff, plaintiff requested the Board to conduct a hear-

ing to determine the appropriateness of this grouping, and

to permit plaintiff to participate in such hearing as a party

in interest. This request was denied. The Board stated,

in effect, that it would have conducted such a hearing if

‘Seither labor organization involved had so requested, but

that plaintiff as a carrier, had no legal right to be heard

or to demand a hearing on La craft or class‘questiaqn. Neither

_ “gf, the | labor organizations involved requested such a hearing

op and accordingly, the Board, unless enjoined, will pre:

aan °

Ts _— “9 : ee

oe * . - &

—_—

- c5ed with an . election among plaintiff 's ‘aaaleess in the

_ grouping described in the Brotherhood’s spleen: as”

* amended. i Se ——

. 8 Plaintiff has’ a ‘constitutional right to a heating on

- the’ ‘question of the composition of the craft or class of its

" ebbneions with respect to which’ it ‘may. be required: to

_ bargain collectively with a majority representative. The -

action of the Board in denying plaintiff. this right, and in

arbitrarily and capriciously accepting , the craft or class

designation as agreed upon between the labor organizations

involved without any hearing on or censideration of its

? effect upon plaintiff, constitutes a violation of plaintiff’s ;

constitutional right to due process’ under the Fifth ee:

_» ment to the United States Constitution. _- %

9. If the Board should proceed with an ‘election among |

the gre ping of employees described in the application of ¢ ¢

Brother ‘hood, as amended, in Case R-3590, and if the Board ‘

should certify a representative for such grouping, plain-

tiff will be, under a statutory duty to bargain collectively |

with such representative, and may be subject to criminal

penalties under the Act if ‘it refuses to do so.:There is

no statutory procedure for judicial review of Board pro-

ceedings.. Therefore, plaintiff has no. adequate remedy at .

law to vindicate its constitutional right to due. process.

Plaintiff will suffer-irreparable i injury to its business and

property: cunless. the Board’ is’ restrained from holding

such election, or certifying such represéntative, - - without -

. first ‘according to Plaintiff the due pees: to which. it is

entitled.

NS oa v : Couns II. . 2

10. pesca, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Count I of this ee ;

eee are i ttn realleged and made a part of this Count:

i. The Board intends to proceed with an lectin

* among the ey 12,700 oe of plaintiff i in

ninsia

5 “ie grouping ininiPin. the a of t Brother. / /

hood, as amended, in Case R-3590. : at 8

" "12. ‘The procedures which the Board has, stated it wit

* ity of the 13 eligible employees, and the four votes for '

. —~

—ns

& , , i —

oy 7 ; a $ Ge oe

follow in, such election contravene the requirement. ¢ “the

_Act that the majority of the employees in the craft or

class shall have’ the right to elect a a représentative for the

eraft or class. The ballot which the B Board intends to use in

such election does not allow an eligible employee td°cast a

_ valid vote against representation, a righ

provisions of. the Act\and: clearly inte

Thus an employee who désires no re

express his intention by refysing to sip sigue in’ the -

d by Congress. |

sentation. can only

election.

13. The Board has stated that an election is vahd if —

a majority of the eligible oters in the craft er class

cast valid ballots. A majority. of ‘the’ valid ballots cast.

nplicit in the ~

is deemed sufficient to ¢lect a representative. A ballot .

_is considered valid ‘by: the Board only if cast for a ‘repre-

' sentative. -A ballot pon which is written ‘‘ng representa-..

tive’? or which i is €ast blank is not considered valid.

14. The Board. procedures thus make it possible for a

minority of eligible employees to elect a representative for ©

_the entire craft or class, contrary to the’ desires of the

majority. Hor example: if of 13° einployees eligible to .

participate. ‘i’ an election, six desire * “no representation at

; ail, three desire Union A but no other union, and, four de-

_ sire Union B, there 1 is no possible. way ander Board pro-

cedures for the. six to cast’a valid ballot; the remaining

seven voter will then determine the election, being a major-

Union B will carry the election, being ‘a majority of the

‘seven. If the ballot included space for a vote against

: representation, as does the ballot used by the. National,

Labor Relations Board under its procedures, then under the ©

same example Union B would not have a majority and on a

8 j

vunidll the vote wut be Sasi wetne for — B and: nine

vetes for no representation. |

15. Plaintiff has requested the Board to use a — of

-ballot: which would permit:an employee to cast a valid

' vote for or against: representation :in order to ‘insure an

~ accurate expression of the employees’ desires, but the Board

has refused to modify the form of ballot it intends to use. °

16. The requirement that an employer bargain collec-

: tively with its employees is a limitatioron its right: to other-

' wise conduct its business free of restraint; Tt “has ‘been

judiéially, determined that it is not ot an tnreaconable: re-.

straint eto legally require such bargainirig with the true

representative ofa majority of employees:for all: employees

in the bargaining group, including the dissenting or dis-

_ interested minority. The. .Act imposes only this limited -

duty. It is an unreasonable restraint On-such right to red

quire an employer to bargain yith a representative on be-

half of all employees in a bargaining group when the ma-.

jority of employees in _ group do-not desire such

i epresentation.

. © hye election. sicdiakica ‘of the Boat enlargis upon

the limited statutory ‘duty ‘Imposed on a carrier by the Act

to treat with a representative determined by a majority

of the employees in the craft or class and are therefore

‘beyond the scope of the Board’s statutory powers. The

Board procedures impose an unreasonable restraint on the

right of. plaintiff to conduct its business since. they do not

_ insure that plaintiff will be required .to deal only with a

true representative of the the majority of employees within

the craft or class. Hence these procedures constitute a dep-

rivation of plaintiff ’s property, rights without due process

in contravention of the. Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

18. Ifthe Board should proceed with an election “with .

the form of ballot it has stated it intends to-use and if'a ~

- : ; - we

__ representative is certified as a-result of such election, it

will bé impossible to determine after such election whether ©

the representative is the true representative of the major-.

_ ity of employees ‘in the. craft or class ‘for- which ‘the elec-

tion is held. If the representative receives a majority of the

votes cast, but: less than a majority of the tetal number

eligible to vote in the election, then it will be impossible

to @etermine whether the employees not voting did not

. vote hecause they desired no representative or whether they

‘ _were indifferent. If the representative receives a majority _

,of the total number eligible to vote in the election, then it °

will be impossible to/determine what influence the form of

ballot itself had on the voting of the employees who did. .

participate and: found—thomselves: unable to vote pane

representation. ~

19. If the Board should proceed with an election i in Case ~

R-3590 with. the form of ballot it intends to use and should

the Board certify a representative ‘as a result of such elec-

tion, plaintiff will be under a statutory duty, to bargain col-

lectively with such representative, and may. be subject to ©

~ eriminal penalties undeg . the Act if it refuses: to do so.

_ There is ‘no statutory procedure. for judicial review °of E

' Board proceedings. Therefore, plainti* has no adequate

remedy at law to vindicate’ its constitutional right to due

process’ or*to redress the unauthorized acts of the Board. °

. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable i injury .to its business -and -

. property unless the Board i is testrained from holding such

-élection without. using a form-of ballot which permits ar .

employee to vote against representation. | q

-Wuenerore, Plaintiff prays that the Court ‘i dssue a pre-

liminary injunction to be made permanent upon final. hear-

ing: es

A, ~Sidtraieine defendants from conducting : any pic

tion among plaintiff’s employees, or “certifying any repre-

‘sentative with respect thereto, pursuant to Board .Case

‘s

10°

i any other siiiiiie before the

ndueting a hearing and according .

| plaintiff an: opportunity to be heard as a. ‘party in interest

on any question relating to the appropriateness of the craft .

or lass of employees athong whom any such election. isto:

: be held; - Magn :

iB Restraining ‘defendants from covet. any. elec-

tion ; among plaintiff’s employees in any craft or class in

which the form: of ballot does ‘not: permit an. eligible em-

ployee to cast a valid ballot against representation. |

. Plaintiff further prays for-such other and further relief

vas this Court shall deem just and proper. --

H. Tempieton Bapwn i

Stuart BernsTern;*. - —

-Epwarp R. Lev, | esos

231 South La Salle Street,

~ Chicago . 4, Illinois, |

“ .ee3 Beene! Francis Remy, _

1625 K Street, N W.,

Washington 6, D.C., 1

Attorneys. for bea

United Air Lines, ane.

= Mayen, FRIEDLICH, Symes, :

JTrERNEY; Brown & Piatr, |

231 South La “Salle Street, ba

Chtenge, 4, Illinois,

' Of Counsel. .

AEA ie ee | oe pone

. a i ‘ie

oa | Ie THE Useme Srares Disraicr Court

For The District of Columbia

; sie ; (Caption) cm b

Motion for ; Preliminary. Injunction.

}

Now Comes United Air Lines, Inc:, plaintiff herein, by:

he attorneys, and pyr uant to Rule65 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure; moves the Court to enter a ‘preliminary

injunction, and states in. support thereof as. follows: -

1. Plaintiff’s verified complaint for injunctive and other ~

relief, was filed-herein on February 12, 1963.

2. As more fully ; appears from the affidavits filed here- .

with ‘of Charles M. Mason, C.. P: Hutche#®. and David S.

. Ritner and said verified complaint, defendants will ‘proceed |

to hold an election’ among a’ grbup of plaintiff 5 employees ,

before trial can be had, .ir violatién of plaintiff’s statutory

- and constitutional rights, and to plaintiff ’s irreparable. in-

jury.

: ary injunction : : :

A. : ‘Restraining defendants Peiei conducting any -

tion among plaintiff’ s employees, or certifying any repre-

sentative with respect theretd, pursuant to National Media-

tion Board Case: R-3590, or pursuant to any other proceed-

ing before the National Mediation Board, without first-con-' -

_ ducting a hearing and’ according plaintiff an opportunity to

be heard as a party in interest on any question relating to

the appropriatess of the craft or class of employees among,

whom any such election is to be held; __- re

_B. Restraining: defendants from conducting any election .

_ among plaintiff’s employees in any craft or elass in which ‘

the form of ballot does not permit an e ligible employee, to.

qust a — anced vege representatip 7 ar es

Wherefore plainitift moves the Court to enter a prelimin-

* ° oe 12

~ Pursuant to Rule 9(by-éf the Rules of this Court, lain ;

“tiff requests oral ais ia on this motion.: -

A. _ TEMPLETON iia

"Sruarr BERNSTEIN,

Epwarp R. Lev,

. 231 South La Salle Street

Chicago 4, Illinois,

James Francis REILLY,

1625 K Street, N.W.,

Washington. 6, D. C.,

Attorneys fos

all United Air Lines, Inc.

‘Maver, Nii’ Spirss, vA ce

. ° Trmrney, Brown & PuatrT, ~

231 South La Salle Street, v .

Chicago 4,AMoinois, “| ey

Of Counsel.

| . ae

he | , =e d

> —4 :

“te ie 3 OE

In Tue Unrrep Srartes District Covrr.

Foryhe District of Columbia

oes ec ae ee (Caption)

/ ‘Affidavits of Charles M.. Mason, -

&: P. Hutchens and Davis §S. Ritner :

In Support of Plaintist’s ’s Motion —

'- For Preliminary Injunction

_ H. Tempretonx Brown,

" Stuart BERNSTEIN;

Epwarp R: Lev, s

” . 231 South he Salle Street

Chicago 4, IHinois.

F tem

- James Francis Remy, -

1625 K Street, N.Wi>

Washington 6, D. C.,

_ Attorneys for.

; United Air times, Ine.

Mayer, Frrepuicu, Spress,

Tierney, Brown & Puart,

- 931 South La Salle Street,

_ Chicago 4, Illinois.

~ Of. Counsel.

‘

Affidavit

CHARLES M. MASONy being first daly sworn, on oath |

deposes and says:

1. I am Senior Vice President, Sesciiih, United Air

Lines, Inc. (‘‘United’’).

2. United is.a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware and is a common carrier

by air engaged in scheduled air transportation within the « -

_ continental limits of the United States, overseas to Hawaii, .

_and internationally to Canada, and is: subject to the provi-

sions. of the Railway Labor Act lea eal and the Federal

Aviation <Act.

3. On August 24, 1962, The Brotherhood of Railway and

Steampship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and: Station

Employées (‘‘Brotherhood’’), a ‘labor organization and

representative within the meaning of Section 1, Sixth of

the Act, invoked the services of the Nationa] Mediation

Board (‘‘Board’’) to investigate pursuant to Section 2,

‘Ninth of. the Act a representation dispute alleged to exist

_ among certain United employees. The case was docketed

' Brotherhood as involved in the dispute were described as

by the Board as R-3590. The employees designated by the

follows:

“*Commonly known as clerical, office, stores’ (exclud-

ing stores employes represented as of August 24, 1962

by the International Association of Machinists), feet

(excluding fleet service employes represented as of .

- August 24, 1962; by the International Association of

Machinists) and passenger. service employes.’’

By letter dated August 27, 1962, Mr. George M. Hatrista,

Grand President of the Brotherhood, requested the Board

to permit former employees of. Capital Air Lines, even *

= though excluded from the ‘oraft or class” designation,

to participate in the election. A copy of this letter is -

attached hereto as Exhibit A. | ie

4. On August 30, ‘1962, the Board advised me of the

Brotherhood’s application and requested me to furnish’

the total number of employees involved. -A copy ‘of the

Board’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. My reply

15 .

dated. September 7, 1962, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

My letter dated November 2, 1962, furnishing the informa-

tion requested by the Board is attached hereto as Exhibit

ae On.September ‘11, 1962, Mr. A. J. Hayes, International

President, - International Association -of Machinists

~ (‘‘IAM’’), advised the Board that the craft or elass of em-

ployees designated by the Brotherhood did not conform to .

prior Board determinations of “eraft or elass. A-copy of -

Mr. Hayes’ letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The | -

Brotherhood ’s original application would have excluded

from the group for which certification -was sought ‘all

gUnited employees represented as of August 24, 1962, by

_ the IAM. On August 29, 1962, the Brotherhgod advised the |

. Board that it meant by its origizial application to exclude -.’

only ificumbent United employees represented by the IAM

under agreements effective on or prior to August.24, 1962,

but that employees represented by IAM by yirtue-of any

agreement entered into with United after August 24, 1962,

Were to be included. A copy of Mr. Harrison’s letter is at-

" tached hereto as Exhibit F. On October 5, 1962, the Brother-

hhoed amended its original statement of the craft or class

_ to substitute a‘comprehensive group of United employees

described as ‘‘clerical, Office, ‘stores, fleet and passenger

service employees’? without exclusion of employees repre-

sented by the IAM. A copy of the Brotherhood’s letter of

amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

5. This comprehensive ‘group numbers approximately

12,700 employees, or moré than one-third of a tatal work

force at United of approximately 32,000 employees. It in-

”

cluder employees performing such varied work as (1) office

‘and clerical (approximately 4,500), (2) ramp and stores —

(approximately 3,050), and (3) public contact work, includ-

ing sales, reservation, and ticket agent work ( approximate-

ly 5,100). Their salary range is $280 to $730 per month. Of

the 12,700 employees involved, the approximately 3,050

ramp and’ store employees.are currently represented for

bargaining purposes by the IAM, and have been so. repre-

_sented since 1948. The remainder, or approximately-9,700; ;

_ are not now represented at United by a labor organization,

and never have been. =

6. By letter dated October 8, 1962 (Exhibit H ateeibea )

hereto) and addressed to Mr. Harrison, a copy of which I

_ received, the Board requested mé to furnish on behalf of

United the number of employees,in the amended ‘‘craft or

class’’, sought to be. represented by the Brotherhood. I

concloded: from ,this that the Board ° had adopted — the

Brotherhood’s amendment of the ‘‘craft or class’’ and.

would proceed with its investigation of the alleged repre-

sentation dispute among the 12,700 United employees in-

volved. Attached hereto as Exhibits I and J, respectively,

are copies of Mr. Hayes’ letter to the Board dated October

23, 1962, and Mr. Harrison’s letter to the Board dated

October 26, 1962, — relate to i of inter-union

raiding. .

