Lz,3: I 3

A i r l i n e

Dayton & M o n tg o n w w ^ E x p e r i e n c e 

Puwfc u s s * * u n d e r t h e

R a i l w a y 

L a b o r A c t

B U L L E T IN 1683

U. S . D E P A R T M E N T 

O F L A B O R

BUREAU OF 

LABOR STATISTICS

MAR2 3 tS n

:U V £ H T r.n i’ ^f.TW^

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Airline 

Experience 

under the 

Railway 

Labor Act

B U L L E T IN 1683

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

J. D Hodgson, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 

Geoffrey H. Moore, C o m m issio n e r

V 1971

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D .C. 20402 - Price 55 cents

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

This bulletin provides a descriptive and statistical account of the

industrial relations, mediation, work stoppage, and emergency dispute

experience of the airlines under the Railway Labor Act. Published

and unpublished records were utilized to conduct a more comprehensive analysis than had been available to date.

The definition of this major industry group (air transportation

industry) covered by the Railway Labor Act conforms to major group

classifications 4511 and 4521 in the Standard Industrial Classification

Manual, 1967 edition, issued by the Bureau of the Budget.

This bulletin was prepared in the Bureau’s Division of Industrial

Relations, Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, by Michael H.

Cimini under the supervision of Albert A. Belman. The cooperation

of the National Mediation Board in the preparation of Chapter V is

gratefully acknowledged.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Chapter I. The airline industry....................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction........................ 1

Nature of the industry................................................................................................................................... 1

Industrial relations regulations.....................................................- ......................................................... 1

Industrial organization and reorganization.............................................................................................. 2

Subsidies............................................................................................................................................................ 2

Air safety regulations...................................................................................................................................... 2

Air flight service operations ....................................................................................................................... 2

Competition...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Nature of the product................................................................................................................................... 2

Technological change...................................................................................................................................... 3

Chapter II. Collective bargaining in the airline industry........................................................................ 5

Collective bargaining u n it ............................................................................................................................. 6

Union organization.......................................................................................................................................... 7

Multiple unionism............................................................................................................................................. 7

Single-unit bargaining ................................................................................................................................... 7

Multicarrier bargaining................................................................................................................................... 9

Bargaining coordination by management................................................................................................. 10

Union bargaining coordination.................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter III. Legal framework of the Railway Labor A c t ..................................................................... 13

National mediation board............................................................................................................................. 13

Purposes of the act......................................................................................................................................... 13

Procedural aspects of the a c t....................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter IV. Airline mediation cases............................................................................................................. 16

Ground and flight groups............................................................................................................................. 16

Issues................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Disposition of mediation cases.................................................................................................................... 17

Relative utilization of mediatory services .............................................................................................. 18

Chapter V. Airline emergency boards.......................................................................................................... 19

Unions and carriers involved....................................................................................................................... 20

Issues................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Refusals to arbitrate...................................................................................................................................... 23

Emergency board recommendations............................................................................................................. 23

Methods of settlement................................................................................................................................... 24

Disposition........................................................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter VI. Airline work stoppages................................................................................................. 26

Other characteristics of size ............................................................... 26

Duration.............................................................................................. 28

Flight vs. ground personnel........................................................................................ 28

Issues......................................

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents— Continued

Page

Chart: Airline collective bargaining procedures and “ status quo” periods under the

Railway Labor Act .................................................................................................................... - 15

Tables:

1. Employee representation on selected air carriers by occupational group, as of

June 30, 1969 ............................................................................................................................... 8

2. Use of the mutual aid pact benefits, 1958-69 ....................................................................... 11

3. Mediation cases disposed of, 1936-69 by occupational group..................................... 16

4. Number of mediation agreements and percent of total, 1955-69 ................................... 17

5. Airline emergency boards, 1936-69 ............................................................................................ 20

6. Number of airline work stoppages, workers involved, and man-days idle, 1936-69. . 26

7. Number and percent of airline work stoppages by size, selected periods, 1936-69 . 26

8. Major airline work stoppages, selected years, 1936-69 ........................................................ 27

9. Distribution of major groups involved in stoppages, selected periods, 1936-69. . . . 28

10. Major issues in airline work stoppages, by craft, selected periods, 1936-69 .............. 29

11. Number of workers and man-days idle in airline work stoppages by major

occupational group, selected period, 1936-69....................................................................... 29

12. Airline work stoppages, selected periods, 1939-69, by major issu e.......................... 30

13. Duration of airline work stoppages and issues involved............................................... 30

14. Number of airline work stoppages, workers involved and man-days idle, by

issue involved, 1936-69 ............................................................................................................. 31

Appendixes:

1. Airline unions................................................................................................................................. 32

2. Airline involvement in RLA procedures, fiscal years 1936-69 .......................................... 33

3. Airline mediation cases disposed of by National Mediation Board 1936-69,

by major occupational g r o u p ................................................................................................... 35

4. Annual highlights of work stoppages in the airline industry, 1936-69 ........................ 36

5. Duration of airline work stoppages, selected periods, 1936-69 ....................................... 38

6. Duration of airline work stoppages, by major issue, selected periods, 1936-69 . . . 39

7. Chronology of the airline RLA-Emergency Board, 1936-69 40

8. Railway Labor Act, as amended, selected sections.......................................................... 42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Airline Experience Under The Railway Labor Act

Chapter I. The Airline Industry

Introduction

The commerical movement of passengers and

goods by scheduled airlines in the post-war period is

a history of constant technological change which

resulted in rapid growth and an increasing share of an

expanding transportation market. From 1949, the

number of jobs in flight-related as well as ground

occupations increased 410 percent, to 312,000 in

1969. In the same period, scheduled carriers were

required to add 1,332 aircraft to their fleets in order

to meet the demand. The magnitude of these operations is best illustrated by the 125 billion revenue

passenger miles, 1.33 billion U.S. mail ton miles, and

4.7 billion cargo ton miles flown in 1969.

