Report of the Dunlop II Committee

to the National Mediation Board

April 16, 2010

Committee Members:

Robert DeLucia

Seth Rosen

Kenneth Gradia

Joel Parker

Facilitator:

Joshua Javits
2

DUNLOP II REPORT 

I. Establishment of the Committee

On September 11, 2009, the National Mediation Board (NMB), Elizabeth 

Dougherty, Chairman, Harry Hoglander, Member, Linda Puchala, Member, formed an 

independent joint labor management committee, (―Dunlop Committee Reports Review 

Committee‖, hereinafter ―Dunlop II‖) to examine the internal functions, policies and 

procedures of the NMB [and] to report to the Board its recommendations for agency 

improvement, in particular, for improving the mediation process and delivery of 

mediation. 

The initial Dunlop Commission ("Commission on the Future of Worker 

Management Relations," hereinafter ―Dunlop I") was established in 1994 by President 

William Clinton to review the state of labor relations and the effectiveness of federal 

labor laws and relevant government agencies including the Railway Labor Act (RLA) 

and the NMB. 

Dunlop I recommended the creation of two labor management committees, one 

airline and one railroad, to examine the NMB’s administration of the RLA including its 

mediation functions. Both Committees met with air and rail labor and management and 

made recommendations, including those on NMB administration, functions,

representation process, and grievance arbitration. The NMB then issued a report

regarding the Committees’ recommendations in which it adopted many of those 

recommendations, including that:

1. Mediators should be based in DC;

2. Additional training for mediators was needed;

3. Mediators should specialize in either representation cases or mediation 

cases (subsequently the Legal Department took over all representation case handling);
3

4. There should be rigorous supervision, guidance and evaluation of the 

mediators. (The Board created the new positions of director of mediation and two 

senior mediators who were to act as ―troubleshooters‖, as needed);

5. The mediators should be more active (the Board created a case tracking 

system);

6. More intensive and expeditious mediation should be provided (the Board 

established ―Customer Service‖ goals for completing cases);

7. Mediation agreements, including timelines, should be respected by the 

Board, but it should nonetheless exercise its independent statutory authority to proffer 

arbitration; Board mediation should not repeat the work of private mediators.

The Board also endorsed the recommendations the Committees directed to the 

parties to:

A. Provide negotiators with authority;

B. Avoid premature invocation of mediation;

C. Limit the number of issues brought to mediation; and

D. Provide more accurate critiques of mediator performance.

Dunlop II is composed of four (4) representatives constituting each constituent 

group subject to the RLA and NMB jurisdiction:

Airline Management: Robert DeLucia, Airline Industrial Relations 

Conference

Airline Labor: Seth Rosen, International Pilot Services Corporation

Railroad Management: Kenneth Gradia, Chairman, National Carriers’ 

Conference Committee

Railroad Labor: Joel Parker, Transportation Communications Union/IAM

In addition, the Board appointed as Facilitator, Joshua Javits, former NMB 

Member and currently an arbitrator and mediator.
4

The Board also appointed five advisors and one special consultant to the 

Committee:

Dennis Boston, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

Clare Burt, Association of Flight Attendants – CWA

Clint Miller, United Transportation Union and Special Consultant

Roland Wilder, representing the International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters/Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Jerrold Glass, HR Solutions Group

Claude Sullivan, Ford & Harrison, LLP

The Committee met directly with over 25 representatives of the two industries as 

well as experts, current NMB Members and Senior Staff Members of the NMB. 

Members of the Committee also solicited the views of other Railroad and Airline 

management and labor leaders.1

 

1 The Committee as a whole met with the following individuals:

UNIONS:

Dennis Boston, BRS and Labor Advisor

Clare Burt (AFA and Advisor)

Laura Glading, and Denise Pointer, APFA

Roland Wilder, IBT/BLET

Bruce York and Art Luby, ALPA

Lloyd Hill (et al), APA

Clint Miller, UTU

MANAGEMENT:

Steve Crable, CSX Transportation, Inc., and former NMB Chief of Staff

Claude Sullivan, Ford & Harrison, LLP

NMB:

Mary Johnson, General Counsel

Larry Gibbons, Director of Mediation

Daniel Rainey, Director of ADR

June King, Director of Administration

Board Members

EXPERTS:

Tom Kochan, Professor, Sloan School of Business, MIT
5

The Committee issued an Interim Report, dated December 2, 2009. That Report 

recommended the reestablishment of a chief executive officer in order to enhance 

Board cohesion and effectiveness in the delivery of its services (Attachment 1). The 

Committee believed this to be a pressing need and noted the strong support of the 

parties in its Interim Report. 