"7 The ‘‘craft or class’? of United employees in which

the Board will proceed with an election to select @ bar-

gaining representative is completely inconsistent with

United’s organizational structure which is. based upon

’ classification by job function. There is a wide variance in

job duties within’ the ‘craft or class.’? The employees are

distributed, in, entirely -different departments of the com-

pany, and share no identity of bargaining interest. Funce-

tionally, they are divided as follows:.

1. Office and clerical employees.

“

2, Public contact employees.

_ ° 8, Ramp and stores employees.

Entirely apart from the operational and organizational —

problems with which United will be faced in attempting to,

administer conglomerate categories of employees as a

single unit, United will also be faced with the formidable

problem of attempting /to reach labor. agreement with a

_single representative bargaining for employees with vary-

ing duties, interests and working conditions. In my judg-_

ment, this will result in substantial and continuing impair-

ment of United’s ability to avoid labor disputes. ©

8. For these reasons I urged the Board, by letter dated _

January 11, 1963, to hold a public hearing at which United

could offer evidence bearing on the craft or class question.

. A copy of my letter is attached hereto as Exhibit K.-T:

S stated: : ee

“ * «We wish to point, out to the Board that the group

of employees covered in the representation application °

filed-in the above case does not coincide, either in its

original or amended form, with any currently appli-

cable craft or class determination. Further, there are

distinguishing features between ‘the members’ of the

shetérogenegus group of employees involved in this

applitation:which the Board has not had the opportu-

nity to fully consider in any -prior proceedings. Ata

public hearing, the Board will learn of the wide vari-

ances in the training, skills and responsibilities 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 office employees and the janitorial and cleaning

employees. The lack of unanimity. in the air transport

industry in general and on United in particular with

reference to the organization of operations, the selec-—

tion, training, use, representation and “lack of per-

manency in respect to these factors in this dynamic.

_ and rapidly changing industry can and should be con-

sidered by the Board.” :

18.

I poiaiva out to the Board that the ‘‘craft or class”

of clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service em- .

rg was established by the Board in 1946 (Case No. R-

1706) at a time when the Board had. no knowledgé of the

changes that. at.would and-did later otcur. in the air: transport

-—industry. I stated: |

, “In 1946, in R-1706, the Mediation Board was asked

to establish for the first time on an airline a craft or

class grouping of employees ranging from what the

Board referred to.as janitors and laborers to the high-

est type of technical office. employees. The Board at-

tempted in that case 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 transport industry, the Board was

forced to treat with théimportant subject of craft or

" class if somewhat of a vacuum with the ‘hope’ that its

prospective determination would provide a basis for.

stable labor relations ‘in the future on airlines only

_ + because such a craft had been found to provide such a

~ basis in the past on railroads, Although the Board did

avoid a multiplicity of crafts or classes by its deter-

mination in R-1706, the Board simply did not have

knowledge at the time of its decision (January 31,

1947) of the changes that would and did later occur

in the air transport industry.’’.

9. By letter dated January 17, 1963, the Board ‘turned

down 1 my request for a hearing, stating:

. ‘The various comments made im the remainder of

- ‘your letter of January 11, 1963 have been given careful

consideration by the Board. The Board wishes to call

. your attention; first, to the fact that the carrier is not.

‘a party to this representation dispute. Secondly, no

request for a review of the craft or class established

by the, Board’s determination in Case No. R- 1706, et |

al has been received from either organization party to

NMB Case No. R-3590. The request contained in your

letter of January 11, 1963, is not timely made, since

‘ 2 : i=

—

SA RAR Od Dy OE PL Tim

° : . 19 | ae ae ‘\ *

~ the Board, on December 19, 1962, found that+a Tepre- |

sentation dispute existed among ‘the employees in this.

craft or class, and has authorized an election.

‘‘For the above reasons, the Board must deny your

request of January 11, 1963 for a public hearing on

the subject of. a, review of the determination made in

Case No. R-1706, et al.’’

"A eopy of this letter is. attached hereto as Exhibit L.

10.. On January 25, 1963, T again wrote the Board. to

urge that it conduct'a publi¢ hearing to establish the proper

- eraft? or class at United a1 ‘<determine, in light of the

_ lapse of 15 years, and the other factors set out in our letter

of January 11, whether the R-1706 determination was still

a proper grouping.’’ I stated:

. ‘Finally,’ the imposition by the Board of an inap-

<i } ‘propriate railroad craft or class upon 12,700 employees.

of this dynamic and changing air trangportation in-

dustry is illogical. The-‘cleri¢al, office, station, and

storehouse employees.craft or class’ grew.up out of the

historical ‘development of the railroad industry. To

say. that a craftor class springing from the history of

the then static and ‘now declining railroad industry

should be forcibly imposed on the airline industry,

which has an entirely different history and is still

growing, is iNogical: and improper. If the Board re-

stricts 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 reason-

_able charges to the public. In fact, my personal obser-

vations of the operations and organization of Capital

Air Lines before Capital had to be merged into United

or face bankruptcy convinced.me that part of Capital’ ~

difficulties resulted from the Board’s action in 1947

- in foreing a vast and heterogeneous group of employees

into a single craft or elass bécause that craft or class

had been satisfactory on‘railroads m the past and the

Board“hoped’ it would be in the future on airlines.’’

20.

A copy of this letter is , attached hefl&to as Exhibit. M. On

February 4, 1963, the Boatd rejected my renewed request

for a hearing. A copy of the Board’ s letter is attached ee |

hereto as Exhibit N.

11. On January 18, 1963, I protested the form of ballot

which the Board intended to use in the election among the’

c™

United eniployees. A copy of this letter is atfached hereto . -

- as Exhibit O. The Board form of ballot, a specimen of

" which is attached at Exhibit P, contains no space to permit

on, the contrary requires the employee to select one of the’

- organizations listed on the ballot, except that a blark line

-is provided for writing in any other organization or in-

__ dividual desired by ‘the voter to represent him. Thus, the

ballot requires the employee to select a representative de-

sentation at all. I advised the Board that the applicable

legislative history of the Railway Labor Act, as well as

_ authority addressed to the specific question of .the pro-

priety of this form of ballot, indicated that such form of

ot was improper. I urged the Board to révise its elec-

‘ tion procedures ‘‘so that our employees and employees of

other carriers in future elections will have.an opportunity

to express their decision on.all of the choices that are avail- |

able to them, ong: of which is to remain unrepresented.”’

On January 22, 1963, Mr. William A. Patterson, President

‘ of United, wrote to the Board urging a review of its elec-

tion procedures: with respect to the form of ballot used.

Mr. Patterson stated: _ «

” “As I. understand it, the ballot furnished to the em-

_ ployees by the National Mediation Board plainly states

that purpose of the election is for the employees to.

designate a union to.represent them—not whether they

want.a union and, if they do; which one: Also the ballot

has on it only the name of the one or more unions .

sie tg to eis sienna the a ads and a blank space

_° spite the possibility that the voter may desire no repre- ~

oS RARE IS PIS

“21> .

* for the employees to vote’ for some other organization

or individual not nanied on the ballot. This certainly -

Jeaves the employee. with the inferenve that he has no

choice but to vote for some union to represent him.

: Additionally, ‘the Mediation Board does not tell the

_employee at any time hew to express his choice if he

wishes to‘remain unrepresented by 8 union.”’

| Atopy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit Q. | oe

12. On January 24, 1963, the Board replied to my letter

which had objected to: the form of ballot. A copy of this.

letter is attached hereto as Exhibit R: After stating that.

the Board ‘‘has consistently held [,] a carrier is not a:

party to'a representation dispute involving the selection

°. of a representative of its employees,’’ the Board. sum-

_ Marized its election practices as follows: .

‘‘As you state in your letter,.the form of ballot” -

previously used was adopted by the Board in 1934 _-

+ and has been used since that time as the form-best de-

signed to ascertain the representation desires of a

carrier’s employees for the purpose of collective bar-

gaining. The blank line appearing on the present form

—of ballot affords an opportunity to the voter to. vote

/ for some organization or individual other than those

named on the ballot, or he may refrain from voting at

all if he so chooses. There.is no compulsion that he =

vote for a contestant for representstion. Introduction

of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ballot would contribute to, if it, did

not actually encourage, an attempt to circumvent the

mandate of Congress that-representatives be a

nated by carriers and their employees for the purpos

described in @ection 2, First and Second of the Railway

Labor .ict,...’’. . EE a

13.. On February 1, 1963, 1 wrote in reply to the Board’s

letter on January 24, 1963, and renewed my plea that the

Board review its election procedures with reference to the

form/of ballot. A-copy of this letter is attached hereto as_

Exhibit S. ‘The Board denied my request by letter dated.

. 22, . ° »

February 7, 1963, a ‘copy of which is attached hereto as-

Exhibit T, and stated, ‘‘The Board will proceed with an

election among the employees concerned in NMB Case

No. R-3590 under the Board’s usual policies and precedures

_ in-such eases.’? Pic en

14. On January 25, 1963, the Board iss a ‘‘State-

_ ment”? in response to a ‘farge number: of 8 grams. and |

letters from individuals and groups signing themselves as »

a . f sj *e c Sever ; *

employees of United’’ summarizing the Board’s reasons

for denying a craft or class hearing requested by United,

and for rejecting United’s request that the form of ballot |

be altered. A copy of this statement is attached ‘hereto as

Exhibit U. It states: - : :

‘*This craft or class was found-by this Board in Case

_ No. R-1706 et al. to be the appropriate grouping of these

_ employees for representation purposes.under Section 2,

Ninth of the Railway Labor Act. Case No: R-3590 is

béing investigated on that basis. The parties to this

dispute are the Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship

. Clerks, who invoked the Board’s services, and the In-

ternational Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, which

_ organization now represents the Stores, Ramp and

Fleet Service Employees of United, also a number of

ethployees performing janitorial service. United Air.

Lines, Inc. is not; and cannot be, a, party to this repre-

sentation dispute. — ve Rohe:

_‘*On September 7, 1962, and January 11, 1963, United

Air Lines requested this Board to hold a hearing to

establish the proper crafts or classes on United which

are involved in this dispute. The Board, on January

17, 1963 replied to United, pointing out the fact that

the carrier is not a party to this matter, and also point-

ing out that neither of the organizations ‘who are

parties to this case have made any request for a hear-

ing on the question of craft or class. The Board, there-

' fore, denied the request of United for such’a hearing.

‘‘On January 18, 1963 United Air Lines protested the °

form of ballot customarily used by this Board, and re-

“

FOR wrth n ea OM REFS

23 +, Sg

quested that the Bdgrd revise its election procedures

so that the ballot would contain a space for og ak

no representation. The Board on January 24,"1 63

_ feplied to United calling attention to the fact that the’

Board’s present form of ballot, adopted in 1934, was

designed to ascertain the representation desires of a

carrier’s employees for collective bargaining under the

_. Railway Labor Act. The Board’s standard form of

” ballot carries lines for voting for the-contesting parties,

~ and a blank line on which a voter may. vote for some |

organization or individgal other than those named on

the ballot... There is no compulsion that he vote for a.

contestant for representation.’’ ey 5

15. In elections conducted under the Board’s auspices,

outcome of the election. In order for an electian to be vali

however, a majority of the eligible voters must participate.

An eligible voter who refrains from voting in order to effec-

~ tuate a desire that he remain unrepresented disenfranchises

himself to no purpose since a majority of those voting

will determine the result. Only if a majority of the eligible

voters do not cast votes will such disenfranchisement have

any effect. A voter who marks ‘‘no union’” or ‘‘no represen-

tation’’’on the ballot also disenfranchises himself to no

. purpose for the reason that the Board considers such ballot: _

void and as though not cast. The Board’s ‘iistructions to

_the employees at the-time of the election make no reference

to these rules. : The employee is advised that the ballot: is

being taken “in order to ascertain and to tertify’’ a rep-

“resentative and is told only how. to vote for a representa- :

‘tive. See Exhibit P. he | }

_ 16. Under the National ‘Labor — Relations. Act, as

‘ amended (NLRA), the practices with regard to representa;

tion of employees differ from the practices followed by

the Board both with respect to employer participation. in

<< go desire. “A

oe a fe a Oey GaAVS ks

a | eae see wer J";

ie wand the pains of ballot. ites the NLRBA } an em-

ployer is accord tus to a hearing (required by

the Meir samen scope of. the bargaining ‘unit.

With, respect to, the form of ballot, the National Labor

Relations Board provides a space on the ballot to enable ..

aD eligible voter to Vote against representation, should he: *

ecimen form of ballot sed by the Natjonal’

‘Labor Relations rd is attached hereto as,Exhibit V.

17. In paragraph

thé ‘facts with respect to\the impact of,an ina ate

‘- eraft or class determination upon -United’s administrative |

system. Additionally, however, it is my judgment that the

_ representation by a single organization of heterogeneous

groups is neither practical nor productive ‘of harmonious -

labor relations. The following examples will suffice :

a. Seniority provisions often permit inter-group |

"promotion, assignment’ and displacement. If seniority. :

is on a company-wide basis, an employee if one group

‘ ean exercise seniority to fill vacancies i in another group.

crease in the work force. Although an employee. may

‘have the minimum ability to perferm: the job in.an-

_ other group to which seniority entitles hint, expensive

on-the-job’training is required to fit him for the parti-

cular duties involved. . More specifically, seniority will

often entitle. an employee hired for, clerical or ramp

and store work to demand work: in the public contact

group ‘for -which ‘his or eB ainine and personality

are inadequate. This will result in reduction. of quality

ao service to the public, and therefore the ees, of the

"carrier. ;

‘(b) Ina single craft or class which embraces sepa-

-rate groups, the tendency of the bargaining representa- ;

tive is to favor, with respect to wages, working condi- .

tion, and grievance processing, a group or groups

D: fos

©.

CENA

> .

of this Affidavit I hve set forth’

resulting from promotion, reassignment, lay-off or in-—

a or Seen ‘ ‘

‘ : ‘ ‘ ; ‘ if ee ee a

. . a ° > Se . . ‘ E

en Die ep

< : Z 5 rk. E y : . ines ¢ ~ o Fae) ue

eee which are numeritally ‘superior within the craft .or =~

class for which the representative speaks. In the

ae. usual case, skilled employees are in the minority. The

-earrier finds itself in the position, by reason of bargain-

ing exigencies, of paying the unskilled majority of its’

employees proportionately more in terms of their re-.

spective worth. than-the ‘skille® minority, causing dis-

- content and morale probtems among the latter group.