Under the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) classification, the industry is composed of nine main groupings. 1 This examination of the experience of airlines

under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) is confined

principally to the largest and most important group,

the domestic trunk carriers, although analysis of airline mediation cases and work stoppages include all

scheduled airline operations. Domestic trunk carriers

employ approximately 80 percent of the industry’s

personnel and account for 60 percent of total revenue

ton miles.

Nature of the industry

In the airline industry, labor and management

bargain in an atmosphere constrained by Federal

legislation and regulations which are not found in

most other industries. The special characteristics

of the air carrier industry have had an immediate

and direct influence on its labor-management negotiations. When the government began to regulate air

transportation, it became, in effect, responsible for

the performance of the industry in several areas, one

of which was industrial relations. To highlight the

effects of government intervention on the industrial

relations environment in the airline industry, the

following section briefly describes government regulation of collective bargaining and of related areas.

Industrial relations regulations

As early as the 1930’s, government labor regulations were an influential force in labor-management

relations of the airlines industry; they superimposed upon

the parties a framework for collective bargaining.

In 1934, National Labor Board (NLB) Decision No.

83 established minimum wages, maximum hours, and

working conditions for pilots. With the extension of

the Railway Labor Act to the airline industry in

1936, a detailed bargaining procedure was added to

lessen the incidence of labor-management disputes.

(See chapter IV, “ Legal Framework of the RLA” .) 2

Moreover, the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (CAA)

required airlines to comply with the provisions of the

RLA in order to secure and to retain route certificates. Nine years later, the Civil Aeronautics Board

(CAB) ruled that multi-unit bargaining could not be

imposed unilaterally, but must be agreed to by all

the parties. 3 In 1958 the Federal Aviation Act

(FAA) reiterated the CAA policies requiring the

carriers to comply with the provisions of the RLA

and NLB Decision No. 83, as well as empowering

the CAB to control entrance into the airline industry

by issuing certificates of public convenience and

necessity.

These carrier groupings are domestic trunk, domestic 

local service, helicopter, intra-Alaska, intra-Hawaiian, all cargo, 

international and territorial, supplemental, and intrastate.

2 Title II, the 1936 Amendment to the Railway Labor 

Act, Congress of the United States. In U.S., 49 Stat. 1921, 

ch. 166, 74th Cong. (1936), Sec. 201.

3 8 CAB 354 (1947).

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Industrial organization and reorganization

The CAB also regulates the organization and

reorganization of the industry with regard to sales

and purchases of routes, acquisitions, consolidation of

facilities, and exchange of equipment and personnel.

All of these economic activities are predicated on increasing the carrier’s market share or on increasing economies and decreasing costs. At the same time, these

activities constitute a persistent source of job insecurity and require the CAB to take steps to mitigate

the hardships involved and to protect adversely

affected personnel. 4

In the three decades since 1938, 39 mergers and

acquisitions of certified route air carriers were approved by the CAB. Many factors operated interdependently to produce these reorganizations, among

which were: Degree of competition on major routes,

overcapacity, inefficiency, overcrowded or uneconomic

routes, increasing size and costs of new aircraft,

rising break-even traffic requirements, and labor-management disputes. In the eyes of one observer, CAB

policy over the years has been to favor the less

efficient and smaller carriers and to approve mergers

only as a last resort. 5

Subsidies

Another facet of government regulation, direct

Federal subsidies, are administered by the CAB and

currently are allotted primarily to the small regional

airlines that serve areas where the traffic does not

generate revenue sufficient to fully support air

services. Subsidies appear to exert an influence

on collective bargaining, especially on the regional

carriers’ negotiations. A carrier, in signing a labor

agreement that provides costly work rules or high

wages and fringe benefits, may assume that the CAB

will subsidize the consequences of this negotiation. 6

Subsidies, therefore, may weaken a carrier’s resolve

to undergo a strike and, thus, strengthen the unions’

bargaining position in a dispute.

Air safety regulations

During most of the air transportation industry’s

history, the CAB issued and enforced safety regulations, three aspects of which affect the working

environment of airline employees. First, the CAB

was authorized by the CAA to issue certificates for

skilled air transportation crafts. Usually, unions have

advocated high personnel qualifications, because this

tended to insure skilled workers and to increase the

organizations’ bargaining power and security. A

second and related responsibility of the CAB was to

establish the type, number, and grade of certified

airmen required to safely maintain airline operations.

The implementation of this responsibility by the

Board, in effect, created “ crafts” and, thus, unions,

e.g., flight engineers (FEIA), by Civil Air Regulation

(C.A.R.) 41 and 61, airline dispatchers (ALDA) by

C.A.R. 27, etc. 7 On other occasions, the Board’s

rulings were instrumental in eliminating or lessening

the influence of certain crafts (unions), e.g., nonflight

navigators (TWU), radio operators (ALCEA), flight

engineers (FEIA), etc. Third, the CAB was empowered by Section 601 of the CAA to establish

operating regulations concerning construction, aircraft

performance standards, maximum flight hours, inspection and maintenance rules, and other matters affecting safety.