II. Summary of Recommendations

Almost all long term observers of the Board concurred on one key theme: after 

the Dunlop I Report was issued in 1996, the NMB evolved into a better managed 

agency with a professional staff that functioned more effectively. The Board’s decision 

to commission the Dunlop II Report – without prompting by outsiders – speaks volumes 

to the agency’s continuing commitment to reexamine its functions and improve its 

mediation services to the RLA community. In keeping with that spirit, this Committee 

focused on improvements to the mediation process and the delivery of mediation 

services that would not require changes to the Railway Labor Act, that could be 

effectively implemented by the Board, and that would have broad support from the 

stakeholders. 

The last decade was marked by very difficult rounds of negotiations in the airline 

and railroad industries. Many stakeholders expressed concern and frustration with the 

Board’s delivery of mediation services. The overarching criticism voiced to the 

Committee was that the mediation process – in too many cases - is insufficiently 

focused, coordinated and managed. In some instances, these shortcomings start with 

the parties’ actions or inactions. However, the Board sometimes fails to forcefully and 

effectively manage the process. 

When available resources are not optimally utilized, then negotiations 

unnecessarily drift and stall, and frustration and uncertainty take hold. As a result, it is 

often too lengthy a process, characterized by a lack of direction, with an inordinate 

length of time spent without making real progress towards reaching agreements. This 
6

was particularly evident during the last decade when many thought there was little 

credible threat of a release from mediation being issued by the Board. These are 

serious but not insuperable problems, and the Committee believes that the 

recommendations set forth herein will help address these issues and result in a more 

effective and productive mediation program that consistently achieves the goals and 

policies of the Act and of the NMB.

The Committee recommends implementation of the following measures: 

 

1. A New Case Management System: A case management system should 

be put in place that would require development of a plan for each 

mediation case that would address issues in dispute in a timely and 

methodical manner and establish a framework for reaching resolution of 

the mediation case. The parties as well as all levels of the Board should 

be involved in developing and implementing each mediation plan. 

2. The Role of the Mediator: Mediators should be provided with 

comprehensive training, continual education on the parties’ issues and 

emerging developments in the air and rail industries, and the tools to 

make them more effective and active participants in the mediation 

process. 

3. NMB General Administration: The multiple resources of the Board, 

including Senior Staff and Board Members, should be utilized and applied 

in a coordinated way to further the mediation effort.

4. Outreach to the Parties: The Board should establish more effective lines 

of communication and outreach to and between all the constituent groups 

through, for instance, industry conferences, joint working groups on issues 

of broad concern, and presentations to the users on different subjects by 

the parties as well as experts.
7

III. The Industry Context

The NMB oversees two key transportation sectors that have an enormous impact 

on the overall U.S. economy. The RLA provides a comprehensive framework for the 

resolution of labor management disputes concerning negotiations in the Airline and

Railroad industries. The importance of these industries underscores the delicate 

balance that the Board needs to maintain in endeavoring to prevent or minimize 

disruptions of service and assisting in the prompt settlement of disputes over rates of 

pay, work rules and working conditions.

Freight rail service is an integral part of the nation’s transportation infrastructure 

and plays a critical role in our economic well being that affects everyone from 

manufacturers and distributors down to retailers and consumers. Railroads haul a 

significant portion of freight vital to everyday commerce and generate nearly $265 billion 

in total annual economic activity. Railroads directly or indirectly support 1.2 million jobs 

throughout the economy—some 4.5 jobs for every freight rail job.

Intercity and local/commuter passenger rail service also plays a vital and growing 

role in fulfilling the nation’s transportation needs. The volume of traffic carried by 

commuter and passenger rail in 2009 was enormous. For example, there were 452 

million commuter rail trips and Amtrak carried 27 million passengers last year.

