ARBITRATIONS NOT BINDING. ABBITRATION AWARDS UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE ARE ONLY MORAL OBLIGATIONS ON RAILROAD COMPANIES. It has been decided, at least so reported, by representatives of the Federal Government, that an award reached through arbitration under the Federal Law is no more than a moral obligation upon either the railroad companies or their employes. So far, organizations of railroad employes have been as firmly bound by these moral obligations as though an award reached through a Federal arbitration was enforceable as judgments of the court. The railroad companies having discovered that arbitration awards are not enforceable by law have not been bound, in many instances, by the moral obligation, in that wages and working conditions secured to railroad employes through arbitrations under the Federal Law have not been applied. A specific instance, wherein a railroad company has refused to apply any portion of an arbitration award is that of the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad, which road, after all danger of a strike had passed, repudiated its agreement to arbitrate matters in dispute between locomotive firemen and hostlers and the eastern railroads in the year 1913. A brief history of this case is as follows: On February 18, 1913, through the friendly influence of Judge Knapp and Mr. Hanger, acting on behalf of the Federal Government, an agreement was reached to arbitrate all matters in dispute. This agreement was signed by the Chairman of the Conference Committee for the railroads represented by that committee, which included the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad, and in the arbitration agreement the following appears: * * * it being understood and agreed that both parties hereto invoke all the provisions of the said Act and submit themselves unreservedly to the terms of the said Act for the purpose of procuring a final determination of the questions hereinafter specified and set out, as fully and completely as if all the terms and provisions of the said Act were written into and made part of this agreement. In carrying out the terms of the agreement to arbitrate all matters in dispute between the firemen and hostlers and the railroads represented by the Eastern Conference Committee of Managers, the Arbitration Board began its hearings in New York City on March 10, 1913, and proceeded from day to day to hear testimony, consider same, until April 23, 1913, when the award was made public. After the arbitration proceedings had commenced the Chairman of the Conference Committee of Managers announced to the Board of Arbitration that he had received a communication from the executive officer of the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad that this road desired to withdraw from further participation in arbitration matter, and the following are quotations from the official proceedings of the arbitration: (EXTRACT FROM ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, VOL. 1, PAGE 429.) NEW YORK, March 13, 1913. Mr. Lee (Counsel for the Railroads): Pardon me just a moment. The Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Company gave authority to the Conference Committee of Managers to represent them in this case. We received from them a day or two ago, a notice of their desire to withdraw. We make this statement for the benefit of the firemen, and also for the benefit of the board. We are not certain what final action will be taken on that particular case, but we think it is only fair, as they show in the agreement, that it is only fair to the firemen and to the board, and also to the Conference Committee of Managers, that we should make this statement at this time. If we have any further communication from them, we will be very glad to communicate that. We make that statement for the reason that there was a misunderstanding in the engineers' case about one road that was rather troublesome to clear up. We desire just to make that statement for the informa-. tion of the board and the firemen. The Chairman: Is there any objection? Mr. Carter (Counsel for the Employes): Gentlemen of the Commission, of course we would object to anything of that kind, but as to the weight of our objection, I have no knowledge. I have been told that even under the Federal Law, and notwithstanding the latter portion of that law seems to be very explicit, that in the end it is a moral obligation largely, on the part of both the employer and the employe. The Chairman: That is the case up to the time they enter into an agreement. Mr. Carter: We have in addition to the features of the Federal Law, and in addition to any moral obligation which may rest upon our members, a law of our own, and if any of our men on any road should now seek to withdraw, the laws of our organization would positively prohibit them withdrawing. We would hold them to the letter of their agreement. I can only say that if this road insists that it is going to withdraw, I presume it is a matter that the Managers' Conference Committee and the gentlemen of the Commission would have to settle. We take this opportunity, however, to file a protest against such withdrawal. Mr. Lee: As I said before to the board, we merely make that announcement now so that there may not be any misunderstanding later. We are hoping to get further advice from that road. We have not stated what our position in the matter is; we hope it won't be necessary, but we hope to have further advice from them. The Chairman: Was that road ever in the Managers' Association? Mr. Lee: It was in the Managers' Association, and the managers had the authority at the time the agreement to