With the passage of the Federal Aviation Act of

1958, the control of the CAB safety regulations was

assigned to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation

Agency. Thus, this agency administers the safety

provisions of the act by issuing certificates which

continue to influence labor-management relations.

Air flight service operations

Like other common carriers, continuous operation

characterizes the service that the airlines offer their

customers. This type of operating schedule makes

unusual demands on employees, especially flight personnel. Actual operations requiring many changes in

flight schedules are a constant battle between the

weather and man and machine, in turn, affect wages,

hours, and working conditions of workers, again

especially the flight employee groups. Usually the

operations are spread over a vast area; often small

groups work with minimal or no immediate supervision. These operations require sizeable numbers

4 CAB Docket No. 2839, September 29, 1947.

CAB O r d e r No. E-5894, November 27, 1951.

CAB Opinion and O r d e r No. E-2760, April 28, 1949.

5 Edward B. Shils, “ Industrial Unrest in the Nation’s Airline Industry,” L a b o r L a w J o u rn a l, Vol. 15, No. 3, March 

1964, p. 150.

6 John Baitsell, A ir lin e In d u stria l R e la tio n s : P ilo ts a n d

F lig h t E n g in e e r s, Cambridge, Harvard University (1966), p . 333.

7 In the 1948 ruling that created the “ class” of flight 

engineers, the CAB set the stage for the jurisdictional disputes 

of the 1950-60’s between FEIA and Pilots’ Association 

(ALPA).

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of specialized and sometimes nontransferable skills.

All these conditions help to shape labor-management relations in the industry.

Competition

Although tariff rates and entrance in to the industry,8

two primary sources of competition, are regulated by

the CAB, commerical airlines view the market for

their product as being highly competitive for the

following reasons:

(1) Alternative systems of transportation are

close substitutes and competively priced, and the

long-run demand for airline services may be price

elastic.

(2) The CAB has adopted the policy of

certifying two air carriers or more to service all

major intercity routes.

(3) Differences in operating problems (routes,

costs, investments, management, etc.) create an

atmosphere conducive to competition.

Nonprice competition is based essentially on better

service, new aircraft, and other flight equipment.

New developments often are opposed by unions, but

any subsequent productivity gains are usually cited

to support wage increases. “There has been no more

important characteristic of the airline industrial relations scene in recent years than the continual drive

of the flight crew unions for a share of increased

productivity of new flight equipment.” 9 If labor

costs are as large a percent of total operating expenses as they appear to be, especially in light of the

tremendous capital outlays of the industry, and if

the demand for airline services is fairly elastic, then

a change in one carrier’s labor costs can directly

influence his competitive position vis-a-vis other airlines. 10 For this reason, management feels the

necessity of securing or preserving a competitive edge

in their collective bargaining negotiations.

Nature of the product

The air transportation industry produces a commodity which is “ time sensitive,” that is, services are

“ perishable” in the sense that they cannot be stored

or inventoried. Moreover, much of the demand for

this particular service appears to be elastic and not

deferrable. When the airlines lose revenue (sales)

during a strike, it may be “lost forever” , because the

consumers may patronize other air carriers or use

other modes of transportation. Obviously, this situation increases the potency of the strike. A recognition

of this fact is evident in the formation of the Mutual

Aid Pact discussed in the next chapter.

Technological change

As in other industries, technological changes often

create problems for both management and employees.

Airlines must cope with difficulties relating to investment and debt, mergers, obsolescence, overcapacity,

and labor relations; unions must contend with the

problems of job security, union security, layoffs, and

related matters. Besides modifying job composition

and content, technological change creates jobs and

destroys or threatens the continuance of older

crafts. 11

Three distinct periods of aircraft technological

changes have occurred: The first from 1936 to 1947,

when the DC-3’s and other two-engine piston aircraft

(Boeing 307) were developed; the second from 1948

to 1958, with the appearance of larger, faster fourengine piston aircraft, such as the DC-6, and the

third from 1959 to the present, when the first

turbojets, such as the DC-8, were introduced into

service.

Accompanying these phenomena since the late

1940’s has been the recurrent pattern of alternating

leaps and lags between traffic and capacity, symbolic

of the dynamic nature of the industry. For 1949-51,

1955-56, 1959, and 1963-66, the traffic growth rate

(as measured by year-to-year percent change in

revenue passenger miles) exceeded the capacity

growth rate (as measured by year-to-year percent

change in available seat miles), while capacity grew

faster than traffic for 1952-54, 1957-58, 1960-62, and

1967-69. 12

In the current decade, overcapacity could continue

to pose problems with the advent of the “jumbo jets”

which will be fully operative in 1970. The Boeing

747 was the first to enter service and can carry more

than 355 passengers, two and one-half times the present load capacity of the Boeing 707. By 1973,

8 The CAB establishes uniform rates for each class of 

service and determines the number of sellers in the market 

by means of certificates of necessity and convenience.

^John A. Baitsell, op. cit., p. 49.

In 1967, according to FAA data, payroll constituted 

over 55 percent of total operating expenses.

11 Examples would include flight engineers, nonpilot 

navigators, flight radio operators, etc.

1 2 Air Transport Association data.