As with the railroad industry, the economic impact of the US aviation industry is 

hard to overstate. In 2008, the airline industry moved 741 million passengers (over two 

million per day), transported 18 million tons of cargo, operated over 11 million flights, 

and generated $185 billion in revenues. On a broader scale, the Federal Aviation 

Authority’s 2009 Report, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the US Economy, 

estimated that civil aviation activity was responsible for 12 million jobs and $1.3 trillion in 

economic activity. 

At the same time, the economic shocks of the past decade have significantly 

affected employees and employment levels. During the last decade, for example, over 
8

170,000 airline employees lost their jobs while many of the rest suffered substantial 

reductions in wages, working conditions, benefits and job security. Yet these are two of 

the most heavily unionized industries with over 500,000 airline industry employees and 

some 213,000 railroad industry employees. 

Accordingly, it is in the public interest and squarely consistent with the goals and 

purpose of the Railway Labor Act for the National Mediation Board to make every effort 

to ensure that its labor dispute resolution resources are designed and utilized to foster 

stable labor relations and promote timely, peaceful, and effective resolutions of the 

negotiations that come before it. 

IV. Delivery of Mediation Services

A. Length of Process

The greatest concern heard by the Committee was frustration concerning 

the lack of real and timely progress made in mediation. While only the parties can 

agree on contract provisions, there are many things that the Board can do to structure 

the delivery of mediation services to facilitate a more constructive and effective 

collective bargaining process. 

The perception that the process is inordinately long is strongly held by 

many parties. This certainly extends to less complex cases which should be handled 

more expeditiously. For FY 2004 – 08 the average length for a case in mediation was 

758 calendar days. Delay can have a major impact on the parties’ approach, attitude 

and culture with regard to collective bargaining. 

Collective bargaining under the RLA is a two-step process which begins 

with direct negotiations and generally moves into the mediation phase. One problem 

noted is that a party may prematurely file for mediation. This may be motivated by a 

desire to ―get on the clock‖ to establish an early start date in order to more persuasively 

argue later for a release. Unfortunately, this approach leads to a mediation process 
9

cluttered with numerous proposals which can and should be resolved by the parties in 

direct negotiation. 

A separate but contentious issue is whether, as some have argued, there 

should be explicit time limits on mediation. The Committee believes that the variations 

and distinctions between the multiplicity of bargaining disputes that come before the 

Board make it impractical to establish hard and fast rules on how long a mediation 

should last. Any such rule may encourage surface bargaining or other delaying tactics 

by one side or another that perceives advantage in not reaching agreement before the 

known end point to mediation. 

That said, the Committee agrees that the Act’s structure and policies fairly 

contemplate that the Board have and utilize the power to conclude that a true impasse 

exists and, under all of the relevant circumstances, a release from mediation is 

warranted. Mediation was not envisioned to be an endless process, with one more 

meeting always on the horizon. The Board needs to maintain and enforce guidelines on 

the length of the case and the number of mediation sessions to be utilized in the 

evaluation of the case, balanced by due consideration for the specific facts and 

circumstances involved in that dispute and the impact on the public. At the end of the 

day, the judicious threat (or use) of a proffer is essential to maintaining the integrity and 

effectiveness of the mediation process. The Board must be seen as able and willing to 

use all available tools in its arsenal to accomplish its mission of enabling the parties to 

reach resolution of their disputes.

B. A Case Management System 

Each case is different and should be initially analyzed by the Board 

concerning its complexity, impact, and staffing requirements. If possible, the parties 

should first meet beforehand and attempt to reach consensus on process and 

procedural matters relating to the mediation. Then the parties should meet with the 

Board to develop a plan for processing the case, which would include the resolution of
10

procedural and substantive issues, including locations, frequency of meetings and 

setting orderly agendas. 

Other available resources and techniques should also be addressed. These may 

include utilization of other Board resources such as the Director of Mediation Services, 

senior mediators, Board members and/or Chief of Staff, and ADR services. The use of 

subcommittees to address specific areas in dispute (e.g. healthcare, technical issues, 

resolution of outstanding grievances) may also be addressed. In this way the 

expectations of the parties and the Board are established at the outset and 

accountability can be established for handling the mediation case thereafter.