This result$ in-a high turn-over- and reduced vera ad

among: the disfavored group.”

job functions. There is little. community of interest

between, for example, ramp employees and’ clerical

. personnel. Public ‘contact personnel consider. them-

| selves a group apart. | Kach group inevitably tesents

; any alleged preference in pay or working ‘conditions —

received by another group. If the groups are combined ae

in a single ¢raft or class ereating an artificial semblance

‘of identity, each group deems itself entitled to no less

--than what. js ‘received by the others. The carrier, as

well as the organization représenting thé craft or class,

adopt the so-called leveling policy of paying a premium

‘ for work in the lower classifications with the conse-

quence: that wages and benefits itt the highet classifica-..

. tions are depressed. “This occurs because of the effort

to avoid wide variance in benefits within the group’even

. » though, in terms, of contribution by the employeés,,such

,_ -wariapee is justified. The pressures created by an arti-

. ] ficial apd) ilogical grouping of diversely’ octupied’ re

* ‘ployees substantially impairs the efficiency of the entire

organization. -

_. (d) Where functionally separate groups are com-

. bined. in a single craft or class, serious administrative

problems arise in attempting to reconcile the varying —

work problems and conditions applicable .by reason of

Tyne \ .. £6:

/ i)

the functional separation. - ‘The carrier is commonly '

faced with deniands by personnel for benefits to coun-

terbalance the’ purported advantage possegsed by other | ‘s

personnel with dissimilar work situations. The ten-—

dency, repeated. in many variations, is-to insist upon .

equality of.benefits within the craft or class despite the

impossibility of comparison.

18. . The Board has not conducted any nnting Or inquiry

into the *eraft! or clags’” of Unitéd - -employees -in which

an” ‘election has been directed. It has accepted the Brother-

hood’s amended designation of the ‘‘craft or class’? without

hearing, for the announced reason that it was ‘agreed

upon’’ by the Brotherhood and TAM, and because: « “ear-

Tier cannot be a party. to a representation dispute. Con-

sequently, United has been unable to present evidence to

the Board of the variance in the duties of the ae

Ke involved and of the technological development in the airline

industry. The craft or class of *‘clerical, .office, stores, °

fleet and passenger service employees”? was first established

for _bargaining purposes in the airline industry in Board

case R-1706-in J anuar’y, 1947. ‘Such craft or class had been

in effect on the railroads for many years and the underlying

purpose of the Board’hearings m R-1706 (held in 1946) was

to determine whether a comparable craft or class was suit-

able for the airlines. The Board stated in- R-1706:

| “If airline employees in jobs comparable to those i in

« . the craft or class of railroad clerical, office, station,.and .

storehouse employees fulfill these essential consideéra-

tions of craft or ¢lass, then it follows that such. an

airline eraft or class can be deterfnined. On the other

hand, if. these considerations are not fulfilled, a differ-

ent determination of craft or class for sisline em-

ployees would be in order.”’

| The Board then proceeded be examine. the duties. of the

airline atiplazece involved and found that the ‘‘similarity

}

~between functions berfolmed byorailroad workers ‘in the

craft or class of clerical, office, station and storehouse em-

ployees are closely similar to those described herein under

the heading”’ of: ~ EX ay ,

“a, Clerical and office employees including office at-

tendants,

b.. Stores employees,

c.’ Fleet service employees, © |

d. Passenger service employees. ss J :

19. This basis for the Board’s scusiination 3 in R-1706

no longer exists. R-1706 was decided shortly after World /

War II in the early period of airline growth. The air-’

line industry, as distinguished from the railroads, was °

still in the formative stage and in a period of expansion

with strong prospects of further technological change. The

assumption at that time was that operational developments

in the’ airline industry as it matured would parallel the.

_Yailroad industry. The predicted parallel development |

has not in fact occurred. Moreover, the history of col-

lective bargaining in the airline industry since 1947 has -°

demonstrated that the Board’s determination in R-1706

has not. been suitable for airlines, On the major air car-

riers, the organization of employees’ for bargaining pur-

poses, which almost invariably follows: functional lines, ;

has not in fact conformed to the prediction-of such organi- °

zation which formed the basis of the R-1706 findings: Thus,

despite the lapse of 16 years since the R-1706 determina-

. tion, the craft or class tliere determined a as appropriate for

airlines is represented as a single unit on only 12 of the 28

air carriers. In particular, developments at United in the

16 years since R-1706 established that a comprehensive

: eraft or class appropriate ‘to the railroads is simply not

feasible at United. Unlike the railroads, United has ex-

perienced tremendous -expansion since the end of World

‘

War II necessitating administration of employees by job

function. Secondly, United employees in, this compre-

hensive grouping have ‘in. fact divided along’ functional:

lines. Since 1948 all ramp and stores employees have been

organized and represented by the IAM. The clerical and

public contact personnel, -on the other hand, have never >

organized for collective bargaining purposes at United. -

“90. The Board often conducts hearings im its investiga-—

tion of representation disputes, especially when craft. or

class issues have been raised. The Board usually solicits .

the views of the’carrier and asks the carrier to submit the

data which the Bard deems pertinent under the criteria it -

has established - o govern craft or class findings.” The

Board has stated (R-1706): ,

‘‘In these cases, as in all. others, where disputes

’ arise over the. question of craft or class the Board.

gives considerations to all relevant elements most im-

~ portant of which is the intent of the Railway Labor

Act in settling disputes and promoting stable labor

relations. Individual cases requiré consideration of

facts peculiar to particular situations, but, in addition,

there are general factors to be considered. These in-.

elude the. composition and relative: permanency of

employee groupings along craft or class lines on ear- .

- riers generally as well as on particular carriers. -The

-- extent and effectiveness of past collective bargaining

arrangements, the functions, duties and responsibil-

ties of the employees, the general nature of their

work and the community of interest existing between |

jobs are other factors considered. Previous decisions .

of the Board which bear upon the issues of the par-

ticular dispute are also-taken into account,”

The Board has not consistently adhered to its R-1706 find-

ings but has departed from them when facts were devel-.

oped which established inappropriateness of the craft or

class at a particular carrier. Thus in the same year R-1706

"was decided. the Board denied a petition for reconsidera-

: 46

. 29

tion thereon, stating, however, that its denial did not pre-

vent a re-examination of craft or class as applied te these

~ categories of employees in any future airlin¢é representa-

tion disputes. See Exhibit K, p. 2, This statement was

- made by the Board ‘‘in recognition of the fact that the

airline industry was still in a state of development”’ and for

the further reason that ‘‘the clerical and related employees

on many of the major air carriers were. then unrepre-

‘sented.’’. This attitude on the part of the Board resulted

~ in later decisions in which the Board departed from its —

R-1706 finding and authorized elections among employees

who constituted. but a part of the R-1706 eraft or class.

Thus as early as 1949, United advised the Board that

changes and developments in ‘operational organization at .

United after R-1706 were such that the R-1706 determina-

_ tion was impractical both from United’s and the employees’

point of view, and in 1953 (R-2357) the Board stated that

because of the ‘‘expansion and growth in the airline in- .

dustry, as well as the development of thie representation

of airline employees, ”’ it was of, the opinion that upon”

proper application, it would be advisable to. re- examine“the

determination in R-1706, w ith a view to making such modifi-

cations as might be found to be justified at the-time in

question. In February, 1954 (R-2783) the Board did in

fact’ re- examine the findings in R-1706 and concluded, after

hearing that stores employees at No:thwest Airlines con-

stituted a separate craft or class. The Board reaffirmed

the separateness of the stores employees in 1956 (C-2252>

and C-2389) stating that the representation of the entire

‘‘elerical’’ unit as authorized in R-1706: showed that this

‘‘craft or class’? was'represented as a single unit on only

six carriers, only -three of which were trunk carriers.

Despite these previous pronouncements, and without hear-

ing the evidence, the Board has now reverted to the obso-

lete findings of R-1706 in insisting thet, stores employees

30 - |

shall be etiam with’ clerical, Office, fleet and passenger

service employees. .

21. . The refusal of: the Board to conduct a hearing on

the appropriateness of the craft or class vitally affects the

business and property of. United and deprives. it of pro-

fotyzal due process of law.

? ~ /s/ he ae M. Mason.

- Subscribed ‘and Sworn To before me this me Schiele day

of... — ae

-_— ’

. Notary Public.

, er ;

ao re

—

* a1.

Exhibit A. .y-

Grand Lodge ©

‘BroTHERHOOD or RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT Hanpiers, Express ann Station EMPLOYEES

Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Building,

- ~ + Cincinnati 2, , Ohio.

ad o

Geo. M. Harrison,

Grand President.

_ National Mediation Board

File 230-449-7

Subject : Organization— |

United. Air Lines, Inc.

ee August 27, 1962

Air Mail ' |

Mr. E..C. Thompson, —_" Secy. (2)

National Mediation Board

—* 25, D: C. .

Dear Sir:.

Please be referred to my lettin of heel 24, 1962, re-

questing 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 (excluding

stores employes represented as of August 24, 1962, by’

the International Association of Machinists), fleet

’

we ; : een c

2 , ite Se

“(excluding fleet service employes represented as of

August 24, 1962, by the International Association of

Machinists) and passenger service employes.

It is our positjon that all employes of United Air Lines, _

_ Ine., who were formerly in the employ of Capital Airlines.

in the craft or class for which our Organization was certi-

fied by the National Mediation Board as the collective bar-

gaining agent, shall be given the right to vote in any secret .

"ballot conducted by the National Mediation Board for sor

following reasons: =.

1. In Interpretation No. 93, Case No. 2-6037, the Wie.

tional Mediation Board found: », , Ne

_ «* * * 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

company’ 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-

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

hy 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 noticé 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 Organization and 3 an

lines, mentioned above.

3. Article 3, paragraph (a), of the above-mentioned

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

o =33

known as clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service

employes. Senior\ty “District ‘No. '1, as provided by “Ar-

ticle 3; paragraph \(a), of that agreement, is eomposed of

‘*General Offices and Stores.” Employes engaged in the

_ performance of Stores work hold seniority on a systemwide

clerical roster, known as Seniority District No. 1 Roster,

covering all General Office and Stores Department em-

ployes, Thus, the employes engaged in the oceupations

on that seniority roster for Seniority District No; 1 held

seniority which was valid for exercising rights to all po-

sitions 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 above-mentioned

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 Ar-

ticle’ 3, paragraph (a), of that agreement, is composed of.

‘All Field Stations.’’ Employees engaged in the per-

formance 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 Seniority District No. 2 held

seniority which was valid for exercising rights to all posi-

tions engaged in the performance of work of Operations,,

Ticketing, Ieservations, Sales, ete.,.which are not repre-

sented by I. A.M. on United, in addition to the positions

engaged in the work of Cargo Handling and Cabin Service

which are represented by the I. A. M. on United.

5. The Civil Aeronautics Board, in Docket 11699, is-

sued. Order No. E- 16006—In the matter éf the United-Cap-

ital Merger per povided: in Item 2, paragraph

: (c), as follows:

‘‘That, inne as noted below, United thall be sub-

ject to the labor protective provisions set forth in the

appendix to this order.”’

Section 3 of aia A—Labor Protective Provisions

—to the Civil Aeronautics Board’s order, reads as follows:

‘Insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights

of the garriers’ efnployes, 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 carriers

_and the representatives-of the employes affected. * * *’’

This provision requires the retention of all seniority rights

for Capital employes under our agreement with that corp-

oration.

By operation of our agreement. with Capital Airlines,

which provides in Article 1(b) that ‘‘all provisions of this

agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns

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

‘ United-Capital Merger case—Civil Aeronautics Board’s

Order No. E-16605—which provides that the seniority rights

of Capital Airlines’ employes shall be dealt with in an.

equitable manner, the seniority rights of the former Capi- '

_ tal employes now in the employ of United, who occupied: :

positions with Capital in Seniority Districts Nos. 1 and 2, -

meztioned above, and which extended to positions in occupa-

tions not now represented by-the I.A.M. on United, should

entitle them to voté in the determination of the representa-

tive for collective bargaining purposes for the employes

EN ty ial Cag

Mie ba aa ld ably ey

AD 9 hana

occupying positions to which their seniority is valid and

not now represented by any other organization. :

The former Capital employes occupying positions now

_ represented by the I.A.M. on United are, in effect, in a

furloughed status with regard-to all positions to which.

their seniority was valid under our agreement with Capital

and not 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 certi-

fication by the Board as the collective bargaining repre-

sentative on United, such employes have a valid right to

_ cast a ballot to. determMe ‘such representative. It is re-

quested that the Board permit such employes to partici-

pate in the vote. eee

Very truly yours,

Gro. M. Harrison, ;

’ Grand President.

ae ee Bandit B

ae | Copy <

pret Nationa, Mepiation Boarp

Washington

>. » August 30, 1962 rg

. Mr. Charles M. Meson; a

_Senior Vice President Personriel, a Rca tay

United Air Lines, Inc., | 4 |

P. O. Box 8800,

-O’Hare International Airport,

Chicago 66, Ilinois. :

Mr A. J. Hayes,

International President, bal

International Association of Machinists,

New Machinists Building, ;

#800 Connecticut Avenue, N. W., —s

< Washington, D. C. xe

Gentlémen:

We have ‘ar application from the aieeied of Rail- | .

way and Steamship Clerks, Freight: Handlers), Express and —

. Station Employes, to investigate a represeritation dispute

- under the provisions of Section .2, Ninth, of the Railway

‘Labor Act among the sels aps of the United Air

Lines, Ine.

Commonly known as detieal, office, stoiee (exeh Ning

“stores employes represented as of August 24, 1962,

_ by the International Association of Machinists), fleet,

_ (exeluding fleet service employes represented’ as of \.

August 24, 1962, by the International Association of \.

Machinists) and passenger service eniployees:

Be eRe ert, fe SA Serhan ne ane OT SPAM SITs AB THY ;

Saree

37 Peri rare}

A copy of Mr. Harrison’s letter to the Board,'dated Au-

> gust 27, 1962, setting forth additional information pertain-, .

men. ;

Mr. Mason i is requested to furnish total number. of em-

ployees Overed by this aphlication, along with any state-

a e may care to make.

“ Since the IAM is the current representative for stores

and fleet. service employees, Mr. Hayes -is requested; to

submit any statement he may care fo make with respect to

this application. . :

Very truly yours, !

s/f EL C. THOMPSON, .

7 d Executive Secretary,

ec: Mr. George M. Harrison. |

ing to this application i is attached for each: of an ae a

P-

ae oe "

Eshibit ee ie :

i, eM P Air LINEs, Inc.

<5 ~ 1200 — Road, Elk Grove Township, Illinois

% Mailing “Address :

P. 0. Bo 8800,

te : Chicagd66. Ill.

Executive Offices , ; tae ;

Peres 2 . September 7,1962. *

_ Me. E. C. Thompson; . : } ay

National Mediation Board,

1230 Sixteenth Street, N. W.,

Washington 25, D. C. if

* ~ Dear Sirs? .