arbitrate was signed, sir. It is an unusual proceeding, Judge, and on account of its unusuality we desire to make this statement so that the Conference Committee of Managers' skirts will be cleared, so to speak, as far as they could be made so. Mr. Atterbury: What is the name of the road, Mr. Lee? Mr. Lee: Clover Leaf, the Toledo, St. Louis and Western. If we have any further communication from them on this matter, we will be very glad to further advise Mr. Carter and the board. Mr. Atterbury: Is that one of the so-called Hawley roads? Mr. Lee Why, it is the road that used to be joined with the Alton, but was recently separated from it. Mr. Atterbury: Who is the president? Mr. Lee: Mr. Ross, W. L. Ross. The Chairman: The board will not recognize the right of any railroad once a party to this agreement, to withdraw. Mr. Lee: We are not claiming the right, sir. The Chairman: No, I know you are not, but they may be. Mr. Lee: They may be. This is the first direct intimation that we have had, their letter dated March 6th. Mr. Atterbury: Mr. Lee can so advise the officers of the road. (EXTRACT FROM ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, VOL. 1, PAGE 666.) NEW YORK, March 14, 1913. Mr. Carter: The fact of the matter is, gentlemen, that we have had ample evidence right here yesterday or day before, that the firemen on the Toledo, St. Louis and Western are to suffer by being withdrawn from this movement, simply because of this increased burden of capital on the firemen's backs on that road. The Chairman: We do not know whether they will be withdrawn or not. The Chairman: We have not got the facts about that yet, and I am not so certain but what if we cannot prevent a party who comes into court once from withdrawing from the case without the consent of the court, we may certify that fact to the Circuit Court of this district, which has the power to punish them. Mr. Lee: The Circuit Court, as I understand it, has authority to put the award in operation. The Chairman: But this board has the power to punish a witness, for instance, for perjury; we have the right to punish for contempt committed in the presence of the board, by certifying to the court in the circuit in which we sit; and a party who comes into this arbitration and for some reason which may be good to themselves concludes to withdraw from the case, before the case is decided, without the consent of the board, is in contempt of the board, and I am not so sure but what we could certify that fact to the Circuit Court sitting here in this district for such action as the court would inflict if the case was one pending before that court. What action we might take, of course, would depend upon conferences on the subject, but before we have held any conferences even, we have waited to hear further as to what this railroad is undertaking to do. We only know now by a statement which you all heard yesterday, that the road may withdraw from this arbitration. Mr. Lee: It desires to withdraw. The Chairman: It desires to withdraw. If that was done, why another road could withdraw, and another road could withdraw, and as the evidence developed before the Commission and produced the impression upon the mind of the manager of a railroad who was representing his corporation here, that there probably would be an award against the railroad in favor of the men, why all of them might conclude to drop out, and that sort of thing could not be permitted any more than if the brotherhood came to the conclusion that the award might be against them and then the brotherhood on the Erie road would conclude to get out of this arbitration and the brotherhood on the Pennsylvania would conclude to get out. (EXTRACT FROM ABRITRATION PROCEEDINGS, VOL. 1, PAGE 671.) NEW YORK, March 15, 1913. The Chairman: The board wishes to make a correction in the record of yesterday and prefers to make the correction by public announcement. On page 666, following the statement of Mr. Carter in reference to the efect of the withdrawal of the Toledo. St. Louis and Western Railroad upon the firemen on that road, the chairman said, "We do not know whether they will be withdrawn or not," and Mr. Carter said, "Well, we will try to." The correction the board makes now will not change in any respect the substance of what we said, but we want at least the grammar to be good, and in lieu of what the record contains, the board makes this statement: "We have not the facts about that yet. The board, however, is prepared to announce that no party to the arbitration agreement can withdraw after the hearings have begun, without the consent of all the parties to the submission, and the approval of the board, and if a party attempts to withdraw without such consent and approval, the board will certify that fact to the Circuit Court of this district, for such action as the court may see proper to take." Then Mr. Lee said, "The Circuit Court, as I understand it, has authority to put the award in operation," and the board substitutes the following for the reply of the chairman to that statement: "While this board may not have the power, for instance, to punish a witness for perjury, or to punish for contempt, the same thing can be accomplished, doubtless, by certification to the Circuit Court of the United States in this district. Manifestly, none of the parties to this case can withdraw without the consent of the others, and with the approval of the board. To do so. would not only be a violation of the arbitration agreement, but would be in contempt of the board, and it cannot be doubted that the court would extend its aid, and, upon proper certification of the facts, would take the same action and