C. Mediator Reports and Case Monitoring 

Next, the Board should engage in more active and timely reviews and 

oversight of cases. Currently, mediators are generally on their own, handling cases in 

the field that sometimes last for up to several years, with modest and irregular direct 

oversight. They submit mediator reports to the Director of Mediation and senior 

mediators. The Committee recommends that these mediator reports be enhanced to 

provide sufficient detail to enable the Board to more closely and effectively monitor 

cases. For instance, the reports could include, as appropriate: the amendable date; 

docketing date; date of commencement of mediation; dates of mediation, including 

number of hours of mediation each day; agendas; proposals, (tentative agreements or 

other signs of progress or lack thereof); next steps; other communications with the 

parties; strategic ideas for progress; and the need for other Board resources. Of 

course, it is essential that the confidentiality of the mediator report be maintained.

Currently, the Mediation Department conducts quarterly reviews with the 

Board Members on the status of mediation cases. The Director of Mediation also meets 

with the Board on a weekly basis to discuss ―watch list‖ cases. Since each case is to be 

benchmarked with specific dates for review, status reports should be made at these key 

junctures, as well. The Board should meet with the mediators as well as the Mediation 

Department’s senior staff as needed. This kind of full coordination between the 
11

mediators, the senior mediators, and the Board should facilitate consistency and 

accountability in all phases of the Board’s mediatory functions. Of course, with the 

anticipated reinstitution of a Chief of Staff position, another vital resource should be 

integrated into the team.

D. Board Member Involvement and Coordination

The judicious involvement of Board Members during mediation is a timehonored and effective tool in the Board’s arsenal. At the ―end‖ stage of mediation, a 

Board Member’s involvement is vital as it provides maximum leverage to successfully 

complete the negotiation. Moreover, as the responsible officials, the Board Members 

need to know the details of the issues in the case in order to determine whether 

mediation has been ―unsuccessful.‖ At this point, the Board’s ultimate weapon remains 

the doubt and uncertainty as to the Board’s execution of the release from mediation.

Board member involvement may sometimes be useful at an earlier stage in a 

negotiation. For instance, if the parties are ―stuck‖ on a vital issue or if one or both are 

―drifting‖ or not working diligently, the involvement of a Board Member can help to move 

negotiations forward.

It is essential, however, that Board Member involvement be managed in a 

way to avoid undermining of the authority of the mediator at the bargaining table or 

creating the perception of ―deals‖ being made by a party going directly to a Board 

Member. Coordination between Board Members themselves and between Board 

Members, Chief of Staff, and the Mediation Department is equally essential. Thus, if 

Board assignments are to be made, they should be made with the understanding that all 

communications relative to a particular case should be transparent between Board 

Members. The Committee recommends that the Board work out an internal protocol for 

the monitoring and handling of mediation cases.
12

E. The Parties

It is critically important for the parties to understand the mediation process 

and the legal and policy framework within which it operates. Often the parties have 

limited understandings about these matters. The necessary education should be 

standardized and provided to the parties (as warranted) at the outset of a mediation by 

the NMB. The process is intricate and the lack of understanding often leads to 

misperceptions and frustration aimed at the Board, the parties, and the process. 

Furthermore, the parties can contribute to making mediation more 

effective in several basic ways.

1. Invoking mediation services only when the dispute is genuinely ripe 

for mediation. 

2. Sending negotiators to the negotiating table who are empowered to 

make agreements (subject to ratification). 

3. Providing more accurate critiques of a mediator’s performance.

F. Membership Ratification

One major change since Dunlop I on the airline side has been the 

expansion of the use of membership ratification, especially by airline pilot groups. 

Obviously the dispute is not resolved until it is ratified by the membership. More 

attention needs to be paid by the Board and the parties to this important step in the 

process to insure a successful outcome. 