We acknowledge receipt of your ines of August 30 in

which you advise United Air Lines that the National Media-

tion Board has received an application from the Brothér-

hood of Railway and Steamship Clerks to investigate, a

, Tepresentation dispute under the provisions of Section 2-

' Ninth éf the Railway Labor Act. mene the iia em-

ployees of the United Air Lines, Inc. :

“Commonly known as clerical, oflies, stores (ex-

eluding stores employes represented as of August

a jae chinists), fleet (excluding fleet Service employes

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

a national Association of Machinists) and passenger |

Service employes. WS

Since the Brotherhood’ s application tain certain em-

ployees represented, as of August 24, 1962 ‘by the Inter-.

national Association of Machinists, the application is in-

a ee ee ee ee ee et a Tee. een eae eee

consistent with the National Mediation Board’s determina-

tion of craft or class in Case No. R-1706 et al. The appli-

cation, therefore, is fora group of employees smaller than

the craft or class which the Board has found to xistin the

| airline industry, . - . |

As United has previously advised the Board on_a num-

ber of occasions, it is our long established policy and prac-

’ tice 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 files of the Na-

tional Mediation Board will show that United Air Lines

voluntarily re gnized the International Association of Ma-

chinists as th Jollective bargaining representative of ramp

‘ and stores employees in 1948. At the time of this volun-

tary. recognition United supplied the Mediation Board the

evidence upon which this recognition was based and the

reasons why an exception was being made to its established

policy., The National Mediation Board replied, reminding ©

‘United and the International. Association of Machinists’

that this voluntary recognition did not preclude a subse- _

quent determination by the National Mediation Board of the

proper craft-or class to whieh the employees would belong.

It is United ’s. position, therefore, that since the Brother-

“hood’s application requests investigation of a representa-

tion dispute involving only a part of a group of employees. -

which the Board has found to constitute a craft or class,

it should be dismissed. In ‘the event the Board. does not

see fit to dismiss the Brotherhood’s application, the Board

_ Should then hold a public hearing to determine whether or .

not the proper craft or class is that expressed in prior de-

‘terminations by the Board, or whether the proper craft or

class is something other than that previously determined

by the Board in these previous cases. Orily in this manner

-ean the processing of this application result. in the certi-

sentative of its. employees with which United will be legally

obligated to bargain. In making. this reply, United does -

not at this 1 time take any position as to the extent of:the

proper craft or class of its émployees whomay be involved

inthe Brotherhood’s application.

.In view of United’s position as: stated didie: we will

not at this time furnish, the total number of employees or

our position on’ the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship ~

Clerk’s contention with respect. to the eligibility to vote of

employees formerly represented by it on Capital Airlines

who are new represented. by.t the International Association

of Machinist’ on United Air Lines. a ~

_. Since the Board’ s decision if it does not dismiss the -

_- Brotherhood application will vitally affect the existing

representation of certain employees by the International

.- Association of Machinists, we are sending a copy of this

letter t to Mr. Hayes ive his ielermation. .

Sincerely,

'. Cuarues M. Mason,

Senior Vice President,

Personnel.

- ¢e: Mr. Geerge M. Harrison, . a. all

Mr. A. J. Hayes. .

~ fication to U ied Air Lines of a duly authorized repre- :

wr ee

ye -

41 |

yo oe ts Biahibit D

Unirep Ar Lives

| November 2, 1962

Mr. E. C. Thompson, 3 |

Executive Secretary, = °

National Mediation Board,

1230 Sixteenth Street, N. W.,

Washington 25, D. ©.

Dear Mr. Thompson: -

We acknowledge receipt of.a copy of your letter of Octo-: .

ber 8, 1962 to Mr. George M. Harrison attached to which

"+ Were two letters from Mr. Harrison to you, dated August

. 29 and October. 5, 1962, respectively.

Mr. Harrison’s letter to you, dated October 5, 1962,

amends the application of the Brotherhood of Railway. and

Steamship Clerks to investigate a representation dispute _

under the provisions of Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway .

Labor Act so that the craft or class for which the services

of the Board are requested i is now described as follows:

eee ae ‘‘Commonly known as clerical, offtee, stores, fleet and |

passenger service employes. ete.

_ , In your letter dated October 8 3, 1962 to Mr. Harrison, you

: fay request United Ajr Lines to furnish the Board with ‘the

number of employees in the craft or class’ described above.

The recotds of United Air Lines indicate that’ there is a

total of 12,451 employees as of. October 15, 1962 in such

-eraft as we understand it. Of these 12,451 employees, 3,068

employees are presently represented: by the International

Association of Machinists and are covered under the terms

‘and provisions of the Ramp and Stores Agreement be-

tween United Air Lines, Inc. and the International Associa-

' tion of Machinists. .

- We wish to advise the Board that the above figure of 12,-

451 does not include any a dal performing janitorial

or cleaning work. ae

Since the 1949 Mechanics’ Agreement between United

. Air Lines, Ine. and the International Association of Ma- ~

- chinists, all janitorial and cleaning work has been recog-

nizéd as coming within the jurisdiction of the Interna-.

tional Association of Machinists and as govered by the

“Mechanics’ Agreement. All janitorial wotk has been’ in- ©

cluded since the 1949 Mechanics’ Agreement in the work

of the classification of Utility Employees, which employees

had previously been ‘included by the Board in the craft or

class of Mechanics on United Air Lines. (Although one of - |

the specific job titles ‘assigned to employees in the Utility. :

Employee classification is Janitor, any employee in the

Utility -Employee classification may perform janitorial

work.) The classification of Cleaning Woman has also been

_ included in each Mechanics’ Agreement, since the 1949

Mechanics’ Agreement. - :

There ‘are 339 employees classified as Lead J anitors,

J sa or Cleaning Woman as of October 15, 1962.

Very truly yours,

"+ Cartes M, Mason,

Senior Vice President,

Personnel.

ec: Mr. A. J. Hayes,

-.Mr. George M. Harrison.

Exhibit E

INTERNATIONAL Association or Macainists

1300 Connecticut Avenue .

‘Washington 6, D. C.

Office of the

International Président.

| 49-United, |

) gates September 11, 1962.

“Subj; United Air Lines, Ine.

7 Application Representation

: Dispute filed by BRC. |

Mr. E. C.. Thompson, ‘

Executive Secretary,

National Mediation Board,

Washington 25, D. C.

Near Mr. Thompson :

This will acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated

August 30; 1962 wherein you advise of the application filed

_ by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,

Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes, to in-

vestigate a representation dispute involving certain em-

ployees of United Air Lines, Inc. You also enclosed a

-copy of Grand President George Ms Harrison’s letter dated

August 27th setting forth the position ot the BRC with

respeet to this application.

In reviewing this entire matter, ies: the informa- °

tion contained in Mr. Harrison’s letter of August 27th, it

is our considered opinion that - the —— or class of em-_

ployees as requested by the BRC does not conform to the

findings of your Board, particularly with reference to the

craft or class determination as set forth in Case R-1706, et

al. TOL Fo 9 G

¢ Respectfully yours,

- +. /s/ A. J. Hayes,

A. J. Hayes, ;

International President.

; H/FH/ac

cc: Reeves.

} Granp Lopcr

BrorHERHOop or Ratway AND STEAMSHIP CLERKs, .

Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes,

Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Building,

Cincinnati 2, Ohio.

| Geo. M. Harrison,

_ Grand President. * eee

; 1 File 230-449-7. —

Subject : Organization—

-United Air Lines, Inc.

August 29, 1962.

Mr. E. C. Ciesla Seok Secy. (2),

National Mediation Board, :

Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Sir:

_ I wish to scktiomiledigs receipt of your letter of August

27 in response to ours of August 24, 1962, attaching an

application for the services of your Board in a represen-

tation dispute on United Air Lines, Ine., covering em-

ployes ‘Commonly known as clerical, office, stores (ex-

‘ cluding stores employes represented as of Angust 24, 1962, _

by the International: Association of Machinists), fleet (ex- -

cluding fleet service employes represented as of August 24,

1962, by the International Association of Machinists) and |

passenger service employes.’

- You observed that from the craft description; stores em-

ployes represented a as of August 24, 1962, by the Interna-

P ; * 46

tional Association of Machinists and fleet service employes

represented by the same Association as of the same date

are excluded from the application. You asked to be advised

as to the significance of the date mentioned and whether it

is the position of our Organization that employes hired in

the excluded categories after August. 24, 1962, would be

covered by the application.

The meaning of our exclusion was simply that we did not |

intend to include in our application the incumbent of any

-oeeupation or position represented by the International

Association of Machinists on August 24, 1962, but we did .

intend to include the incumbents of all occupations in those

- categories. if they were represented by the International

Association of Machinists by reason of an agreement: with

1e United Air Lines, Inc., entered into at a date subse-

quent to August. 24, 1962. Any employe hired by United

Air Lines subsequent to August 24, 1962 in the excluded

categories, namely, those -positions for which the Interna-

tional Association of Machinists was the collective bar-

gaining agent as of August 24, 1962, is to be excluded from

the representation dispute. |

In other. words, and to state it simply, we wish to make

it clear that our request for the services of the Board is |

not intended to include the ‘incumbent of any position for

’ which the International Association of Machinists was the:

collective bargaining agent on August 24, 1962, or the

persons occupying those positions subsequent thereto.

I hope I have made it clear that we are not contending in

our application to the Board for the representation rights

_of the occupant of any position for which the International

Association of Machinists had representation rights on

August 24, 1962.

Very tral yours,

/s/ Grorce M. Harrison, —

Grand President.

Exhibit G

Copy

Granp LopaEe

a en

BrorHerHoop oF Raiway 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.

October 5 5, 1962.

_ Mr. E. C. Thompson, iia Sey. ( 2),

National Mediation Board,

.° Washington 25, D. Cc.

Dear Sir:

* This will acknowledge receipt of your Tetter of September

13 with regard to our application dated August 24, 1962, hy

for investigation of a representation dispute among certain

_ employees of United Air Lines, Inc. you attached to your »

letter. a copy of one addressed to the Board, dated Sep-

tember 11, 1962 by Mr. A. J. Hayes, International Presi-

dent, International Assogiation of Machinists, commenting

upon our request. You were correct in your statement that

Mr. Charles M. Mason, Senior Vice President, Personnel,

United Air Lines, had furnished me a copy of his letter of —

September 7, 1962, addressed to the Board, commenting

upon our request for the Board’s services. It should be .

noted that a copy of Mr. Mason’s letter was also furnished

to Mr. Hayes. _

Under the Railway Lalor: Act, an ee ee is not en-

titled to participate in a representation dispute, and there-

fore, the Board may not take cognizance of Mr. Mason’s

' comment concerning the appropriateness of the craft or —

class as defined in my request for the Board’ 8 services

dated August 24, 1962, |

‘It is noted that Mr. Hayes is collaborating with the man-

siaaaia 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 our con-

sidered opinion that the craft or class of employees as re-

*. quested by the BRC does not conform to the findings of

your Board, particularly with reference to the craft or

class determination as set forth in- Case R-1706, et al.”’

Mr. Hayes indicates that the Board furnished him copies

of my letters of August 24, 1962, and August.27, 1962, ad- -

dressed to the Board. It is presumed that since the Board

. furnished him copies of these two letters, that it also fur-

nished Mr. Hayes a copy of my letter of August 29, 1962. .

In each of those three letters I made it clear that it was

not the intent of our Organization to include in the craft

or class description for which we had requested the Board’s

services in the investigation of the representation dispute

any employee of United Air Lines, Inc., ~gubject to'an ages

ment in existence prior to .August 24, 1962, the date“on

which I requested the services of the Board: >

The ne only inference to be drawn from Mr. Hayes’ state-

ment, as as quoted above from his letter to the Board dated

. September 11, is that he i ig of the opinion that our request

for the Board’ s services in this. dispute should have in-.

' eluded as well the employees in occupations covered by the

agreements between the International Association of Ma-

chinists and United Air Lines. I am, therefore, hereby

advising the Board of my desire to amend the statement

of the craft or class as set out in my request for the Board’s

services under date of August 24. Please substitute for

- the description of the craft or-class for which the services |

of the Board ‘are requested, the following:

Commonly known as clerical, office, Biptes, fleet. and

passenger service employees. 3 \ )

ew,

‘The National Mediation Board is urged to process our |

request of August 24, 1962. as amended herein without i

further delay. .

dekss ‘truly yours, .

/s/ Gzo. M. Harrison,

Exhibit H

NaTIoNAaL Mepario Boarp

"Washington 2 oS

| October 8, 1962

Mr. George M. Harrison, Grand President,

Brotherhood of Railway and ne ica

1015 Vine Street,

Cincinnati, Ohio. ©

Dear Mr. Harrison:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of October 5 5, 1962

‘on the subject of ree Air Lines File

- 230-449-7,’

‘We are sending herewith to Mr. C.M. Mason, Senior Vice

President of United Air Lines, Ine. and to Mr. A. J. Hayes,

President of the International Association of Machinists

copy of your letter of October 5, 1962 for their full infor-

meen

Grand President. j

. ? ‘ ;

_ mation. Mr. Mason is requested to furnish the Board with

the number of employees in the craft or class described in .

your letter. Mr. Hayes is requested to furnish any com-

ments he may care to make on the subject. We did not fur-

nish either the carrier or the I. A. M. with copy of your

August 24, 1962 letter since it contaiifed thé number of —

authorization cards submitted with your. application. ;

_ We are also sending to Messrs. Mason and Hayes copy _

of your letter of August 29, 1962 which has not heretofore

been sent them. —

Upon: receipt of the information Social from the car-

rier -we- will advise you further on the subject. ?

—

~— Very truly yours, -

. /3/E. C. Tompson,

E. C. ‘Thompson,

| ; Executive Secretary.

4-etm. 7 on

ce-to: C. M. Mason,. \

A J. Hayes.

\Exhibit I °

Copy

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF Macursists,

1300 Connecticut Avenue,

‘Washington 6, D: C.

Office of the

International President.

49-United,

October 23, 1962.

Subj: United Air Lines, Ine. .

'. Application Representation

| ; . Dispute filed by BRC. -

Mr. E. C. Thompson, - ae a

, Executive Secretary,

National Mediation Board,

Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mr. Thompson:, 3 ae bos

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 8,

1962 accompanied by copies of letters addressed to your

' Board dated August 29 and October 5, 1962 and signed by

Mr. George M. Harrison, Grand President of the Brother- —

hood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, both of which-deal* *

specifically with the representation application filed with -

‘your Board by the BRC, involving certain groups of em- ..

_ ployees on United Air Lines, Ine.

_ At the outset, we categorically deny the allegation made

‘by Mr. Harrison in the third paragraph of his letter of

October 5, ‘1962, wherein he alleges that our Organization is

collaborating with the management of United Air Lities.

The statement within itself i is not worthy of purther com-

ment.

. |. €

ae a '

The position of our Organization with réspect to this

‘representation application, as set forth in our letter of '

September 11, 1962, is valid and consistent with the past

practices of your Board. In our opinion the application filed .

by the BRC at that time was designed to divide or split

a craft or class. This within itself is a position that the

BRC has vigorously opposed, notwithstanding the facts

pertaining thereto in several instances over a — period

of years. : .