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
250-300 passenger flight aircraft could become common with the introduction of the McDonnell-Douglas

DC-10, the Lockheed 1011, and the European

‘Airbus” in daily service. The president of the

International Air Transport Association warns that

new orders of these jumbo jets will increase the

“ capacity of our members which exceeds the

anticipated growth of our traditional market.” 13

During most of the post-World War II period,

traffic and revenues increased appreciably, but total

employment in the industry did not rise at a comparable rate, as reflected in average annual percent

change:

1947-57 1957-62

Employment................................ 6.1 3.9

Revenue-ton m iles.................... 15.8 8.8

SOURCE: Data on revenue-ton miles, CAB.

In some short-run periods, employment decreased

for the industry as a whole. For example, ATA

records indicated a decrease or stabilization in total

employment in the scheduled airline industry between

1942 (39,713 workers employed) and 1943 (39,279);

between 1946 (96,554), 1947 (85,152), 1948 (84,608),

1949 (80,994); and between 1957 (147,170) and 1958

(147,150). During the last decade, however, employment rose from 166,000 to 312,000.

During periods of innovation, such as the conversion to jet fleets, employment for particular crafts

in some years decreased for the certified domestic

air carriers. Evidently, flight crews (pilots and flight

engineers) bore most of the burdens of technological

change (unemployment) in this period but the effect

varied from carrier to carrier. Domestic trunk air

carriers with long-range routes probably were less

affected than those with short-range routes.

Apparently, the growth of regional carriers balanced

the adverse effects of the introduction of jet aircraft

upon domestic trunk line employment.

13 N e w Y ork Tim es, Oct. 20, 1969, p. 81-M.

4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter II. Collective Bargaining in the Airline Industry

Until the passage of Title II of the Railway Labor

Act in 1936, there were few successful efforts to

organize airline employees. Pilots, who were the

first craft to attempt organization, were unsuccessful

for 11 years before forming the Air Line Pilots

Association (ALPA) in 1930. In the next 2 years,

ALPA organized approximately 75 percent of the

pilots employed by the principal U.S. air carriers.

During this period, airline management actively

opposed union organization; but the pilots used both

economic and political means to maintain and to

augment their power and representation rights.

Moreover, favorable Federal agency decisions and

legislative actions in the early 1930’s, such as the

NLB Decision No. 83, and the Airmail Act of 1934

(which enforced the wage payment system established

by Decision No. 83), supplemented the benefits and

concessions ALPA was winning at the bargaining

table.

Simultaneously with the organization of airline

pilots, airline ground mechanics were organizing along

craft lines. By June 1937, the National Mediation

Board (NMB) recorded four labor agreements signed

by the principal airlines, two of which covered

mechanics: One at American Airlines, signed with

the Air Line Mechanics Association; the other at

Transcontinental and Western Air (TWA), negotiated

by a system association.

In 1938, the NMB recorded 10 contracts negotiated by mechanic groups, four by radio operators,

and two by clerical, office, station and storehouse

employees. Interestingly, ALPA had not yet negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with any

airline; but it and one carrier did sign an agreement

creating a “ temporary joint board of review to consider an acute issue” which arose between the

parties. 14 Finally, in May 1939, ALPA negotiated

its first agreement, with American Airlines.

By mid-1942, only two crafts were highly organized, the pilots (17 agreements with the principal

U.S. airlines) and the mechanics (20 contracts).

Organization of other groups of workers was not

very extensive. Airline radio operators were signatories to seven agreements; stewards and stewardesses to

three contracts; and clerical, office, station and storehouse employees to seven contracts. The five remaining groups together were covered by seven contracts.

During this early period, the NMB played an

active role in collective bargaining. In building a

new collective bargaining agreement structure, labor

and management often reached an impasse in

negotiations and invoked the mediatory services

available under the act. With the assistance of the

Board, initial agreements were consummated, which

provided a foundation for subsequent agreements,

many reached without the aid of the Board.

By the end of World War II, the tempo of

organizing activity increased substantially, especially

among crafts not previously represented— dispatchers,

stores, cargo, commissary, plant maintenence, watchmen, guards, and clerical. Problems relating to the

solution of representation disputes arose as these

organizational activities occurred, especially in the

classification of various groups. Previously, few

difficulties were encountered since fomal determination by the NMB was not required for pilots,

flight engineers, stewardesses, or airline dispatchers

who had secured their representation rights mainly

by means of collective bargaining and voluntary

association.

In the postwar period, however, formal determination for ground personnel proved necessary, especially

for storeroom and stockroom employees, cargo and

ramp service workers, and clerical and office employees. A large number of jurisdictional cases

occurred between 1946 and 1948 which involved

disputes between national airline unions competing

for the right to represent certain groups of mechanics,

radio and teletype operators, stewards and stewardesses,

and other employees who were already organized.

For instance, NMB records indicated 96 airline representation cases between 1946 and 1948.

F o u rth Annu al R e p o r t o f the N ational M ediation

Board (Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1938), pp. 4-7.

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unstable industrial relations, characteristic of the

postwar adjustment period, developed in the late

1940’s and early 1950’s. As the cost of living and

the pace of technology increased appreciably, the

airline unions sought wage and rule concessions.

Management, confronted by these demands and facing

set tariff and other constraints, vigorously resisted.

Threats of strikes and actual strikes were numerous

during this period. Bureau of Labor Statistics records

indicated that 32 work stoppages occurred at scheduled airlines covered under the RLA between 1946

and 1953.

By the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, technological

change shifted the emphasis in collective bargaining

and in labor disputes to the area of work rules, job

security, severance pay, and related matters. With

the advent of the jet in 1958, jurisdictional disputes

between ALPA and the Flight Engineers International

Association (FEIA) led directly or indirectly to the

appointment of nine emergency boards. The issues

in disputes revolved around whether the “ third-seat

in the cockpit” was to be occupied by flight

personnel with pilot training or flight personnel

with mechanical engineering qualifications.