A failed ratification vote has many negative consequences. It usually 

results in considerable frustration and a substantial delay in the process. Again each 

case is different but the Board needs to assess the situation and provide the resources 

and assistance necessary to complete the ratification process successfully. The Board 

needs to take this step into account in its case management.
13

G. Presidential Emergency Boards (PEBs)

The Committee heard comments and concerns about the composition of 

Presidential Emergency Boards. PEBs play an integral role in the final resolution of 

complicated and high profile bargaining disputes that can profoundly affect our nation’s 

economy and well being. Accordingly, it is imperative that PEB members possess the 

neutrality, expertise, qualifications, and experience equal to the responsibilities placed 

upon them. A PEB’s mission is to develop recommendations for resolution of the 

dispute before it. The acceptability of those recommendations rests in large measure 

upon the credibility, objectivity, and creativity of the PEB members. The Committee 

believes that these are core principles. 

H. Mediation and the Role of the Mediator

1. Mediation Sessions

One of the major concerns expressed by many of the parties was the 

productivity of mediation sessions and how to make the mediation session more 

effective and meaningful. For example, making sure that the parties are ready and 

prepared at the outset of the mediation session, minimizing the impact of travel on the 

actual time spent in mediation and scheduling extended sessions (back-to-back weeks) 

at the right time are the type of things that could produce more substantive results and 

expedite the mediation process.

There should be some flexibility built into the process since many of the 

parties are not full-time negotiators. Nonetheless, given the lengthy mediation process 

as it currently exists, the Committee recommends longer mediation sessions when the 

parties do meet. Given the challenge and expense to bring large groups of people 

together for mediation and the importance of the endeavor, when mediation sessions 

are finally arranged, available time should be maximized. 

The mediator needs to actively control the process rather than be swept 

along. This does not mean that he or she should supplant or direct the parties’ 
14

activities, but rather that the mediator’s central task is to ensure steady progress and 

adherence to the mediation plan and the progress of mediation. Mediators should have 

the authority to call a party ―on the carpet‖ as needed—for example, taking appropriate 

measures to deal with parties that are clearly delaying or obstructing the process. They 

should have the freedom to creatively address problems that may arise. Thus, for 

instance, if the mediator feels he/she should meet with only one side, even if for a whole 

week, this may be the best use of their time. The number of mediation sessions and the 

length of time in mediation does not necessarily correlate with results. Intensive, 

productive mediation sessions are much more important than a mere time-clock 

measurement of progress.

2. Mediator Activities outside Mediation Sessions

While the sheer amount of time devoted to mediation is one necessary 

element to making progress, others are important as well. First, the mediator should be 

active when he/she is not mediating. In addition, planning, research, and discussions 

with other experienced mediators, including the senior mediators, the Director of 

Mediation, the Chief of Staff as well as the Board Members are useful in exploring ideas 

and options. 

Second, mediators should assure that the parties come to the table 

prepared to negotiate. If proposals are to be made on a given issue, they should be 

prepared in the week or weeks prior to the mediation sessions, rather than using the 

first day or two of the mediation week to caucus and prepare proposals. If 

subcommittees are to meet between sessions, the mediator should make sure that this 

occurs and that the parties are making progress on the matters for which they are 

responsible. The mediator should be in regular and constant contact with the parties, 

always "advancing the ball." 
15

V. NMB General Administration

A. Mediator Staffing and Case Coverage

Another concern expressed was the sufficiency of the Board's resources 

devoted to mediation. Some parties observed that only 20 percent of the Board's staff 

is devoted to mediation, yet mediation is the Board's central function. The heart of the 

Agency is its mediation function. The delivery of that service is entrusted to its cadre of 

mediators. The number, quality and availability of the mediators are thus the sine qua 

non of the Agency’s effectiveness. Currently, the Agency is authorized to have ten 

(―10‖) full-time mediators, two senior mediators and a Director of Mediation Services. 

Three mediators were hired only in the last two years, and there are currently three 

mediator vacancies. 

The number of pending mediation cases can vary widely over time. The 

concern that these cycles of demand should not determine mediator staffing levels at 

any one time makes sense. The zenith of demand would support a high number of 

mediators on staff, while the nadir of the cycle suggests a lower staffing number. 

Flexibility in staffing is clearly essential. The Committee recommends several 

alternatives to meet the demand for mediators without locking the Board into 

overstaffing and potential inefficiency. 