inflict the same punishment that it would if the offense had been committed in the court itself. The board trusts that this statement is all that needs to be said in the present stage of this matter." Mr. Carter: "With regard to the reply to your first statement, I think it is written accurately, with the exception that there should be a dash following the word "to" instead of a period. "We will try to," and then you went on. I meant to say we will try to prevent it, but the words "prevent it" were never used, because you continued your statement. The Chairman: Yes, you afterwards said you would protest. Mr. Carter: Simply a dash for the period would indicate it exactly. The words are right, and I would have completed the sentence, but I withdrew to hear the chairman complete what he was going to say. (EXTRACT FROM AREITRATION PROCEEDINGS, VOL. 2, PAGE 1243.) Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to read a telegram to the Commission. It bears date, Delphos, Ohio, March 21, 1913, and is addressed to me, and is signed by J. Nomina, General Chairman of our Committee on the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railway, and reads as follows: "I have been informed by our superintendent that the present management claim that they had not authorized the Conference Committee of Managers to represent the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railway and now claim they will handle working conditions and rate of pay directly between them and their employes. As this is not our understanding, please advise immediately." I take this opportunity to make formal protest again, against the withdrawal of the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railway from this arbitration proceeding. The Chairman: Mr. Lee, I think that makes it necessary for you to put on record a statement as to the status of these railroad negotiations with reference to the Toledo, St. Louis and Western. Mr. Lee: At the time the arbitration agreement was signed, sir, it was the understanding of the Conference Committee of Managers that they represented the Toledo, St. Louis, and Western. The claim has been made that they did not have formal authority. We feel that our records are very clear on the matter, and I regret exceedingly, of course, that this should have arisen. I also regret that the matter has not been definitely settled; that is, we have not gone as far as we think we can go before saying to this board that we can go no further with the Toledo, St. Louis and Western. When we come to the point where we feel we have gone as far as we can go by ourselves, in getting them to come into this movement, we will so advise the board. The Chairman: Do you mean, gone as far as you can go, in getting them to come into this arbitration? Mr. Lee: To fulfill the obligations that the Conference Committee have made for them. The Chairman: To come in, or to stay in? Mr. Lee: To stay in. The Chairman: We will attend to their staying in if they have ever been in. Mr. Lee: It was our understanding that we represented them when we signed the arbitration agreement, and we feel that our records are very clear on the matter; but we have not gone with them as far as we desire to go ourselves before finally laying the matter before this board. The Chairman: This board is willing to leave it in that condition for the present. (EXTRACT FROM ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 3, Page 2389.) NEW YORK, April 5, 1913. The Chairman: ** * The In reference to the attitude.of the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Company in this arbitration, the representative of the railroads, Mr. Lee, who is Chairman of the Conference Committee of Managers, has submitted to the board the correspondence relating to the subject from the beginning to the present time. This correspondence runs back to the time when the negotiations between the brotherhood and the railroads began. After due consideration of the subject, the board is of the opinion that the Conference Committee of Managers had full authority to represent the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Company throughout the negotiations, leading up to the arbitration. The letters and telegrams, from the officers of that road, not only indicate this, but, in exact words, admit it. evidence submitted to us shows that they paid two assessments, in response to the request of the Committee of Managers, covering their part of the expenses connected with the negotiations; and the correspondence, even since the Arbitration Board was organized, shows conclusively that the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad recognized that they had been a party to the negotiations. And, subsequent to the signing by the parties of the arbitration submission the executive official of that road asked if his road could be withdrawn from the arbitration without breaking faith. The Committee of Managers, through its chairman, has insisted right along that that could not be done. The correspondence with other high rail1oad officials, which has been submitted to us, indicates that that is the attitude of the Committee of Managers generally. We see no reason why the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad should be permitted to withdraw from this arbitration. They certainly have no right to withdraw, and we do not discover in the papers that are submitted to us that they assert that right. They have simply attempted to get out, as they say, without breaking faith. In the opinion of the board, the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad is now a party to this arbitration and will be equally bound with the other railroads by the award. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the Chairman of the Board of Arbitration in this case that the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Company could be compelled to apply the award, it became evident that this railroad had legal advice to the contrary. Representatives of the firemen and hostlers learned from authorities upon the law, that it was doubtful if it would be profitable to enter suit against the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Company, for aside from the question of the right of that railroad to withdraw from an arbitration after an agreement to arbitrate had been reached under the supervision of Federal Authorities, that railroad could avoid the burden of applying the increases of wages and improved working conditions for many years by simply resorting to the usual delays of the courts. In the meantime it became evident, through negotiations with the Conference Committee of Managers of the Eastern Railroads that a considerable number of such railroads were determined to avoid the expense placed upon them by the Arbitration Award, by technical interpretations and obstructions. With the belief that it devolved upon the Federal Government to enforce awards resulting from arbitration under the Federal Law, the following letter was addressed to Hon. W. L. Chambers, Commissioner of Mediation and Conciliation of the United States: PEORIA, ILL., Dec. 22, 1913. Honorable W. L. Chambers, Commissioner, U. S. Board of Mediation and Conciliation, Southern Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: It has been the fortune or misfortune of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen to have been identified to a greater extent with the application of a Federal Arbitration Law than any other railroad organization, in that the Western Joint Wage Movement of 1909-1910 of locomotive firemen and hostlers was arbitrated under the provisions of the Erdman Act, while other organizations in the West reached a settlement without the necessity of such an arbitration. In the Eastern Joint Wage Movement of 1912-1913 of locomotive firemen and hostlers, a settlement was reached through arbitration under the provisions of the Erdman Act, while the engineers' similar movement was adjusted by a different form of arbitration, agreed upon by representatives of the railroads and the engineers. The recent arbitration of trainmen and conductors was held under the provisions of the Newlands Act, which succeeded the Erdman Act, but does not differ therefrom, so far as the "enforcement of the award" is concerned. It was the experience of the firemen in the Western Arbitration of May, 1910, that almost immediately after the rendering of the award, disputes arose as to the intent of many features of the award. It is fair to say that both railroad officials and employes proved themselves intensely technical, in an effort to interpret respective sections of the award in their favor, but because of the apparent desire on the part of the Chairman of the Western Conference Committee of Managers to be fair, it was not difficult to secure an agreement between him and me, as authorized representatives of our respective interests, to submit all matters in dispute back to the original Board of Arbitration for final settlement, with the understanding that any interpretation made by the Board of Arbitration would be observed by both the railroads and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, in the same manner as though such interpretation was a part of the original award. In compliance with our joint request, and agreement, the Board of Arbitration again met and decided the points in dispute, conducting the hearing in the same formal manner as the original arbitration was conducted. But, I regret to say, some of the roads refused to comply with the interpretation of the Arbitration Board, and the agreement reached by the Conference Committee of Managers and me, and certain provisions of that award (as interpreted by the Arbitration Board) have never been applied on certain Western railroads. Immediately following the rendering of the award in the Eastern Arbitration of the firemen and hostlers' wage dispute, a majority of the Eastern railroads placed the award in effect, with an apparent earnest desire to comply with every clause of the award. On the other hand, certain railroads have refused to apply the award, in some instances, placing a different interpretation upon its provisions than was understood by the firemen and hostlers. In some instances, application of the award was deliberately withheld, in matters concerning which there was no dispute as to the meaning of the award. Correspondence which has already been filed with you, will demonstrate that it required months of earnest effort to secure an agreement with the Conference Committee of Managers of Eastern Railroads to submit to the Arbitration Board all matters in dispute. The Conference Committee of Managers first insisted that the award should be applied on each railroad, through negotiations and agreement be tween the individual committees (a vast majority of whom did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and had no knowledge thereof) and their respective managements. With this method I disagreed, and advised our committees to insist that each railroad should apply the award in its entirety, as understood by the Conference Committee of Managers, and then if there were any complaints against the method of applying the award on any railroad, it should be referred to me, when 1 would take the matter up with the Chairman of the Conference Committee of |