Moreover, 4 of the 6 remaining emergency boards

created during this 5-year span (fiscal years 1958

through 1962) dealt with anticipated or realized

effects of technological change upon wages and job

security. In the dispute leading to Emergency Board

No. 122, for example, one of the major problems

was the granting of severance pay in case of layoffs

resulting from technological change. (See appendix 7 and

table 5.) Similar fears relating to the effects of the

new jet aircraft on employment, wages, and working

conditions generated the Transport Workers UnionPan American dispute in 1958-59, which required

the establishment of Emergency Board No. 125. In

the same manner, the introduction of advanced

navigational aids precipitated the navigators TWU—

TWA emergency board in late 1961. Lastly, the

members of Emergency Board No. 124 concluded

that one of the main reasons for the impasse in

collective bargaining between the parties (ALPA and

American Airlines) was whether the issue of the

anticipated placement of turbine powered planes in

service was a proper subject for negotiations.

More recent labor-management “national emergency”

disputes have indicated a return to economic issues.

During the 7 fiscal years, 1962 to 1968, with the

development of a more favorable economic climate,

seven emergency boards were created to deal with

disputes concerning adjustments in wages. In each of

these, the unions fought for and, to a considerable

extent, won increased wages and supplementary benefits,

This general outline of the industry’s collective

bargaining history overlooks many distinctive features

in the labor-management relationship. Because the

industry is young and very dynamic even after 40

years, definitive generalizations concerning the structure

of collective bargaining are difficult to arrive at as

illustrated by this statement in the early 1960’s

which is still applicable today:

The airline collective bargaining structure has not yet 

fully developed. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there 

is any definite pattern and distribution of decision-making 

within the structure. Nor have either the unions or 

management evolved a collective bargaining system that 

is generally followed to establish the power balance in 

collective bargaining. 15

Yet, some tendencies are evident; a limited discussion

follows on the more salient elements: The nature

of the bargaining unit; union organization; multiple

unionism; single-unit bargaining; the forces leading

to multi-unit negotiations; and bargaining coordination

by management and unions.

Collective bargaining unit

Unlike most other industries, the collective bargaining structure in the airline industry was decided

legislatively on the “ craft” or “ class” principle, rather

than internally. Additionally, there are other considerations in determining the bargaining unit, including “ . . . (the) extent and effectiveness of past

collective bargaining arrangements, the functions,

duties, and responsibilities of the employees, the

general nature of their work and the community of

interests existing between jobs . . . (and)

previous decisions of the Board which bear upon

the issues of the particular dispute.” 16 The rigid

application of the “ craft” principle to the air

transportation industry, coupled with the “majority

rule,” 17 predetermined the structural form of union

1 5 Charles Mason, op . cit., p. 237.

1 F o u rteen th Annual R e p o r t o f the N ational

M ediation Board, Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1948, p. 7.

17 “ In conducting representation elections, the Board 

has for many years followed a policy of declining to 

certify representation in cases where less than a majority 

of the eligible voters participated by casting valid 

ballots . . .”

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
organization, at least in the earlier years, and resulted 

in “fragmented craft unionism,” rather than organization along industrial lines:

Certainly the development of the many fragmented craft

unions in the airlines resulted from the experience of the

National Mediation Board in dealing with fragment craft

unions in the railroad industry. It can be safely assumed

that the National Mediation Board did nothing to create

a context in which an industrial-type union might

thrive. 18

Union organization

Generally, then, the airline unions are organized 

by craft, the two major exceptions being International Association of Machinists and TWU. As 

table 1 demonstrates, IAM represents various classes 

or crafts and is especially strong among the mechanics 

and stock and stores employees, less among the 

clerical and related, and even less among the flight 

engineers. TWU also represents employees in several 

crafts or classes, such as flight navigators, flight dispatchers, stewardesses and pursers, radio and teletype 

operators, mechanics, clerical and related, and stock 

and stores. 19

Historically, other unions attempted industrial 

organization, the most prominent example being 

ALP A. In the late 1940’s, ALPA pursued a policy 

of establishing affiliates to represent all the major 

crafts or classes. During the succeeding years,

ALPA certified affiliates, such as the Airline Stewards 

and Stewardesses Association, the Air Carrier Communication Employees Association, the Air Carriers 

Flight Engineers Association, the Air Line Agents 

Association; but, by the early 1960’s, many of the 

affiliates had been absorbed by other national or 

local unions. 20 Presently, flight personnel crafts 

(flight engineers, pilots and co-pilots, and stewardesses 

and pursers) constitute the main elements of ALPA’s 

bargaining strength. In only one classification outside of the flight personnel groups does ALPA still 

exert an influence, that of clerical, office, stores, 

fleet and passenger service which is organized by 

ALPA’s affiliate, the Air Line Employees Association.21

The extent of organization varies among the 

different crafts and the various carriers. While 

flight personnel (stewards, stewardesses, and pursers; 

pilots; and other flight deck personnel), communication groups, and mechanics are highly unionized, the 

aircraft and traffic service personnel, office employees, 

and other airline employees groups have considerably 

less representation. 22 It appears also that representation differs among carriers and varies directly with 

the size of the airline—Pan American, the domestic 

trunk lines, and the regional carriers are more highly 

unionized than unscheduled or other scheduled air 

carriers. Unionization as a percent of total employment in 1961 was estimated at: 23