1. The senior mediators should be assigned to handle their own cases 

in times of great demand, particularly more complex cases. Since there will be a new 

Chief of Staff position, there should be some alleviation of managerial responsibilities 

for these three positions (two senior mediators and the Director of Mediation Services) 

allowing them additional time to handle more complex cases that come before the 

Board. 

2. The Board should encourage voluntary use of private mediators. 

This practice has been utilized principally in the airline industry. Private mediators could 

assist the parties in many ways, e.g., resolving issues in the earlier stages of 
16

negotiations, addressing the numerous and time consuming smaller issues or 

addressing complex provisions that are obstacles to agreement. These matters could 

be handled by recognized, experienced and knowledgeable private mediators. Such 

efforts can and should be structured to augment, not supplant, Board mediatory work. 

3. The NMB should utilize other staff at the NMB who are qualified 

and could be trained to be mediators, as needed. They should be identified and trained 

to be ready to step into the mediator role when the caseload of the Board is at its height. 

4. As stated above, the NMB needs to increase the average number 

of days per month that mediators are expected to actively mediate cases.

B. Mediator Recruitment and Selection

It is in the public interest for the Board to strive to broaden the pool of 

potential mediators. The Board should try to identify future candidates who come to the 

attention of the Board and its mediators as parties or negotiating committee members. 

Mediators and Board Members work with numerous people from the airline and railroad 

industries who are involved in labor relations. Without regard to the location of a 

mediator, the primary objective is to attract the best qualified candidates to ensure the 

effective delivery of mediation services by the Board.

In terms of skills, the central quality sought in a mediator should be that of 

a ―problem solver.‖ This is a unique characteristic which is hard to identify without 

actively working with the individual. If mediation is both an art and a science, potential 

mediators should demonstrate creativity, people and leadership skills, and the ability to 

methodically move the process along towards successful conclusion. 

C. Mediator Training

There was consensus that the mediators would benefit from more 

standardized, comprehensive, and regular training. Currently, the new mediators 

receive an overview from each NMB department about their functions. New mediators 
17

may "second seat" experienced mediators and are informally mentored by them. In 

addition, mediators take at least two training or educational courses of their choosing 

per year to meet the agency’s educational requirements, which are included as an 

element of their job performance evaluations. However, the entire budget for mediator 

training last year was only about $8,200.00.

The current level of initial and recurring training is inadequate. The 

Committee recommends that when new mediators are hired, they be provided with 

comprehensive training in mediation skills. Virtually all mediators have had airline or 

railroad labor relations experience. But they are rarely prepared for their new role as 

mediators. Generally, they have been advocates, not neutrals, and they have not 

focused on dispute resolution and dispute resolution techniques. A comprehensive 

standardized program for developing mediation skills is essential. The mediators need 

to learn about all the techniques available to enable them, for example, to move the 

parties when stuck, deal with "push back" from the parties, and to keep the process 

moving forward to conclusion.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service provides a 40-hour 

program in collective bargaining mediation for its new mediators. Cornell's ILR School 

also provides such training. It may be that the Board can develop its own training 

fashioned by mediators who have attended some of these programs. Specialized 

training in Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) and facilitation should be part of such a 

program. 

Specific training in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) itself is essential for new 

mediators. The parties are often unfamiliar with the Act, its structure, purpose, process 

and requirements, and a strong grounding in the Act is essential to a mediator’s 

success.

Although the mediators are scheduled to meet once per quarter, many of 

these meetings are used for internal discussions rather than education and training. In 
18

addition, they do not appear to be inviolate. The Committee recommends that the 

mediators meet more frequently in person. 

Mediator meetings should regularly include segments on educational 

training, in addition to opportunities for discussions on current issues and experiences 

and review of active mediation cases with the Board members and Senior Staff. These 

meetings should include training on particularly complex and vital areas such as 

pensions, health care, crew scheduling, and federal regulations on matters such as duty 

time and in service time. Experts in the airline and railroad industries should be 

periodically invited to give presentations on current issues. 

Finally the Committee also believes the Board Members could benefit 

from both the initial comprehensive and specialized mediator training. Many Board 

Members come to the Board without prior exposure to negotiations in either the railroad 

or airline industries and would benefit from such training.

