If the Supplemental Boards had been continued at thirty-seven awards per month, with other conditions unchanged, the pending load would have been reduced to minus two at the end of August 1959, as shown by Table 1. Table 2 shows, in columns (1) and (2), how the Division would have fared without the Supplemental Boards, starting with a zero balance September 1, 1959, and assuming no change in withdrawals. However, in the absence of a large backlog of pending cases, it is probably that withdrawals would have been drastically reduced. (Withdrawals during the nineteen months since August 1959 averaged 37.7 per month. During the preceding forty-four months the average was 33.3.) Column (3) shows the number of cases closed by Regular Board awards only and that the pending load would have been 696 March 31, 1961, if withdrawals are not counted. Column (4) shows that the pending load would have been reduced to minus seven if the Supplemental Boards had been in operation and if there were no withdrawals. No attempt has been made to estimate the increase in cases docketed which would have resulted from reduction in the number of Special Boards due to absence of a substantial backlog. It appears, however, that to continue on a current basis the Supplemental Boards would be required for an indefinate period and that some Special Boards would be needed. NOTE.-Difference between columns (2) and (3) represents withdrawals (716). STATEMENT OF T. F. STRUNCK, CARRIER MEMBER, THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD My name is Thomas F. Strunck. I am a carrier member of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. My office address is 220 South State Street, Chicago, Ill. I have served in this capacity since January 1, 1962. Prior thereto I served as a carrier member of the Second Division of the Board, as attorney and assistant general attorney for the Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebr., and examiner for the carrier members of the First Division of the Board. SCOPE This statement will be limited to facts concerning caseload and numbers of cases handled on the Second, Third, and Fourth Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. It will contain a brief background review to aid in understanding the current statuts of case handling on each of these Divisions, and will consider the backlog on the Third Division. It will also treat of the steps which have been taken to reduce that backlog, the effect of such procedures and some estimate of when the backlog might be reduced to reasonable proportions. INTRODUCTION The three divisions being considered were established as part of the National Railroad Adjustment Board by amendment to the Railway Labor Act in 1934. Section 3 provided for the establishment of four divisions of the national board including the divisions under consideration, and defined their jurisdiction. Disputes and grievances involving shop craft employees are under the jurisdiction of the Second Division. Those involving other nonoperating employees such as clerks, maintenance-of-way employees, signalmen, telegraphers, dining car employees, sleeping car conductors, etc., are assigned to the Third Division. Disputes involving employees not under the jurisdiction of the other three divisions of the Board are under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Division (Railway Labor Act, sec. 3(h)). The crafts subject to the jurisdiction of the three divisions collectively represent 70 percent of employees subject to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The Second and Third Divisions consist of five carrier and five labor members each; whereas the Fourth Division consists of three carrier and three labor members. The records of the National Railroad Adjustment Board reveal that the organizations are the petitioners in 99 percent of the cases appealed to the Board. On the three divisions considered in this statement, the vast majority of cases have been referred to a neutral for decision.1 SECOND AND FOURTH DIVISIONS These divisions have not experienced particular difficulty in maintaining a reasonable balance between cases received and on hand and those handled to a conclusion. Since it commenced operating in 1934 through June 30, 1964, a 30-year period, the Second Division has docketed 4,776 cases, disposed of 4,506, leaving on hand for disposition 270.2 Since the year the Board initiated operations through June 30, 1964, the Second Division has had on hand for disposition at the end of each fiscal year an approximate average of 161 cases with the total never exceeding 379.3 The 270 cases on hand June 30, 1964, is the smallest number of undisposed cases in the last 5 fiscal years. Cases disposed of in the year ending June 30, 1964, were 283. This constitutes the highest number handled in the past 4 fiscal years. For the 10-month period commencing July 1, 1964, the Second Division has docketed 153 cases and disposed of 168, leaving on hand 256 for disposition as of April 30, 1965. While the Second Division has been making progress in recent years, it has a few minor problems which have delayed its case disposition. Liberal extension of time to the parties and the limited amount of time some referees have allotted to their work on that Division have been factors tending to extend time required 1 30th Annual Report of the National Mediation Board. * Cumulative statistics taken from p. 88, 30th Annual Report of the National Mediation Board. Data taken from annual reports of the National Mediation Board. for disposition of a docket of cases. Also, the carmen craft handles approximately 50 percent of the cases before the Division and since such cases are assigned to one representative this has caused some delay to the handling of all cases. None of these elements present insuperable obstacles. Minor modifications in Division procedure will correct the situation. The Division members concerned have initiated steps to change procedure to expedite case handling. A continuing review of the rules of procedure and the cooperation of all concerned toward prompt modification as demanded will prevent any serious difficulty from developing on this Division concerning case handling. In