United........................................ 64.4

American....................................54.4

Eastern...................................... 55.0

TWA................... 52.3

Pan American............................ 63.8

Braniff.........................................88.5

Northwest................................... 70.3

Continental ..................................52.9

National...................................... 85.8

Multiple unionism

Currently, the NMB distinguishes between nine 

major employee representation classifications. (See 

table 1.) The majority of these crafts or classes are 

represented by a particular union, and most airlines 

bargain with a number of unions representing various 

employee groups. A number of airlines deal with as 

many as five or six different unions. With all the 

collective bargaining agreements, negotiation conferences, contract expiration dates, and jurisdictional and 

representation disputes that each carrier must deal 

with, the probabilities of continuously harmonious 

industrial relations are relatively low.

Single-unit bargaining

Collective bargaining in the airline industry has 

been distinguished by the tendency of the parties

18 Edward B. Shils, op. cit., p. 156.

1 ® A relative newcomer to the airline industrial relations 

scene, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) has 

challenged the existing organizations and has won representation rights for Western’s mechanics and stock and stores; 

Flying Tiger’s flight engineers and stewardesses and pursers; 

Braniff’s and Pan American’s stock and stores and clerical, 

office, stores, fleet and passenger service; Ozark’s stock and 

stores and radio and teletype operators; and Los Angeles 

Airway’s stock and stores employees.

2 0 Charles Mason, op. cit., p. 235.

Before Nov. i ; i960, ALEA was named Air Line 

Agents Association (ALAA).

22 Baitsell, o p cit. 1966. The author estimated that 

slightly under 50 percent of all employees of the domestic 

passenger/cargo carriers are represented by a union.

23 CAB, Docket 35, 9977 “ Joint Exhibits of the Airline 

Parties,” Exhibit 10.

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Employee representation on selected air carriers by occupational g ro u p ,1 as of June 30, 1969

Airline

Pilots

Flight

engineers

Flight

navigators

Flight

dispatchers

Stewardesses

and

pursers

Radio

and

teletype

operators

Mechanics

Clerical, 

office, 

stores, 

fleet and 

passenger 

service

Stock

and

stores

Union

Air West, Inc. . . . ALP A - - ALDA ALPA - I AM & AW ALEA I AM & AW

Allegheny Airlines,

Inc....................... ALP A - - LU2 ALPA - I AM & AW - I AM & AW

American Airlines,

Inc....................... APA 3 FEIA - ALDA TWU TWU TWU TWU TWU

Braniff International............ ALP A - - ADA ALPA CWA I AM & AW IBT IBT

Central Airlines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALD A ALPA - I AM & AW ALEA IAM & AW

Continental

Airlines, Inc.. . . ALPA - . ALDA ALPA - I AM & AW I AM & AW IAM & AW

Delta Air Lines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA - - - - -

Eastern Air Lines,

Inc....................... ALPA ALPA - ALDA TWU CWA I AM & AW I AM & AW IAM & AW

Flying Tiger Lines,

Inc....................... ALPA IBT TWU ALDA IBT - I AM & AW I AM & AW IAM & AW

Frontier Airlines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA ALPA - I AM & AW ALEA IAM & AW

Los Angeles Airways, Inc............ ALPA - - ALDA ALPA - I AM & AW I AM & AW IBT

Mohawk Airlines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA ALPA - I AM & AW - IAM & AW

National Airlines,

Inc....................... ALPA FEI A - ALDA ALPA CWA I AM & AW ALEA IAM & AW

North Central Airlines, Inc............. ALPA - - ALDA ALPA - I AM & AW ALEA IAM & AW

Northeast Airlines, Inc............. ALPA - - ALDA TWU TWU I AM & AW TWU (5)

Northwest Airlines, Inc............. ALPA I AM &AW TWU ALDA TWU TWU I AM & AW BRAC IAM & AW

Ozark Air Lines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA ALPA IBT AMFA 6 I AM & AW IBT

Pan American

World Airways,

Inc....................... ALPA FEI A . ALDA TWU - TWU IBT IBT

Piedmont Airlines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA ALPA - - - -

Southern Airways,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA TWU - - ALEA -

Trans-Texas Airways, Inc. . . . ALPA - - ALDA TWU - I AM & AW ALEA 7 IAM & AW

Trans World Airlines, Inc. . . . ALPA ALPA TWU TWU TWU ALEA I AM & AW - -

United Air Lines,

Inc....................... ALPA - TWU ALDA ALPA CWA I AM & AW - IAM & AW

Western Airlines,

Inc....................... ALPA - - ALDA ALPA CWA IBT BRAC IBT

1 For the full name of the unions listed, see appendix 1. 5 Included in clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger service.

2 Local union. Airline Mechanics Fraternal Association.

3 7 Allied Pilot Association. Represents only a portion of the craft or class.

4 Air Transport Dispatchers Association.

SOURCE: Thirty-fifth National Mediation Board Annual, p.89.

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to bargain on a single-unit basis, that is, negotiations 

between one carrier with one union. Various factors 

have been put forth to explain this development, 

among which are the following:

(1) Vigorous competition and differences in 

operating problems (costs, routes, and investment 

expenditures) create an unfavorable atmosphere for 

bargaining coordination by airline management.

(2) Promotion of craft unionism by the RLA 

and by CAB administrative interpretation have 

reinforced single-unit bargaining. 24

(3) Besides the specific problems of each 

“craft,” several unions (particularly those representing ground service personnel) compete among themselves for membership.