D. Chief of Staff

In its Interim Report dated December 2, 2009, the Committee 

recommended re-creation of a Chief of Staff position. A copy of that Report is 

appended as Attachment 1. 

VI. Outreach Program 

In the latest NMB Strategic Plan (2005-2010) the Board members emphasized 

the importance of an outreach program to achieve the agency’s strategic goals. The 

Committee agrees that the Board should establish more effective lines of 

communication and outreach to and between all the constituent groups through, for 

instance, industry conferences, joint working groups on issues of broad concern, and 

presentations to the constituents on different subjects by the parties as well as experts.
19

In the past, the Board was instrumental in organizing two highly successful airline 

labor relations conferences, including one on globalization, which anticipated many 

current issues in the industry. Several commuter railroad conferences were held by the 

Board more recently. These conferences were unique opportunities for the Board to 

bring the parties together to discuss the negotiating process and subjects of common 

concern, to generate new problem-solving approaches and to foster the development of 

relationships and understandings so essential to working constructively in negotiations. 

The goal of the outreach program should be to establish or encourage a 

constructive dialogue between labor, management and the government in the railroad 

and airline industries. The Board is uniquely situated to take the lead role in creating 

meetings and conferences in which the parties can address issues and concerns 

outside the negotiations setting. This initiative has great promise for improving agency 

services and providing a much needed forum for the stakeholders to engage in a 

constructive dialogue that could facilitate improved labor-management relations. 

Where new or troublesome issues arise that warrant the creation of a smaller 

group of management and union representatives to address the matter, the Board 

should take the initiative to establish and facilitate such an effort. Sometimes 

negotiations are not suited to such discussions, especially with regard to industry-wide 

issues, and establishing an alternative forum is more conducive to broad ranging 

discussion of ideas. The Board could also help facilitate presentations on particularly 

complicated or technical, operational, legal or other matters that may underlie difficult 

issues in negotiations, such as health care, FMLA, etc. 

In conclusion, the Committee recommends that the Board should develop a plan 

to implement the type of outreach program described above.
20

VII. Conclusion

The NMB oversees two key transportation modes that have a major impact on 

the overall US economy. The establishment of this Committee by the NMB provided a 

timely and useful opportunity to review the Agency’s core function, the delivery of 

mediation services, and, on a consensual basis, make recommendations to the Board 

on ways to improve its mediation services to the railroad and airline industries. As 

discussed above, the Committee concluded that there were a number of recommended

changes in the Board’s delivery of mediation services that could be effectively 

implemented without statutory change and should have broad support from the 

stakeholders. The Committee believes implementation of these recommendations will 

provide the foundation for a more focused and coordinated mediation process and 

result in a more prompt and successful resolution of mediation cases in the future. 

Finally, the Committee wants to express its appreciation to the Board for its 

leadership in establishing this Committee and its assistance and cooperation in this 

undertaking. The Committee stands ready to assist the Board further in this endeavor 

as it deems appropriate.
21

Appendix 1 – Section 3

There is a rich history of collaborative efforts by railroad labor, management, and 

the NMB to study and address mutual concerns relating to grievance handling in the 

railroad industry, dating back to the establishment in 1985 of a bi-partisan labormanagement committee known as the Section 3 Committee. The specific issues, 

initiatives, and problems have varied over time, but the value and effectiveness of a joint 

and bi-partisan problem-solving approach to Section 3 issues has been consistently 

demonstrated.

In the course of this undertaking, the Committee heard concerns from some 

railroad parties that the spirit of open communication and collaboration that has long 

characterized the parties’ dealings with the NMB in the Section 3 arena has waned and 

should be reinvigorated. At the Committee’s request, a bi-partisan report was prepared 

and submitted to us that details those concerns and makes recommendations for 

improvements in the Section 3 area. That report is appended.

The Committee recommends that the Board review that report and schedule an 

informal meeting with the interested parties to discuss those recommendations and any 

further actions that are deemed appropriate. 
22

Dated this 16th day of April, 2010.

Committee Members:

______________________________

Robert DeLucia

______________________________

Kenneth Gradia

______________________________

Joel Parker

______________________________

Seth Rosen

Facilitator: 

______________________________

Joshua Javits