any event, these are matters for adjustment among all those involved and do not require any change to the Railway Labor Act. The Fourth Division in the same 30-year period terminating June 30, 1964. docketed 1,948 cases, disposed of 1,917, leaving on hand 31. In the most recent 10-month period terminating April 30, 1965, 85 cases were docketed and 68 disposed of, leaving 48 pending. THIRD DIVISION The Third Division is being treated separately because of certain unique circumstances and special problems. It has jurisdiction over disputes involving employees of organizations which represent the largest membership in the railroad industry." Undoubtedly this is a factor in the greater case volume before this division. The statistics of the Third Division relating to volume of cases reveal that accumulation of undecided cases on hand was not excessive from the inception of the Board through fiscal 1955. The facts indicate that there were 616 cases on hand at close of fiscal 1955 and 1,455 at the close of fiscal 1956.7 It is felt that this marked increase was due principally to agreed changes in the method of handling grievances. Prior to the August 21, 1954, agreement, there was no general provision concerning time limits for processing disputes. Many disputes were not progressed for years, and a number of cases after being progressed through all steps on the property lay dormant for long periods and then were taken to the Board. Various examples of such grievances not progressed with diligence are to be found on pages 5-7 of carriers' exhibit No. 47 filed with Emergency Board No. 106, as well as in the testimony of Carrier Witness Day before that same Board (R. 4427-4431, reported at pp. 1286 and 1287 of the transcript of proceedings of Emergency Board 106). As an example see Third Division award 8140 which involved a delay of over 12 years. On August 21, 1954, the major carriers, represented by the Eastern. Western. and Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committees, and the cooperating railway labor organizations, including most of those concerned with the Third Division, entered into an agreement effective January 1, 1955, which imposed certain time limits on the initiation of claims and grievances and their processing at various levels including appeal to the Board." In general, the rule provided that if the employees or their representatives defaulted in handling, the claim would be barred. If the railroad defaulted it would be required to allow the claim as presented regardless of its merits. For claims upon which the highest designated officer had ruled prior to the effective date of the agreement, a period of 12 months was allowed for appeal to the adjustment board. The time limit provisions required that all disputes, including those which had accumulated over the years, be progressed and appealed to the adjustment board within stipulated periods, otherwise they became barred. This resulted in disputes that had been lying dormant for long periods on the carriers being appealed to the Third Division. P. SS, 30th Annual Report of the National Mediation Board. 5 Crafts under jurisdiction of the 3d Division constitute 44 percent of employees subject to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Exhibit F to Mr. Bruner's statement copy of which so far as it relates to the 3d Division is attached. 7 Ibid. The appropriateness of a time limit for progressing claims and grievances had earlier been recognized by impartial authorities. For example, the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure in 1941 recommended that, since the National Railroad Adjustment Board did not establish time limitations which would protect against the assertion of stale claims," the Railway Labor Act be amended to do so. Art. V of agreement dated Aug. 21, 1954. As statistics presented by Mr. Burner indicate, 1,170 cases were docketed in fiscal 1956. This represented more than a 100-percent increase over any preceding year. Such an increase in the first year of effectiveness of the time limit rule was to be anticipated. However, the rule provides no clue as to why the number of cases submitted should have continued at an abnormally high level during the years after the rule became effective and its provisions became well known and were being followed. While the number of cases disposed of since 1956 has been in a general uptrend, new cases have been docketed at an accelerated rate. During the 9year fiscal period, commencing 1955, cases received have been in a range of 615 to 1,170 each year, averaging 801 per year compared to a 21 year pre-1956 annual average of 363.1o The number of undecided cases grew continuously to 2,646 on June 30, 1961, reaching a high of 2,731 a year later. Faced with this mounting backlog, the carriers and the organizations concerned through their representatives had previously commenced a series of procedures designed to remedy the progressively adverse situation. The carriers' territorial committee for the National Railroad Adjustment Board and the committee representing labor organizations participating in the third division executed an agreement on March 28, 1961 establishing a supplemental board as provided for in section 3, first (w) of the Railway Labor Act." During the first fiscal year the supplemental board was in operation, from July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1962, both the regular and the supplemental board disposed of 688 cases compared with 486 in fiscal year 1961.12 Beginning July 1, 1961, 1 month after the supplemental board commenced operations, through April 30, 1965, the regular and supplemental boards disposed of 3,595 cases averaging approximately 936 per year, which is an average increase of 92.5 percent over the output for 1961. Statistics for the most recent period July 1, 1964, through April 30, 1965 reveal 879 cases disposed of which projects to an annual rate of about 1,055. Also, concerning the delay problem, it is of interest that the cases now being processed to a conclusion by the regular and supplemental third divisions bear a docket closing date subsequent to August 1962. The statistics on the backlog of cases reveal a consistent