(4) Negotiation coordinating committees established by the two parties, such as the American 

Transport Association, have as yet not developed 

into a permanent system for multi-unit bargaining.

(5) Lastly, usually one party or the other finds 

it disadvantageous to increase the “bargaining 

unit.” 25

The second point merits some elaboration. Nowhere in the RLA is there a reference to multi-unit 

bargaining (negotiations involving more than one 

carrier or one union); its prohibition originates from 

an administrative interpretation by the CAB. Apparently, the Board considers the establishment of 

multi-unit bargaining as detrimental to “public 

interest,” since multicarrier bargaining could result 

in nationwide strikes. On the other hand, some airline labor-management experts assert that single-unit 

negotiations produce instability in airline industrial 

relations.

Multicarrier bargaining

Although single-unit bargaining has always been 

the prevalent form of bargaining in the air transportation industry, pressures have existed to induce one 

party or the other to seek multi-unit negotiations.

As early as 1945, the airlines attempted joint negotiations with ALPA. 26 On December 28, 1945, the 

Chairman of the Air Line Negotiations Committee 

(which represented the airlines involved in Emergency 

Board No. 36) urged multi-unit bargaining of a wage 

and rules dispute on DC-4’s and Constellations but this 

request was rejected by the president of ALPA. Although 

the carriers obtained no support from the emergency 

board, which did not recommend that ALPA accept

multicarrier bargaining, the Board did declare that 

the airlines had the right to be represented by the 

Committee.

After this defeat, the Committee was reorganized 

in August 1946 as the Airlines Negotiating Conference for the purpose of acting as the bargaining 

agent for its members. It too proved unsuccessful 

and was disbanded on February 28, 1947.

The first union request for multi-unit bargaining 

came in 1953 from I AM, an active proponent of 

multicarrier bargaining. At the suggestion of the 

union, five carriers (United, Eastern, Capital, Northeast, and National) resolved a common dispute in 

joint mediation, resulting in uniform contract 

duration. One year later (May 26, 1954), I AM 

served simultaneous notices on the same carriers and 

presented identical demands to them. The carriers’ 

rejection of joint negotiations led to an impasse in 

collective bargaining. With I AM threatening a strike, 

the NMB proffered mediation on August 13, 1954. 

Except for Eastern, an agreement to hold joint 

mediation sessions was consummated between four of 

the carriers and I AM, the result of which was the 

negotiation of identical wage rate changes and 

common contract expiration dates.

In 1957, IAM again expressed an interest in conducting multi-unit bargaining with the major domestic 

trunk line carriers; but this effort proved fruitless.

In the subsequent emergency dispute between IAM and 

six carriers, the emergency board (No. 122) recommended multi-unit bargaining, as have several boards 

since that time. Three years later, the NMB in its 

Twenty-Seventh Report also advocated joint bargaining as a means of improving labor relations in the 

airline industry.

Meanwhile, in May 1957, the Airline Personnel 

Relations Conference, the successor to the Airlines 

Negotiating Conference, proposed the creation of 

a committee to evaluate the advisability of joint 

airline negotiations. On July 31, 1957, the Conference adopted the report of the Committee which, 

among other things, advocated bargaining coordination by management. Subsequent activity led to the

24 A 1947 CAB ruling held that multi-unit bargaining1. . . 

cannot be imposed by any party to a dispute but must come 

as a result of the consent of all parties.”

25 Vernon Briggs, op . cit., p. 5.

26 Baitsell considers the negotiations of the 1933 dispute 

between ALPA and five carriers, which led to NLB Decision 

No. 83, as the first endeavor to institute multicarrier bargaining. 

After this unsuccessful bargaining, ALPA opposed and blocked 

any effects by management to institute joint negotiations on 

the grounds that it (multi-unit bargaining) was in violation of 

the RLA.

9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
formulation of the Mutual Aid Pact. Also, in late 

1959 and early 1960, ATA began discussions dealing with the advantages of joint negotiations; but the 

member carriers were unable to agree on this 

proposal.

A more recent example of IAM’s interest in multiunit bargaining is illustrated by an agreement reached 

between IAM and five carriers (Eastern, National, 

Northwest, TWA, and United) to conduct joint negotiations on eight points of a then current dispute. 

After jointly serving “Section 6” notices on October 

1, 1965, the parties held individual and, subsequently, 

joint meetings. On January 11, 1966, the parties, 

deadlocked in negotiations, applied together for the 

mediation services of the NMB; and the dispute was 

docketed as one case.

Bargaining coordination by management

At the same time, compelling forces also exist for 

carriers to coordinate their bargaining. As was previously stated, airline payrolls currently constitute 

approximately 40 percent—all employment costs 

(wages, salaries, personnel expenses, welfare programs, 

and payroll taxes) constitute 45 percent—of total 

operating expenses. Each carrier, operating in a 

regulated and highly competitive market, therefore, is 

concerned about labor costs vis-a-vis his competitors. 

Moreover, with the development of pattern bargaining, 

wage negotiations by one airline usually have an 

effect on other carriers. Combined, these two factors 

exert forceful pressures on the carriers to coordinate 

their bargaining.