The statement contsined in 1 the fifth paragraph of Mr. 3

Harrison’s letter dated October Sth, wherein he attempts to

express the opinion of our Organization with -respect to

their application is, again, an opinion of Mr. Harrison and

does not direct itself to any opinion expressed by this Or-

ganization. We are particularly concerned over the fact

that. Mr. Harrison now apparently is requesting your

Board-to amend their original petition to include all em-

playees of United Air Lines ‘‘Commonly known as clerical,

office, stores, fleet and passenger service employees.”’ If

this be the case, we then must call Mr: Harrison’s attention

to the fact that our Organization has no other choice than _

to consider this action’ yaa part of the BRC as a raid

. against the TAM. ;

All employees of United Air Lines in the ettagarion of

stores and fleet service employees, including those who were

formerly. Capital Airlines employees, are now represented |

by the IAM and are covered by an agreement with United

_ Air Lines, Ince.

If Mr. Harrison pursues the course as outlined herein-

abeve, then our Organization will have no choice other than

to proceed with formal action in ‘accordance with the pro- —

cedure of the AFL-CIO Constitution.

Respectfully yours,

es ' '/8/ A. J. Haves,

_ec:G.M. Harrison, - A. J. Hayes,

J LL. Reeves. . International Povsidiead,

sie SE

Exhibit J

Granp Lopce

Broruennoop or Rat way anv. STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes °

Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Building |

Cincinnati 2, Ohio .

oh | Geo. M. Harrison

| Grand President |

- File 230-449-2

Subject : Organization— « :

- United Air Lines, Inc.

. October 26, 1962

_ Mr. E. C. Thompson, Exee, Secy. (2) -

National Mediation Board _ :

Washington 25, D, C.

Dear Sir::

Please be referred to the letter of Gites 23, 1962, ad-

dressed to the National Mediation Board by -Mr. A. J.

Hayes, International President of the International Asso-

ciation of Machinists, a copy of which he furnished to me.

Mr. Hayes’ ‘letter concerned the application filed by our |

‘Organization under date of August 24, 1962, requesting

. that the Board investigate a representation dispute among

certain employes of United Air Lines, Inc/ In that applica-

tion, as well as my letter of August 27 and my. subsequent

letter of August 29, both of which were addressed to the

Board, I made it®clear that it was not the intent of our

Organization to include in the representation dispute any

employe of United Air Lines, Inc.,.who was presently: sub-

-. ject to an agreement between the Interuational Association

. of Machinists -and that Company. . aye —

Mr. Hayes, by. the position he has taken, has. left us no

alternative but to include in the representation dispute all.

employes of United Air Lines in the entire craft or class. If >.

in the light’ of these developments Mr. Hayes chooses to

proceed, against our Organization under the’ Constitution of

the AFL-CIO, that is his privilege and, under the circum-

stances, most certainly is of no concern to the National

: Mediation Board.

Under date of October 8, 1962, 5 you acknowledged receipt

of my letter’ of ‘October 5 amending my request for the

' services of the Board in this representation dispute to in-

elude the entire ¢raft or class. You furnished a copy-of .

four letter of October 8 to Mr. Charles M. Mason, Senior

Vice President, Personnel, United Air Lines, Inc., réquest-

ing that he furnish the Board with the number of employes

in the craft or class. I am now in receipt of a copy of your -

letter of October 24 addressed jointly to Mr. Mason and Mr.

Hayes, tracing Mr. Mason for the information -Fequested

- in your letter of October. 8, 1962. ; . |

May IJ again request the Board to:take action without

further delay to resolve the dispute with regard to the rep-

_ resentation of the employees of United Air Lines in ac: ”

cordance with my application -of August 24," pees, as

amended by my letter of October 5,1962. . “~ .

_Very truly yours,

" /s/ Geo. M. Hinesom, |

_ Grand President.

55.

Exhibit K"

_Unirep Arm Lixzs | os

- 1200 Algonquin’Road, oy a

. Elk.Grove Township, Illinois

Mailing Address: P. O. Box 8800, Chicago 66, Illinois

Telephone 625- 1400 *

' Ae, January 11, 1963

Executive Offices |

Mr. E: C. Thompson,

Executive Secretary,

National Mediation Board, ’

1230 Sixteenth Street, N. W.,

Washington 25, D. C.

Re: NMB Case No. R-3590

Dear Mr.. Thompson:

Mediator Klatte has requested certain tiitiiindailion from

United forthe purpose of holding an election in reference

ease. We believe his request is premature in the absence of *

'a ruling from the Mediation Board on the request of

- United made September 7, 1962 that a public hearing be’:

held to establish the proper crafts and classes on. United.

We hereby renew our request that such a public hearing

be held and set forth herein at some length the r@isons «

necessitating a hearing.

We 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-

ployees involv ed in this application which the Board_has

. not had the opportunity to fully consider i in any pret ‘pro.

- .

ceedings. “At a “iti hearing, the Board will learn of the .

wide variances in the training, skills and responsibilities

of the employees, of the absence of cross-training and cross-

utilization between them, and of the absence of a community

of interest, for example, between the highly skilled office

employees and the janitorial and cleaning employees. The |

_ lack of unanimity in the air transport industry in g@heral

and on United in-particular with reference to the organiza-

tion of operations, the selection, training, use, representa- .

tion and lack of permanency in respect to these factors in

this dynamic and rapidly changing industry ean and should

be considered by the Board.

In 1946, in R-1706, the Mediation id was asked to —

establish for the first time on an airline a craft or class

_ grouping of employees ranging from what the Board re-

ferred to as janitors and laborers to ‘the highest type of |

techinical office employees. The Board attempted in that

case to establish a mold to apply to all airlines in the

future. Since most of the employees i in this heterogeneous

_ grouping were unorganized at the time in the air transport

industry, the Board was-forced to treat with the important

subject of craft or class in somewhat of a vacuum with the

‘‘hope"’ that its prospective determination would provide a

basis for stable labor -relations in the future on airlines.

only because such a craft had been found to provide such a

basis in the past on. railroads. Although the Board did

- avoid a multiplicity. of crafts or classes by its determina-

tion in R-1706, the Board simply did not have knowledge

at the time of its decision (January 31, 1947) of the changes

that would and did later occur in the air =—" in- .

dustry:

The BRC contended. alten 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 lines

~ should be followed by the Board on airlines. Although this

specific contention was not accepted° by the Board, the

Board nevertheless found , eraft or class of airline em-

ployees that was the counterpart of the railroad craft or.

elass of clerical, office, station and storehouse employees.

‘The IAM, on the other hand, requested a separate craft or

class of ramp service and stores employees. This view was

rejected by the Board as was the IAM’s later request for

a reconsideration of the Board’s findings. ,

Although the TAM’s request for a reconsideration of the

R-1706 findings was denied by the Board in 1947, the Board

then stated that its denial did not prevent a re-examination

of craft or class as applied to these categories of employees

in any future airline representation disputes. This posi-

tion was taken in 1947, as the Board later explained in R- |

2783, in ‘‘recognition of the’ fact that the airline industry

"was still i in a state of development,’’ and further, ‘‘that the

clerical and related employees on many of the major air

carriers were then unrepresented.’’ Thus, the Board

recognizes that the lack of representation of the bulk of

these employees on many of the major air carriers is a

' significant factor to be taken into account in: representation

questions.

At the invitation of the Biesd. United was present at the

public hearing in R-1706 and United’s views on craft or

class were received by the Board. Based upon its limited

experience and in the interests of avoiding an unknown and

possibly undesirable multiplicity of crafts or classes, United

had recommended adoption of 2 craft or class substantially

_the same as the one edopted by the Board.

- . As early as September 20, 1949, however, United Air

Lines’ advised the National Mediation Board that develop--

. -ments in organization after R- 1706 had led United to believe

- it may have been in error in the position it took before the

Mediation Board. United advised the Board that-the or-

ganizational development by 1949 among the smaployees

ae <Q

on United after R-1706 and changes in United ’s OWN oOpera-

-tionat organization were such that the Board’s determina-

_. tion in R-1706 had become impractical both from the em-

_ployees’ point of view _and the carrier’s.

In 1951, in a matter concerning the proper craft o or class |

grouping of equipment service men, stock clerks or janitors

. of Northwest Airlines. in R-2357, the. National Mediation

Board accepted the Statement of United Air Lines. In its

Statement, United advised the Board that United had defi-.

nitely concluded, in light of its experience, that the Board’s

determination in R-1706 did not provide for.a proper craft

or class for the air transport industry.

In R-2357, decided February 22, 1953, the Board staied

thd sieguesenie advanced for reconsideration of the proper

groupings of the various aia classifications of

- employees which may comprise the craft or class of cleri-

cal, office, stores, fleet and passenger service employees im-

pressed the Board as having considerable merit: The Board

‘announced in R-2357 that in view of the lapse of five years

after R-1706 and because of the ‘‘expansion’ and growth of

the airline industry”’ as well as the ‘‘development of repre--

sentation of airline émployees,’’ the Board was then of the

opinion that upon proper application, it would be advisable -

to re-examine the determination in -R-1706, with a view of -

_ making such modifications as might ‘be found. to be justified

at the time in question. . ;

In R-2783, ‘decided February 16, 1954, in a case concern-

ing a request by the IAM to represent stores employees of

Northwest Airlines separately from the broad -clerical —.

' group included in R-1706, the Board did examine its R-1706

findings. While it did not re-examine the entire craft or .

class, the Board: concluded that stores employees are a

separate craft or class for the purposes of the Railway

Labor Act.

In C-2252 susl C-2389, decided November 9, 1956, in com-

ee ‘

panion cases relating to the request of the IAM to separate

_ Stores employees of Trdns-Texas Airways and North

Central Airlines from the existing 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 .

craft as outlined in R-1706 showed that such craft was not

represented as a single unit on any air carriers except six. -

The Board went on to say that its records: showed that

stock and stores employees were organized and covered by

collective bargaining agreements on’ 24-air carriers, in-

dependently of the craft as designated in R-1706. United

was included by the Board as one of the Board’s 24 ex-

amples where stock and stores employees were represented

as a ‘separate unit by the same organization representing

airline mechanics on those carriers.‘ On the basis of

evidence presented at the hearing and the development of

representation among stock and stores employees, the

_ Board concluded that the general purpose. of the Railway

~ Labor Act would be more readily achieved and the general

duties as specified in Section 2 of the Act would-be more

readily accomplished by a determination that stock and

stores employees are considered separate crafts or classes

of employees. The Board’s conclusion was reached only ,

after a public hearing.

‘Inasmuch as United knows of no findings of the ‘odie:

tion Board subsequent to Cases C-2252 and (-2389: re-’

establishing the stores emyiioyees as a part of the clerical .

and related group covered by R-1706; it can only bé con- -

‘sidered now that the R-1706 findings are no longer con-

trolling. It should be noted that the amended applica-

tion of the.BRC in the current case is. based.on the now

obsolete R-1706 findings.

The importance that the Board’s craft or class-determi-

- nations have in settling of disputes and the promotion of

Y“-

- table labor ‘relations has been clearly recognized by the -

National Mediation Board. As a necessary corollary, the

- Board’s determination may well disrupt ingtead of promote

stable labor relations. and encourage rather than settle dis-

putes among employees. The Board’s class or craft deter-

minations have, of course, a demonstrable impact upon the

organizational structure and operating efficiency of an air

carrier.

The Board itself bee: recognized that it therefore should

review and even revise its class or craft determinations

with respect to airline employees after a public hearing,

oe and has done so. In R-1447, for example, the Board al-. .

tered. the craft or class of airline mechanics. In R- 2357,

the Board concluded that‘ R-1706 should. be re-examined

and in R- 2783, C-2252 and C-2389, it concluded that stores

employees: -are no longer properly grouped with the various

other components in what had been a craft-or class of cleri- __

- . cal, office, stores, fleet and passenger service employees as

determined in R-1706. Also, ‘and as recently as 1961, the.

Board, in C-2946, made a drastic change in the grouping

of flight deck crew members of United Air Lines.

_As a result of the findings of the National Mediation

‘Board Committee in C-2946, decided January 17, 1961, in

‘the matter of representation of employees of the United

Air Lines, Incorporaied—Flight Deck Crew Members, the

Board conducted an election on the basis of a single ‘craft

or class in face of a long history of collective bargaining

- of two separate crafts or.classes which had existed not only

on United but on a ‘majority of the major air carriers. C-

2946 is significant . in several respects. In the first place,

the. Committee found, among/other things, that =~

“The airline industry, as distinguished from the rail-

roads, is still in the formative stage and in a period of

expansion, with strong prospects of further technologi-

cal change. The difference between the railroads and

61 sha ‘

- the airline industries affects the application of craft or

class principles and criteria with the result that the_

determination made herein may not be considered, as

such, applicable to the railroads.’’

Farther, as pointed out in 0.2946, ‘““When governmental

participation in the determination of craft and class issues

occurred in the railway and air transportation industries,

_the two branches. were in entirely different stages of ma-

“turity’’ and that there is no “high degree of " erystallization

in craft and class lines’’ in the ‘‘comparatively new air -

carrier industry’’ that the years have brought on the rail-

roads. The teaching of C-2946 is that the Board is not

. Decessarily bound by past craft or class groupings; on the -

contrary, the Board will take a fresh look at crafts or

\, Classes in the air transport industry.

__ .Congtess has imposed upon United Air Lines, as a sched-

uled air carrier, the obligation to follow the declaration of

z national policy to provide ‘‘ economical and efficient service

by air carriers at reasonable charges. ’? United Airlines is

also under the statutory command of the Railway Labor

Act to treat ‘‘in a. proper case’’ with the representative of:

its employees as certified by the Board for a craft or class

_ determined by the Board. Because of the impact that the

grouping of emplayees_ inito erafts or classes can have upon

an air carrier’s organization and operation, it is necessary

that the Board establish a craft or class or revise one only

after the fullest hearing and aftér obtaining the views of all

goncerned—including the carrier. The carrier is obviously

in the best position to furnish evidence to the Board on the

-effect that craft or class groupings may have on interrup-

tions of-its service to, the public. For example, the Commit-

Ex tee appointed by the Board in C-2946 requested information

‘~~ from United before making the important craft or class

. determination which had: such a dramatic effect-upion the

- entire air: transport -industry that the President ‘of ihe

- United States and the Secrctary of Labor intervened. .

The inappropriateness of the Board ’s R-1706 findings of

_ 1947 have been apparent for’ some tinf@ not, only, to United

but to others, as pointed out above. The. Board itself, as

noted, récognized that the R-1706 findings are no longer

appropriate. -The fact that 16 years have elapsed since the

R-1706 findings and there still is no representation of the

clerical and related employees on many of the major air

carriers renders R-1706 even more obsolete. United’ has

| enlarged to where it is the largest domestic scheduled air

carrier. Thus, any craft or class determination made in

1947 for another airline on the prospect of future employee

“represéntation, which has never occurred, cannot properly

be applied 16 years later to the organizational and opera-

tional structure of United. A determination of what craft

or class groupings are now appropriate should only be made 7

after a public hearmg.