increase from 1955 when it stood at 616 to a high of 2,731 at the close of fiscal 1962. The first year immediately prior to the operation of the supplemental board the backlog increased by 247 cases. While it increased slightly after the first year the supplemental board operated, this was due primarily to a greater case influx since the two boards substantially increased output. As of July 1, 1964, the number of undecided cases was 2.197. The number of undecided cases as of April 30, 1965, was 1,910. Therefore, in the 3-year 10-month period both boards have been functioning, we find the backlog has been reduced by 821 cases. In addition to the establishment of the supplemental board, further steps ensued to resolve the backlog problem. These are outlined in Circulars Nos. 1 and 5 of the National Railway Labor Conference dated May 31, 1963, and October 11, 1963, respectively, and attached to Mr. Burner's statement as exhibits K and L. The carriers and the labor organizations subject to the third division agreed to an optional procedure for cases pending before the third division as outlined in Circular No. 1 referred to above. Individual carriers and the labor organizations were encouraged to make a further effort on the properties to adjust cases pending before the third division, and special boards of adjustment provided for in section 3, second of the Railway Labor Act were recommended to be established where appropriate. It was suggested that in special circumstances such boards might be created to handle disputes involving more than one labor organization.' 13 Any disputes pending before the division subject to these procedures are held in abeyance and later withdrawn from its docket if resolved. Since the institution of the procedure concerned with settlement on the property or by special 10 See exhibit F to Mr. Burner's statement, attached hereto. 11 See exhibit I to Mr. Burner's statement. 12 See exhibit J to Mr. Burner's statement. 13 This represented a departure from normal procedure whereby such boards customarily handle disputes involving a carrier and one labor organization. boards of adjustment, through June 30, 1964, 219 cases have been withdrawn from the division's working docket. So far this fiscal year 155 cases have been withdrawn. On May 31, 1963 the carriers and four labor organizations subject to the jurisdiction of the third division executed an agreement, considered in Circular No. 5 referred to above, providing for the establishment of a disputes committee to decide issues involving the interpretation of particular national agreement provisions outlined therein. Among the questions referable to the disputes committee are those involving time limitations, holiday and vacation problems. Cases involving disputes committee questions may be submitted by the parties to the disputes committee directly from the individual railroad. Cases pending before the third division may also be submitted to the committee with the proviso that they will remain pending before the division and if not disposed of by the committee, may be returned to the division for disposition of issues still remaining open and not under the jurisdiction of the committee. Disputes already referred to the disputes committee on the basis of the issues and agreement provisions involved tabulate as follows: Vacation____ Vacation, Articles II (1954) and III (1960): Holidays.... Article IV (1954): Use of furloughed employees-- Article V (1954): Time limit__. Article V (1954), Time limit and articles II (1954) and III (1960): Article V (1954): Time Limit and vacation_. 139 7 51 511 3 13 Articles VI (1954) and III (1962): Advance notice of force reduction___ 16 Total. 745 As of April 30, 1965, 745 cases have been held in abeyance and referred to the disputes committee through April 30, 1965. The effect on the backlog of the disputes committee procedure is not subject to precise estimate. In many of these cases decisions on the national agreement issues will dispose of the disputes before the third division in which such issues are raised. In other cases, even when they do not dispose of a docket, such decisions will assist the third division in disposing of it by getting out of the way issues which have proved to be troublesome and time-consuming when handled by the division itself. Accordingly, this procedure will effectively reduce the division's backlog. Some disputes will be returned to the division for further action since they contain issues not under the jurisdiction of the disputes committee. The majority (527) of the Disputes Committee cases present issues involving an interpretation of article V, the time limit of the August 21, 1954, agreement, The experience of the Third Division has been that in about 75 percent of the cases in which such questions were discussed by the Board, decisions on those issues were completely dispositive of the entire dispute. This is because these questions are threshold issues. Assuming a similar pattern in the decisions of the Disputes Committee approximately 395 of the 527 such cases will be finally disposed of by that committee. Of the remaining cases before the committee the next largest categories involve vacation and holiday issues, the resolution of which usually completely disposes of the docket. There are 197 such cases currently before the Disputes Committee. Accordingly, an educated guess would suggest that close to 600 of the 745 cases referred to it will probably be finally decided by the Disputes Committee. The Division also has made certain procedural modifications designed to expedite case disposition. The Division no longer requires all members to partake in hearings before referees at which the petitioner and respondent present their cases. The parties now appear only before the referee and the carrier and labor members to whom the case is assigned. This has released the eight other members of the Division for work on their dockets. Also, where appropriate, pending cases involving similar issues and the same parties have been grouped by agreement of the carrier and labor members to be consolidated and handled together. This has eliminated much duplication of effort by avoiding separate handling. |