In summary, United Air Lines believes a public hearing

is not only appropriate, but necessary, to serve the public

interest for the following reasons: / @ |

The Board’s determination in R-17@6— issued sixteen

years ago—was not based upon actual airline experi-

ence and history, but was carried over from the rail-

roads. Whether it would become suitable for the air- ;

-lines had to be left for future developments. :

Experience in the airline industry. since 1947 has

demonstrated that the Board’s determination in R-1706

has not been suitable for the airlines, as witnessed by.

the fact that the Board itself has reexamined and

departed from its R-1706 determination in various sub-

sequent cases (R-2783, C-2389, C- 2487), and the organi- —

- Aation of employees:on major air carriers has not,

_conformed to the R-1706findings. :

United’s own experience over the sixteen-year period

which has elapsed since R-1706, during which time

there has been a substantial growth and evolution i in the

SE =

_ : > =e

63 :

Company, clearly establish the inappropriateness: of

_ R-1706 to present day conditions. A

The carrier’s ability to operate efficiently and to have —

stability in labor relations would be severely hampered

by imposition of the now obsolete determination on

United since R-1706 lumps together heterogeneous

groups of skilled and unskilled employees in a manner

wholly inappropriate to the Company’s present organi<>’

zational structure. ee

‘The Board, as noted above, has committed itself to take °

a fresh look in a public hearing at the appropriateness of

a craft or class when appropriateness is questioned in light

of changed conditions. | Day

Based upon United’s study and experience, as well as

observations in the industry~-United believes that the

groups of employees under discussion probably logically

separate into three large crafts or.classes. At the Board’s

hearing, United will be prepared to supply the Board with

full historical and present facts upon which the Board can

judge the propriety, of what is proper under all the facts.

Sincerely yours,

/3/.C. M. Mason, -

Sentor Vice President-Personnel; —

ec* Mr. George Harrison

Mr. A. J: Hayes

Mediator Klatte

- 64

Exhibit L

Nationa Meparion Boarp

; Washington

_ January i. 1963

a eT NMB Case No. R-3590

Mr. Charles M. Sinaia: Sr. Vice President

United Air Lines, Incorporated

. P.O. Box 8800 | .

Chicago 66, Illinois _

Dear Mr. Mason:

Acknowledgement is made of your letter of January ‘11,-

1963 in re NMB Case No. R-3590. You-state you believe the

request made by .Mediator Klatte for certain information

from United Air Lines, for the purpose of holding an elec-

tion in this case, is premature in the absence of a ruling

from the National Mediation Board’ on the request of

- United Air Lines dated. September 7, 1962 that a public

hearing be held to establish the. poupte crafts or classes on

| United Air Lines.

Reference to your letter ‘of September 7, 1962 shine the

‘specific request you made was as follows:

‘It is United’s position, therefore, that since the Broth

erhood’s application requests investigation of a repre-.

sentation dispute involving only a part of a group .

of employees Which the Board has found to constitute

a craft or class, it should be dismissed. In the event

- the Board does not see fit to dismiss the Brotherhood’s

| * application, the Board should then hold a public hear-_

ing to determine whether or not the proper craft or

. lass is that-expressed i in prior determinations by the-

| /Board, or whether the proper craft or class is same-

“thing other than that previously determiped by the

Board in these preyious cases,”’

e 65

The applicatior~fled by the Brotherhood of Railway &

Steamship Clerks on-August 24, 1962 was not dismissed, .

and was subsequently amended to cover the craft or class

_ commonly known as Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet ‘and Pas-

- senger Service Employes. You were:so advised by copy of

Mr. Harrison’s letter of October 5, 1962 transmitted with

copy of-our letter to Mr. Harrison dated October 8, 1962.

In our letter of October 24,1962, addressed to you and

- President Hayes of the International Association of Ma-

chinists, we inquired whether you were in a position to fur-

nish the number of employes - dn this craft or class as

requested in the last ‘paragraph of our letter of October 8, .

1962. On November 2, 1962 you replied and stated ‘‘the ©

“records of United Air Lines indicate there is a total of

' 12,451 employes as of October 15, 1962 in such craft as we

understand it.’’ You further stated this figure did not

include 339 employes classified as Lead Janitors, Janitors ©

_ or Cleaning Women as of Qctober 15, 1962. -Your letter of.

November 2, 1962 indicated a clear understanding of what

is meant by the craft or class commonly known as Clerical,

Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger. Service Employees as —

referred to in the Board’s determination issued in NMB

Case No. R-1706, ‘et al. o

The various comments made in the remainder: of your

letter of Jantary 11, 1963 have been given’ careful con- —

sideration by the Board. The Board wishes to call your ~ -

‘attention, first, to the fact that the carrier is not a party to

this representation dispute. Secondly, no request for a re-—

view of the craft or class established by the Board’s deter-

_ mination in Case No. R-1706, et al has been receivpd from

either organization party to NMB’ Case No. R-3590. The y

request contained in your letter of. January 11, 1963 is not. :

timely made, since the Board, on December 19, 1962, found

that a representation dispute existed among the employees

in this craft or * class and has authorized a an. election. -

i 7 Rs ‘ge . . 66 eg

Gi: me Siease bd sf ° v7

. .

: es, we ae

Poet Pa

— Poe tie whiis Sotenains the Board must iin your request ,

on, ot January 11, 1963 for a public hearing om the subject of .

a review of ‘the. determination made in Case No, R-1706

ra etal,

It is; therefore, requested; that you tarnish promptly

Mediator Klatte the nécessary information regarding th¢

employees of United Aér Lines, Ine. in the craft or class at

. issue, SO he ‘may ‘proceed With plans #0 hold ar eletion among

- these employees. ‘Your ‘cooperation in furnishing this in-

formation promptly to Mediator Klatte will-be appreciated:

. By re of. the National Mediation Board.

/s/ E. C. THOMPSON,

Y Executive Secretar > °

cc to: G. M. Harrison ie he

A. J. Hayes — Rp

W. F.

Exhibit Mg

Bie Am toe

1200 Algonquin Road, Elk Grove erndiié. Dllinois

a. Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 8800, we 66, Illinois

: - Telephone 625-1400,

Executive Offices.

tu ; mn January 25, 1963.

_ Mr. Laverett Edwards, Le.

Chairman ;

- National Mediation Board

_ Washington 25, D. C.

Déar Mr. ‘Edwards: oo ie Dae

Acknowledgment is made. of the ‘Board’s reply dated

¢f - , Senaty 17, 1963 to United’s. letter of January 11, 1963. Ey

- The — in its reply denies United’s request that the

a ae pe te

_ United fo

a 2

% *-

Board hold a public hearing to estabitoh the proper - -erafts

and classés on United.

The purpose cf this letter is to protest the Board’s re- |

fusal and to ask that the Board reconsider United’s request.

In support of our request for. reconsideration, I wish bed

) supplement my letter of cary 11, 1963.: |

ay We in United are astottish ed that the Board would alte

"a decision vitally affecting’ 12,700 employees and which will,

have a long lasting and adverse: effect upon: the operating’

efficiency: and economy of United without. obtaining -the

_ views of everyoné concerned,. The, yBoard’s denial of —

' United’s request indicates that th

‘is somehow pro-

hibited’ from obtaining or éonfidering United’s views on

the craft or class question”on the ground th@t United is

not a party to this fepresentation dispute. * This is indeed *

_. Strange since on a number of previous occasions the Board -

‘has specifically invited United to express its views at public

hearings on ‘the question of what constitutes a proper craft °

or class. Indeed, doth of the contesting labor organizations .

have at one time or another in the past. complimented —

its éxpression of. such views and have urged

United to -, i them at subsequent public hearings.

: In stating that the carrier is not a party to, this repre-

sentation dispute thé Board’ s reply attribdtes to Uniteda ..—

: F Agu it has never sought and does not now seek. United 4

* As fully aware that it is nota a’ party to any controversy’ over

-; Xthe choice of representatives by the: employees ; indeed,

- United has no desire té be such a party and recognizes the

legal and proper right of the employees to 10 choose their own

répresentative, if they wish one. United: submits, however,

_ that it has a legitimate, interest/in the scope of a craft or. °

' ¢elass..gIn other words, the’ Only issue in which United as- +

serts a right to be Heard concerns the scope of the craft or-

class—tiot the identity of the represéntative, if any, of the

_ employees of such craft ¢ or class in an election. — =

ee es om. ot ene eae

‘The Board’ s failute to recognize United’ s legitintate i in-

terest in the scope of.a craft or class will. interfere with the

efficient conduct of United’s business. The -rerusa] 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

_ eortduet 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

_ heating. 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 responsi- |

bility under the Railway Labor Act to work. for the estab-

‘lishment of stable labor relations in the airline industry.

As the Boatd well knows, a craft or class determination

can have a serious and disruptive effect on interstate trans-

portation. This was clearly shown when President Ken-

nedy, on the day of his inauguration, had to. assign the

_ Secretary of Labor to mediate airline strikes resulting from. -

8 craft or class determination which was arrived at after

lengthy public hearings stretching over many months. It

cannot be’ said that. the purposes of the Act are better

served when an inappropriate craft 0 or-elass_ determination

is imposed upon over 12,000 employees a

hearing whatsoever. :

You seem to imply in your letter ‘that United’s request

77. tora public hearing is tardy and should have. been repeated

at the.time the Brotherhood’ of Railwa¥.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 Kiatte had checked authorization cards and on

. approximately. December 19, 1962, advised United that the’

Board had authorized an election. Prior to that date, we

- oD é ‘ &

S ee Se) . : P-.

could see no aecful purpose to be served in pressing for a

public hearing on the subject of how employees sheuld be. ._

grouped for voting say in an election that mig if hever

be held. sg

You further point out, that. United had a clear wilder.

__ standing of what is meant by>the clerical, office, stores, fleet’

_ and passenger service employees craft or clas¢€ Phen, on

- November 2; 1962, we advised vou of- the total nimber of

United employees in that craft or class. ‘We do not under-

stand the significance of this statement The fact that

United did advisé you of the fotal 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*publice 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 firth belief that. the Board should review its deter-

mination of craft or class i in R-1706, et al, and determine,

in light of the lapse of 1 ) years, and the other factors set

out in our letter of January 11, whether the R-1706: deter-

mination | was still a proper grouping. a =

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, offit®, station, and storé house 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 de-

clining railroad industry should be forcibly 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 raiiroad 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 céchiounical service at reasonable charges to the

“710

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 bankruptcy convineed me -

- that part of Capital’s difficulties resulted froni.the Board’s

action iri 1947 in forcing a vast and heterégeneous g group of

_employees into # single craft or class because that craft or |

‘class had been satisfactory on railroads i in the past and the ~ * ——

Board ‘‘hoped”’ it would.be in the future on air lines.’

For these reasons, we strongly urge the Board to recon-

sider its denial of United’s request for a public hearing.

ye Sincerely yours,

C.M. Mason, . re

, Senior Vice Presitei!— Personnel. 4

A. J. Hayes :

W. F. Klatte,

$ j .

b Exhibit N a

. ‘Narionan MeEpration Boarp —

Washington

February 4, 1963

NMB Case No. R359

Mr. C. L. Mason, Sr. Vice President, .

United Air Lings, Incorporated, :

P. Q. Box 8800,

Dear Mr. Mason:

- Acknowledgement is made of your letter of January 25, >

1963, addressed to Chairman Edwards of this Board, pro- - _

- testing the Board’s refusal to hold a public hearing on the

question of craft or class in NMB Case No. R-3590, and

asking that the Board ne United’s request.

* . " 2 71 | ; s

The Board, in executive session on January 31,. 1963,

@ave very careful consideration to the various statements

made in your January 25th letter. As you are aware, the

two organizations which are parties to this dispute are in’

agreement that the craft or class of Clerical, ’ Office, Stores,

Fleet _ passenger Service employees established by the

; pinche issued lena 31, 1947,-is the proper and

appropriate gronping of these employees for the pur-

poses of an election under Case No. R-3590.

_ The Board has received a number of letters and tele-

grams purporting. to be. from employees of United in this.

craft or class, protesting against a vote embracing the en-

G tire craft or class, and in some instances, asking that the

Board include a space on the ballot for a vote for ‘‘no

representation’. A statement of the Board’s position on-

these two questions has been prepared, dated J anuary 25,

1963, copies attachéd. A. large number of the communi-

cations referred to appear to have been inspired by your

‘*

~“

ot,

*” circular létter of January 14, 1963 addressed to all United

Employees eligible to vote.in the election under Qase No.

- R-3590. The total number of such communications, how-

“ever, represents only, a small minority of the approxi-

mately 13,000 employees in the overall craft or class which

‘Oo

peoyou have reported. The Board is not in position to recog-

' nize these requests as justifying a ae on craft or ;

class' in Case Ne. R-3590.

Your remarks conceining the carrier ’s interests i inacraft

ak or class determination have been given full“onsideration.

governing carrier employees in both the railroad and air-

-line industries. Accommodations to the crafts or classes

- found appropriate by the’ Board: have been made by the

carriers concerned, when necessary, and with practically

no protest.

‘9, _ Over the years, since the creation of the Board 1934, hun- r

“ dreds of determinations: uf craft:or class have heen made

Q°° ts i 8

Under all the fee “wry in this Gase,-the § ~—

Board cath see no justification, to the class or craft :

question’an its own motion. Your 1 r t fér reconsidera- < ae

_ tion of the Board’s. decision contained in 0 letter of Jan-

uary.17, 1963 is accordingly denied. ,

Mediators Klatte and Pierce, who areCiaigned | kt

——rhandling of this case, report that to date the carrier has }

dispute. The record of this case shows that requests

for this list. have been made on the following date ;

*. December ig, 1962 by Mediator ‘Klatte Shay ip to *

Mr..Berthoud and Mr. Hill. .

January 14; 1963 by Mediator Klatte. vd Mr. Bert:

‘houd*’

January 17, 1963 itis ofBoard’s letter in ae

~——~ January O1- 1963 ediator Klatte to Mr. Bert-

: ae

January 28, 1963 by Mediator Kaite to Mr. Bert-

_ houd. : ’

nag

Your attention is. directed to the last - ‘sentence “of sce

- :tion: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 sugh information as may be deemed

necessary by it to carry out the purposes and Pro- é

visions of this paragraph:”’ CG

>» You are hereby requested to furnish the list of» em-

ployees 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 hist may be expected, wes, be ap-

preciated. ©

wis direction of the National, Mediation Henri oni

E. &. THOMPSON, ° o> ,

- Executive Secretary.”

cc to: @: M. Harrison, 3 - @

' A.J. Hayes, f te * &

Wm. F. J. Klatte. ane

é , . EK

of sy

~ * Lo

See ne

iy F -

- g 7 ?

Exhibit o

; &

i: Q. = Usrrep Ai Rae i See,

4 on

1260. Algonquin Road, Elk Grove Township, Illinois

Mailing Poly P. O. Box 8800, Chicago 66, Illinois .

Ea Telephone 625-1400.

Exedutive Offices & >

. | . “ @! ini: 18, 1963 ~

o ” “Mr: Francis J. @’Neill, Sewn a se

a Chairman, - | SS eee e.. ne

=! eta iain Sead,

os Washington 25, D. C. — ‘

“+> fDeer ie. O'Neill: 8 ur oy

of)

Mediator Klatte has asked iui 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 more of. United’ s employees involved. i in Case

-R-3590 are located. ‘3 oo 3

_ United Air Lines i is willing to allow a -ballot box election

on Company property provided the ballot follows the form .

‘used by the National. Labor Relations Board> in ‘s‘milar

union representation “elections held ‘under the National

Labor Relations Act. In other words, the ballot would

have a space for the employee to vote against representa-

tion as well-as space for the employee to vote for repre-

sentation by the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks or the In-

" » ternational Association of Machinists. The ballot also. 5

.Jeould provide space to vote for ‘‘any other organization or 4

individual’ or not 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 estab-

lished and followed to insure - the election i is conducted

i ey : 7 —

_ without any undue influence upon the employees eligible

__: to wetes” If the balloting is conducted in this manner, United. _

also would be willing.to have the employees vote ‘during

~ , their working hours.in order to provide the fullest op-

- portunity for them to express their decision. Era

_ We want to make it:very clear that. United Air Lines

recognizes that how a representation election .is con-

' *dueted is the function ‘of the .National Mediation ‘Board.

_ ‘We feel-strongly, however, that the ‘employees eligible to

~ vote in the election should know all of: theehoices available

to them at the time the voting takes place and how to ex-

- press their own free choice. _ The form of ballot customarily

_ used by the. Board in electichs does not do this sinee it

provides spaces only to vote fora collective. bargaining

_ representative. It does not offer.gny 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 Boards 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 means that the employée expresses his:

choice to remain unrepresented only in a negative maniier—

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 éther instructions on voting issued by

the Board make clear to the employees how. they can indi-

- eate their desire to remain unrepresented. * <

. . We recognize that the form of ballot*customarily used -

by the National Mediation Bon rd was adopted by the Board ‘z.

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

et Need ra) fe aA Ys

% a . Bie £ ne » f

ss for = bes Z

“ 4

Sse / ss ress, t

of the forn¥of ballot which has been used without material 3

~. Railway Labor Act by the National Mediation Board, 1934-

ae & i ‘3

1957’’, pp. 18-19:

-“*The tavceieit niin from the act show clearly .

that it was the intent of Congress.in framing the 1934

Amendments to Ahe : original Railway Labor Act of

1926, that both’the carriers and employees «separately

‘designate regpesentatives for the purpose of collective ie

bargaining, To effectuate this mandate of the Con-~

ational Mediation Board, in 1934, designed

change to the present time. This ballot was drafted to

' permit the employees to secure some form of repre-

sentation, as contemplated in the sections of the law»

quoted above. It leaves to the majority of the em»%

Pi ployees of any craft or-class full freedom to determine « |

_/, Who shall be their representative for the purposes of

the act.’’ (Emphasis supplied.)

‘ | 7 “

- . United suggests to the Board that the. legislative history

of the 1934 Amendments to the Railway Labor Act in no

i way supports the restrictive interpretation placed upon ,

~ that Act in the above statement.. In fact, it lends strong

The House ‘Report on H. R. 9861, i.e., the bill which was \

enacted into law on June 21, 1934 as the 1934 Amendments

to the Railway Labor, Act, states in pertirierit part, as

; follows: eh he bea

be free to join any labor union of their thoite and like-

wise be free to refrain from joining any union if that

be their desire and forbids interference by the carrier’s -

officers with the exercisc of’said rights.’’ (Emphasis _

supplied.) (House Report No. 1944 to accompany H. R. |

9861, U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.,

1934 at p. 2.) eae Ste

a It (H. R. 9861) provides that ote om shall

The bill being considered. provided that’ ‘Employees

shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively

os)

: ehereingtls representatives of their own choosing.” - ‘This is

_- exactly the same lenguage used in Section 2, Fourth, of

* the Railway LaborsAct as finally enacted into law. It is: .

‘evident, therefore, that the House Committee believed the

_ Tight of employees to refrain from’ collective bargaining

was implicit.in the language of, the bill.

It is algo significant that the House Committee, unlike

- National Mediation-Boatd, saw nothing inherently ineon-

en the right-of employees to refrain from col-

lecti argaining ‘and the language of Section 2 of the bill

" which states that one of the purposes of the Act is/‘to

provide for the complete independence of seeds d of .

employees in the matter of self-organization . .

Further evidence that. Cougress. did not-intend to ser

employees the right to refrain from chgaging in collectiv

___ bargaining. is found in the following statement made by

- Commissioner J oseph P. Eastman, Federal Co-ordinator

eventually enacted into/law, in response to a question raised

by Mr. Huddleston in the House Hearings on H. R, 7650:

~, My, Huddleston: Wei, as I get your idea it is the

purpose of this bill not to cberce organization and not,.

. Necessarily to imply organization.

‘‘Commissioner Eastman: No, it does not 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.’’ (Hearings, H. R. 7650, U. S. House of

Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. 1934 af'p. 57.)

_- Further corroborating the foregoing evidence of legisla-

tive intent is the following statement by Senator Wagner

inxthie Senate Heari ‘ings on S. 3266 (the companion ‘bill in

the ‘Senate to = R. 7650) in which he defends the. bill

| of-Transportation and draftsman of the bill: which was se

ae,

, against charges that it would tend to promote large national

‘labor orgatiizations: ** es ig oer ae ,

‘*Senator Wagner : .I am very glad you (Commis- -

sioner Eastmap) are bringing out these points so very

Clearly. * * * (I),think that is the purpose of the Aét—

_. I think it is so expressed in language, to give the

worker a free choice to joim any union he wants, com-

pany union or no union, and yet they. (i.e., .the Op- :

- ponents of the bill) have insisted (tliat) 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, so I am very‘glad you/are clearing

“~~ 3266, U. S. Senate, Committee 9 Interstate Commerce,

73rd Cong., 2d Sess., 1934 at p. 12.)

.Finally, there is the following comment by Senator Wag-*

ner at the Senate Héarings. on S. 3266 im response ‘to a —

ae a charge made. by Mr. M. W. Clement, Vice-President of the .-

Pennsylvania Railroad Company, that the bill would have

: ’ the effect of compelling employees to join-a labor organiza-

‘Senator Wagner: .* * * I didn’t understand these

provisions compelled an employee to join any particu- -

lar union. I thought the purpose of it was ‘just the ~->:

opposite, to seé/that the men have absolute liberty to

join.or not join any union: or-to- remain unorganized. -°.

>. ‘Mr, Clement: That is the way we hope they wil |

=e “read when they are . finally. amended.” eae. oes

Bae As you also are aware, the form of the National Mediation‘:

__. Board’s ballot was the subject of court review in McNulty

v. National Mediation Board, 18 ¥. Supp. 494 (N. D. N.Y.,

. 1936). Th 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 opportunity. to

truly express their will, stating on pp. 504-02 as follows:

‘It is manifest that this ballot, did not present the —

issue to the eligible voters, _

78 :

‘*The-issue, of course, as the mediator admittedly

_ found, was. whether the men desired to’continue under /

. the individual contract method or the National Uniox

““jTepresentation, . ~~. Wee Ls

“‘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

ean be. no representation under, the first method arid) -

3 representation is essential under the other.’, |

\. - . -“But the employees had no opportunity to: express i

@ choice between these methods. They were in\ effect

.. fold that they must have ‘representation for collective | —

/barggining and were asked to elect’ between the Na-:\ ,

‘Unless the statuté 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 in- no

real sense determines whether the employees wish to

‘

retain the old method of individual bargaining, or pre-—_

, - fer to change o¥er, to collective bargaining:

_ ‘In short, the ballot is an artificial thing in no wise

disclosing which method of contracting the majority _

_ _,y, Wish, but merely shows’ that, if they must ‘have ¢ol-

+" Jective bargaining) they preferred the O. R. T. ‘to some —

_ , unknown person. or organization.

_ “It'is idle to say that “it was not necessary for the-

‘contract men to affirmatively vote their desire in order

_ -. + to win but merely necessary that their vote be against

representation by the O. R.T.? vie

__ *Bifty‘employees tried to do just that by putting an

~; X mark in the sqtiare opposite the words ‘if you desire

/ gepresentation by any other organization or individual

‘mark an X\in the sqtare,’ but because they did not

write in the name of some organization or individual .

as. representative in collective bargaiping, the votes

were declared void and not counted. ; <

~The ballot gave them no ‘opportunity to vote .

a\"

/. tional -Ynion (O: R. T.) and an unknown. | \<

. ~

ar :

i against representation by the O. R. T., for their dictie d :

was limited to representation by: O. R. T. or ed some’: -

unknown representative.”” ;

“Continuing: this line of reasoning, the court stated:

“Confronted with such a ballot, many may. have

feared that some militant group might want to write

im thé name of the president of the railroad or some

obnoxious foreman, and, believing that they had to

select some one. to represent them in collective bar- .

- gaining, rather than take: such‘chances of an unknown .

representative, they voted for’ the known/O. R. T.

‘‘How they would have “voted had the real issue

- before them been presented by the ballot; no one knows

or can Agow until another ballot prese ting, that iss ~

is taken. (p. 502.) og ve P

. Having concluded that ‘the election wa unfair, the court.

* declined to exercise its discretionary ower to. grant the i

injunctive. relief requested by = R. T., ex laining as fol-

lows: © e a }

__ “Shall the court ‘by nisindstéccy injunction ‘compel

not want it and contpel the road to treat’-with the

O. R. T.-as representative in collective bargaining in

. + such circumstances as here exist. oe not, unless

the court has no other alternative. . 2? (pp. 502- 303.) .

‘The court found that it was not absolutely bound to enforce 3

the certification issued:by the N. M. B. under éir cumstances

such as these where the manner of Soe eRTNS | the election is

offended the \gourt’ Ss conscience.

No appeal was taken from ‘the decision. of the trial court,

‘and although. the Supreme Court subsequently held in the

t. Switchmen’ sase (320 U. S. 297 (1943) ) that a certification

by the N. ‘M. B. is not reviewablé by‘a Federal District

‘Court, the) McNulty case is still persuasive authority | in

support of the proposition that the om of election ballot

80 : ora

peneiated used by the N. M. B. does not permit atrue ex- °

. Pression of employee sentiment. :

“We sincerely hope that the National Mediation Board ;_

will see its way clear to revise its election procedurés 80. *

that our employees and employees of other carriers a

future elections will have an opportunity to express their Q.

decision on all of ‘the choices that are’ available to them,

one of which is to remain unrepresented.- We will be happy

to diseuss this matter further at the convenience of. the

Board. -— | 9. @

Very truly yours,

/s/ Cuar.es M. Magon,

Senior Vice President,

Neat a Personnel.

CMM:bg eo.

of’. .

ec: G..M. Harrison

A. J. Hayes

W. F. Klatte

Exhibit P = =»

Natrona Mepratiox Boarp ;

(An Agency of the United States Government)

- ~ OrrFictaL Bator

Teletype Operators (Telegraphic Equipment Operators) ~

Employed by

United. Air Lines, Ine.

@ Case No. R-3426

~~ Tuly 14, 1960 to’ August 8, 1960 .

A dispute exists among the above named craft or class of

employees as to who are the representative wR em-

ployees designated and authorized in accordance th the

Mediation Board is taking Secret Ballot in order to as-

‘ certain and to certify the name or names of organizations

or individuals designated and ‘authorized as representa- ,

tives for’ the purpose of the Act. es i.

If you desire to be represented by:

Air Line Communication Employees Association,

_ ‘Unaffiliated . a)

Communication Workers of America. AFL-CIO .

‘Mark an ‘‘X”’ in this square....:. _ epg weleton es Pe a:

If you desire to be represented by: ,

Any Other Organization or Individual* :

Write name of.such representative on the line below ra

And mark an ‘‘X”’ in this square....... EES ape [).

This Is A Secret Ballot. Do Not Sign Your Name.

’ “(Marks in: more than one square make ballot illegal.)

} ‘(Sample.) . a ed Sa eal

Exhibit Q ©

Unrtep Arr. Lines

1200 Algonquin Road, Elk Grove Township, Illinois’

- Mailing Address: P..O.° Box 8800, Chicago 66, Illinois

Office of the President

snes 22, 1963

Honorable Francis J. O'Neill, |

_. Chairman,

National Mediation "|

Washington 25, D. C:

Dear Mr. O'Neill: ;

Mr. Mason, our Senior Vice President—Personnel, es

(

shown me his letter to’ you concerning the Mediation

Board ‘s request to conduct an election on the property of

United Air Lines in the craft 'or class of clerical and re-

lated employees. My personal interest in good labor re-

lations and democratic practices cause me. to supplement -

Mr. Mason’s letter with‘some of my own views.

As IJ understand it, theballot ft rnished to the employees

by the National Mediation Boart plainly states that the

purpose of the election is for t employees to designate

ee .

a'unioh to represent them—not whtther they want a union _ .

and, if they ‘do, which one. Also the ballot has on it’ only

the name of the one or more, unions desiring to represent

the employees and a blank space for the employees to vote

for some other organization or individual not named on

the ballot. This certainly leaves the: employee. with the

inference that he has no choice but "Yo vote for some union

to represent him. Additionally, the Mediation Board does

not,tell the employee at any time how to express his choice

if he wishes to remain unrepresented by a union.

.take an interest in this matter, in view of the

What. especially concerns me about this procedure is

that it is carried on by an agency of the United States Gov-

- ernment in the conduct of its official duties. “In my opinion,

‘this type of election procedure is not at all in keeping with

the normal democratic processes of our country. It-cer-_

tainly cannot be the policy of the United States Government

to conceal from employees all the-choices available to them,

one of which is to remain without union representation.

- Since 1935, the Nafional Labor Relations Board has cons

ducted thousands of elections,.‘i ‘in all of which provision is

made on the ballot for employees to vote for one or more

unions, or for no union. There appears to be nothing

in the Raitway Labor Act.to prohibit using the same type

. of ballot that has been used for over 25 years in all Na-

tional Labor. Relations Board elections. In view of this;

it is timely: that the Government give free expression of

choice to employees participating in representation elec-

tions under she Railway Labor Act, and establish a uni-

form: procedure for conducting elections by all Boards au-

thorized to conduct sueh elections. -

I am taking the-liberty of directing a copy of this letter

to the Attorney General of the United States, and to the

Secretary of Labor anid hope that these gentlemen will

roper con-

cern of the federal government for the rights jof indivi-

duals. Additionally, they may wish to considét whether

such a biased representation election procedure is in ac-

“eordance with the national labor policy. I sineerely hope

that you will undertake to confer with them concerning

the policy of the United States Government on this ques-

.tion.

Although United Air Lines has had a great many vears

of fine and peaceful relations with its organized employees,

.I and my associates in the Company feel that the type of

election coi 1 tueted in the past by the National Mediation.

be |

- Board is not in the best interest of good labor relations « |

or in accord with deniocratic principles which provide —

individuals with a full ‘and fair opportunity to express

their choice in. matters which vitally affect them. I, there- -

fore, sincerely hope and urge your Board to review your

élection procedures within the Government and to take

necessary corrective action so that United’ S: employees and

other employees who will vote in future elections will be

able to freely express their own will with respect to union

representation. oe |

Respectfully subenitéed, “g

Wruuuo A. Patrerson,

- President.

* ee: Hemevible Robert F. Kennedy, oy

Attorney. General. 3S

° . ~

' Honorable W. Willard Wirtz;

'. Secretary of Labor.

‘United Air Lines, iqeotporated,

Exhibit. R

NatronaL Mepation Boarp i

_ eee a on

_ January 24, 1963 - 7

“5 ¥1- NMB Case No. R-3590

Mr. Charles M. sii Sr. Vice: President,

Chicago 66, Tilinois.

Dear Mr. Mason: \ ey 2D

Farther reference is miade to your letter of January 18,

1963 on the generat subject ef the-formof ballot used by

the National Mediation Board in conducting employee

-representation elections under Section 2, Ninth of‘the Rail-

way Labor Act. or | |

As you have been previously advised, the Board a

consistently held, a carrier is not a party to a representa-

' tion dispute involving the selection of a representative of —

its employees. However, the Board welcomes the expres-

sion of your views and will give you a summary of its

practices and rules in the matter of holding representation

elections which have been developed as the best and most

practicable procedures to insure that such elections will be

fair and free from interference, influence and coercion.

used was adopted by the Board in 1934 and has been used

since that time as the form best designed to ascertain the

representation desires of a carrier’s employeés for the

_ purpose of collective bargaining. ‘The blank line appearing

on the present form of ballot affords an opportunity to the

- voter to vote for some organization or individual other than

those named on ‘the ballot, or he may refrain from voting

at all if he-so chooses, There is no compulsion that ‘he vote

. for a contestant for ‘representation. Introduction of a’

“yes”? or ‘‘no”’ ballot would contribute to, if it did not *

actually encourage, an attempt to circumvent the mandate -

of Congress that representatives be designated by carriers

and their employees for the purposes described in Section

2, First and Second of the Railway Labor Act; which are

_ , (quoted below for ready reference :.

‘First. It shall be the ‘duty of all carriers, ‘their

. Officers, agents, and employees to exert every reason-

able effort. to make and maintain agreements concern-

\ ing rates of pay,-rules, and working conditions, and

_to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the appli-°

cation of such agreements or otherwise, in order to °

avoid any interruption to commerce or to the opera-

-tion of any carrier growing out of any dispute between

. the carrier and the employees thereof.

**Second. All disputes between a(carrier or carriers”

and its or their employees shall be’ considered, and,

if possible, decided, with all expedition, in conference

-between representatives designated and authorized so

. to confer, respectively; by the carrier or carriers and

- by the employees thereof interested in the dispute.” :

' The Board has reviewed your reference to the case of

McNulty v. National Mediation Board, 18 F. Supp. 494 (N.

‘D. N.Y:, 1936), contained on pages 4, 5 and 6 of your letter.

Your quotations from the decision of the District Court

omits reference to the fact the National Mediation Board

was removed as a party to this case during the Court

proceedings: -The Judge’s opinion contained the following

_Statement not quoted in your letter: &

The National Mediation Board \not being a party to

this suit, the Court can mske no order directly affect-

- ing that Board. * * * _ The conclusion then. is that no

a2,

; 4

Vee.

fe .

\aaw

ee «Por orrere:

- a i a ¥

~ . “ P

* 4

party i is entitled to affirmative relief. The complaint

and the ‘cross complaints are all dismissed without —

cost a any party against any other party.’’’”

It will, ‘\ observed that the deeision of the ‘ike ‘in - the

_ McNulty, case in no way ordered teaie te of the

formof ballot customarily used by this Board. | Since the

comment of the Court on the form of ballot must be re-.

“*" garded as obiter dictum. The McNulty case has never |

‘ee-to: G. M. Harrison,

been considered by the National Mediation Board as con-

trolling the Board’s functions. orepractices u under the cal

- ‘way Labor Act.

In light of the above, this-Board_ sees no reason to ra

viate from its eustomary form: of -bal ot.in the current dis- .

pute, and it will be used by the media ator in conducting the

- election in NMB Case No. R-3590.

- By direction of the National Mediation Board.

/s/ E. Cc. THOMPSON,

E. C. Thompson,

Executive Secretary..

A. J. Hayes,

’ Wm. F. J. Klatte.

. D ~ . . . ;

- Exhibit S ees

. _ _ February 1, 1963 —

. Mr. Leverett Edwards, Nee othe gg 2 es

‘ Chairman, 3 : Le

National Mediation. Board,

Washington, D.C. sot a

Dear Mr. Edwards: | ‘2B

We have the Board’s- letter of January 24,,NMB Case

No. R-3590, in‘ reply to our letter of January 18 on the

form of ballot being used by the National Mediation Board.

_ We appreciate the Board’s furnishing us with a summary

' of its. practices in holding representation elections, - |

~ "We understand your letter to say that if the Board used

-a ballot that-allows employees to express a desire to re-

‘main unrepresented, this would somehow circumyent>a

mandate of Congress that employees shall be represented.

In short, employees ‘must be represented by a union or —

other organization or individual. In other words, it has |

been the view of the Board that the purposes of the Act

would be defeated by carriers treating separately with in-.

dividual employees and that therefore employees are not

given freedom to express a-choice in a Mediation Board

election between being represented or remaining unrepre-

- sented. Rather, the Board has limited employee voting toa

determination of who shall be designated as the representa-

- tive of the employees in the appropriate class or craft—

and not whether there shall be any representative at all. .

Please advise us if this does not correctly reflect the Board's

policies-and practices. a

We appreciate that the Board’s position stems from the’

adoption of the present form of ballot in 1934, well before -

the appointment of the present members of the Board. We’

ees diet

think, however, that the present Board should re-examine

its position to see whether it is based upon a proper inter-

pretation of the Railway Labor Act in light of the facts in

this case. Stated in another way, irrespective of the type

-of ballot used by the. Board in other elections, the facts

of this election justify..Mediation Beard action to use a

_ ballot ‘which gives employees an opportunity to indicate .

whether’ they do or do not want unior representation. In

the. forthcoming election, there are approximately 9,700

employees eligible to vote who are not now and never have

. together with 3,000 of our organized employees, will be

- eligible to participate.in the largest single airline employee

representation election ever held by the National Mediation |

Board since the airlines were placed under the Railway

Labor Act. ; pots 3 Meee

_ The Board has said that in instances where the employees

are not represented, the representation dispute is between

.the employees who ‘desire representation on the one hand.

.and the employees who do not desire representation or

who are indifferent on the other. As the Board stated in

its Twenty-Seventh Annual Report,-p. 37:

“*... in a dispute where employees are secking to desig-

nate a representative for the first time the dispute is

‘between those who favor h ing a-representative as

. Opposed to those who are yodifferent or are opposed

* to having a representative for the purpose of the act.”’

Especially in this case,-where such a large number of pres-’

~~ ently unrepresented employees are involved in the election, .

it seems entirely appropriate that such employees have an

opportunity to indicate a desire to maintain their present - _

status. Contrariwise, it seems entirely improper that the

employees who may not want to be represented or who are -

indifferent—whom the Board recognizes as one of the

parties in a representation dispute among™.unorganized

90°

employees—should be offered an election procedure which

‘ fails to provide a way to express a choice, to remain. un-

” represented. vl

‘The Board’s present form of ballot concerns United be-

ovause it may thyjatt t the desire of the majority of an .un-

represented craft: or class to remain unrepresented, if that

‘is their desire. i The purpose of the Act to promote stable

labor relations will not be effectuated by forcing an un-

' willing’ majority - -of employees in a.craft or class to have

their rates of pay and working conditions established

through a process they do not want. A contrary result saa

well be reached. : 7

Section : 2, Fourth, of the Railway pram Act i is the section

of the Act which relates directly and specifically to the

employees’ right to organize and bargain ro It

provides that: :

‘«Employees shall have the right ‘to. organize and _

bargain collectively through representatives of their

own choosing. The majority of any craft or elass\of

employees shall have the right to determine who shall

be the representative of the craft or class for the pur-

pose of this Act.’’ (Emphasis. supplied.) a

The Board’ s election procedure clearly recognizes the

right of a majority of a craft or class to organize and bar-

gain collectively if it chooses to exercise that right. There

is, however, a large gap between Tecognizing the existence

of a right and making the exercise of that- right a manda-.

tory requirementwhich is-in_effect-what the Board’s-vot-

’ -ing procedures do; In fact; compelling employées to organ-——

‘ize and bargain ‘collectively effectively abridges the’ em-

ployees’ right granted them in Section 2, Fourth. A right, -

’ «is no longer a right when one is compélled -to exercise it |

but is transformed into a duty. Such a transformation ob- : :

viously is contrary to the language of the.Act. andthe . a.

- Congressional intent. Section 2, Fourth, properly leaves

ees | Pane Yee

"the initiative in determining whether to organize and bar-

gain collectively to the majority of the employees of the

- eraft or class. That initiative is improperly removed ‘from —

the employees by: election procedures which assume—prior :

to an election—that the choice available to them is only a.

_ choice betweeri representatives. _

-, The provisions of the Railway Labor Act upon which

the’ Board bases its election policy and practices do not

sustain the Board’s interpretation. The Boards conclusion

that there is a ‘‘mandate of Congregs’’ that representatives -_

‘be designated by employees appareytly is based on Section -

2, First and Second, quoted in the/Board’s letter. Section

2, First and Second, however, dgfot deal with the question

of whether employees shall be represented or, if they do, .

how they designate their representative. This function is.

Be: performed by Section 2, Fourth, of the Act, which, as we

have already shown, clearly contemplates that the employ-

ees themselves can choose whether or not they want to be

represented. Section) 2; Ninth, which empowers. the Board

to establish its-election procedures, merely gives to the _

Board authority to provide the proper mechanics to deter-

mine whether the niajority of: the employees desire to

| guaranteed to them by Section 2; Fourth. .In other words,

exercise the right 4 organize. and. bargain -collectively

the Board’s election procedures cannot properly exceed the

. scope of Section 2, Fourth, and compel organization. con-

trary to the wishes of the majority. .

r equire employees 'to be represented; that mandate-would®

have appeared in Section “2; Fourth, of the Act, which is

specifically concerned with the matter of employee organ-

ization and representation. It would be extremely unlikely

that a,matter so important as a Congressional mandate that

employees shall be represented would be found by implica-_

tion in a section of the Act which does‘not by its language -

# If the Congress intended that the Railway Labor a

9 °

even refer to the matter of representation. “The language

' of Section 2, Second, also relied on by the Board, is easily.

reconcilable with the recognition of a right by employees

to deal with a carrier ‘as individuals, rather than through

collective bargaining representatives, Obviously, Section 2, —

Second, which .proyides that ‘‘ All disputes. between a car-

rier... and its vA

possible, decided, with all cupetition.| in conference between

representatives ‘designated and authorized ‘so to confer,

respectively, by the carrier or carriers and by the: employ-

ees thereof interested in the dispute’’ becomes applicable

only after the employees and the carrier have designated

ployees ..... shall be considered, and, if -

and authorized representatives. When employees deal ;

with a carrier as individuals, the confereffce procedure con- .

. templated by Section 2, Second, is simply inapplicable.

‘ us This.is shown by the testimony before the House Commit-

_ tee on. Interstate and Foreign Commerce of Commissioner

' Eastman, draftsman of the 1934 Amendments to the Rail-

_ way Labor “Act. Commissioner Eastman stated that it

was not the purpose of the bill which: was eventually

enacted into law te coerce organization or to require col-

lective bargaining on the part of the, employees, Rather,

as: Commissioner Eastman stated:

‘‘Tf the employees do.not- wigh to organize, prefer to-

_ deal individually with the management’ with regard to

se matters; why, that course is. left open to them, or

‘it shouldbe.” — - , . i

_ The legislative history. of the 1934 Amendments to “the

Railway Labor Act shows conclusively the Board’s present

procedures are in direct conflict with the intent of the Con-

‘gress. It was for that Feason that we made’ several refer-

ences. to the legislative history in our letter of January 18.

We know that the Members of the National: Mediation

_ Board, like the members of. any other administrative

agency, would not wish to continue a policy which i is in con-

“

flict with the intent of Congress in the law under which the -

agency is established and operates. We would, therefore, _

appreciate the Board’s comments on this history‘since this

point wag not answered in the Board’s reply to United

The Board’s reply to our letter of January 18 notes that

_ the McNulty ease did not order discontinuance of the form

of ballot tustomarily sed by the Mediation Board sinee

‘. the Mediation Board was removed as a party to this case

. during the court proceedings, We did not cite*the McNiilty

_€ase as support for the proposition that the Board was

-“orderéd by the court to stop using its customary ballot. Our

point in rena the McNulty case, which we believe is clear.

from our letter, is that the court, in the McNulty case recog-

nized that the form of election ballot presently used by the..

_ Sion of employee sentiment. In fact, the court in the Mc-

Nulty case considered and rejected the interpretation of

the Railway [Labor Act that the employees must have rep-

resentation /for collective bargaining. Thus, the court ;

stated:

* “The issue, of course, as the mediator: admittedly

_ found, was whether the men desired to continue undsr

the individual contract method or the National Union |

representation. ;

‘* _ « ee * ,

“But the employees had 10 opportunity to express a

choice between these methods. They were in.effect told

that they must have representation for collective bar- ~

-. gaining and were asked to elect between the National

_ Union (0. BR. T.) and an unknown. ee

« 7% wit

“Tn short, the ballot is an artificial thing in no wise ‘dis-

closing which method of contracting the majority wish, .

_but merely shows that,. if they st have collective °

. bargaining, they preferred the O. R. T. to some. un- «,

known person or organization,’’ aA

ae Y ‘ w/ 9

The fact that the National Mediation was, = consent of

the parties, @ismissed from the suit as a party defendant |

does not erase the fact that the Board’s form of ballot was _

found by the court to be improper because it did not afford

the employees an opportunity to truly express their will.

The balloting policies-of the Mediation Board are in

striking contrast to those followed: by the National Labor

Relations Board: The thrust of these sister statutes—the -

Railway Labor Act and the National. Labor Relations

_Act—has been judicially found to be the same. ‘The Na- -

tional Labor Relations Board, however, has adopted a form —

of election. ballot which gives to employees the right to

express their choice as to whether they do or do not want

- representation. the other hand, the National Mediation

Board has adopted a form of election ballot which effec- |

tively denies the employees that right. -The completely -

contrary election proced res used- under these companion

laws cannot be reconciled:

United Air Lines renews fhe pleas of. Mr. W. A. Patter-

son’s letter of January 22\to the Board. The Mediation-

Board is urged to review its election procedures with the

* Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary

of Labor to determine whether the Board’s present policy

and practices are consistent with the intent ef Congress and

the national labor poliey. ,

Sincerely yours,,

aie. | /8/ Cuarues M. Mason,.

mht P = ‘Charles M. Mason,

: ‘ . _ Senior Vice President—

Personnel.

ec: Honorable Robert F. Seniedy, \-

Attorney General,

Honorable W. Willard Wirtz, :

: Secretary of Labor.

sence,

“Exhibit T

NatioyaL Mepration Boarp

Washington

February 7, 1963

; Case No. R-3590

Mr. Charles M. Mason, Sr., Vice President

United Air Lines, Incorporated

P. O. Box 8800° _

Chicago 66, Illinois.

Dear Mr. Mason: a tes : *

ae Acknowledgement is made of. your letter of February 1,

; 1963, to. Chairman Edwards, on the subject of MMB Case.

No. R-3590, ae |

The Board sees no useful purpose to be served by con-

_ tinuing the exchange of correspondence concerning the

views of United Air Lines, Ine., onthe various aspects of

the Handling of this case. We.will, however, comment briefly

on two points made in your letter. As stated in our letter

of January 24, :1963-it is the Board’s view’ that the

Congress intended that the purposes of the Railway

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.