On the other hand, each airline seeks harmonious 

industrial relations and what it considers to be a fair 

wage. Beyond that, some airlines are in a better 

financial position than others. Therefore, the forces 

of competition which frequently impel the carriers 

toward coordinated bargaining also dissipate the urge 

to cooperate:

The experiments with multicarrier bargaining indicate 

the longstanding interest of airline management in 

arriving at some cohesive system whereby settlements would depend not so much on the expediency of competitive gain or of keeping the 

business operating as on well-thought-out and 

practical long-term objectives. No system that 

has proved consistently (my emphasis) workable 

has yet evolved. ^

One important and apparently permanent system 

of cooperation has developed. Responding to the

Capital—IAM strike of Oct. 17, 1958 (which 

eventually led to the establishment of Emergency 

Board No. 122), six carriers, American, Capital, 

Eastern, Pan American, TWA, and United, executed 

a 1-year mutual aid agreement to protect themselves 

against strike losses and the prevailing “divide-andconquer tactics” (“whip-sawing”) used by a number 

of the unions. Under the provisions of this pact, a 

carrier shutdown by a strike would receive “ windfall” 

payments if the strike was either “unlawful” or 

called to “enforce demands in excess of or contrary 

to those recommended by an Emergency Board.” 2 8 

On May 20, 1959, the CAB approved the pact, except 

for one provision requiring the shuttling of traffic 

from the struck carrier to the other pact members.

On March 7, 1960, the agreement was amended to 

include coverage for strikes called in the absence of 

emergency boards, with the stipulation that the carrier 

fully comply with the requirements of the RLA. Thus, 

small carriers whose operations would not substantially 

interrupt interstate commerce and whose disputes would 

not warrant the appointment of an emergency board found 

membership more advantageous; and Braniff, Continental, National, and Northwest joined in March 

and April 1960. 29 Seven unions (ALPA, ALDA,

BRC, FEIA, TWU, IAM, and UAW) 30 reacted by 

forming the Association of Air Transport Unions on 

April 12, 1960, to oppose the pact and to enforce 

common expiration dates in their collective bargaining agreements. By November 1960, the Association 

became inactive because of disunity among member 

unions.

The carrier’s Mutual Aid Pact was amended once 

more on March 22, 1962, and three significant 

modifications were made. First, a “supplemental payments” provision (in addition to “windfall payments”) 

was instituted to insure that financial assistance to a 

struck member would be sufficient to cover 25 percent of the carrier’s “normal operating expenses 

attributable to the operations shutdown.” If “windfall payments” were insufficient to cover this 25 

percent figure, each member carrier (not struck) was 

legally obligated to provide “supplemental payments” 

up to .5 percent of their operation revenues of the 

previous calendar year. Second, the agreement was 

extended indefinitely; each of the carriers had a

27 Charles Mason, op . cit., p. 245.

28 CAB Mutual Aid Pact Investigation Docket No. 9977 

(Renewal), B rief o f the Carriers to E xa m in er A rth u r S.

Present, p. 3.

29 National and Continental left the Pact in 1961. After 

rejoining on Mar. 22, 1962, Continental discontinued its 

membership again on Dec. 31, 1966.

30 See appendix 1.

1 0

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
right to withdraw from the Pact. Third, coverage 

was enlarged to include strikes in which an emergency board made no specific recommendations. On 

July 10, 1964, the CAB approved the amended 

agreement for 3 years and later extended its approval.

In the latter part of 1969, the Pact members 

petitioned the CAB to effect changes in their agreement. Under the new provisions of the amended 

Pact, a struck carrier would receive 50 percent of its 

normal operation expenses at the beginning of a 

strike, the rate declining on a sliding scale to 35 percent at the end of the first 4 weeks of a labor dispute. Other provisions would alter the conditions of 

entry and exit from the Pact and would raise the 

annual limitations on the amount payable by any 

member. Subsequently, National, Continental, and 

Western joined the agreement; the first two by Nov. 

15, 1969, and the third on. Feb. 2, 1970.

The Pact was invoked on four occasions in the 

first 2 years of its existence, eight more times (seven 

of which dealt with crew complement disputes) in the 

next 2 years, and on seven occasions between March 

1962 and August 1969. (See table 2.) A definitive 

evaluation of the Mutual Aid Pact’s effect on collective bargaining relations in the airline industry is 

difficult to estimate, 31 especially since the agreement was consummated in an unusually disruptive 

period, 1958-62, one fraught with emotion laden 

issues (job security, work rules, severance pay, etc ).

In CAB, Docket 9977, Hearing Examiner S. Thomas 

Simon Stated, “ There is no substantial evidence in the record 

that the Pact has had any material effect upon the collective 

bargaining process in the industry.”

Table 2. Use of the mutual aid pact benefits, 1958-69

Work stoppages

work stoppage 

commenced

Carrier Union(s) Number of 

workers 

involved

Duration 

in days

Oct. 16, 1958 ................................... Capital I AM 6,838 37

Nov. 21, 1958................................... TWA I AM 14,123 16

Nov. 24, 1958................................... Eastern I AM and 

FEIA

14,252 22

38

Dec. 20, 1958................................... American ALPA 20,819 22

June 10, 1960................................... Eastern ALPA 9,655 10

Oct. 11, 1960................................... Northwest I AM 4,166 

173,483

37

Feb. 17, 1961................................... Pan American

American

TWA

Eastern

National

FEIA 7

May 2, 1961...................................... National I AM 3,581 6

June 23, 1962................................... Eastern FEIA 17,107 82

Aug. 21, 1963................................... United I AM 2,269 1

Aug. 25, 1964.......................... . . Pan American TWU 7,630 1

Mar. 31, 1965................................... Pan American ALPA 17,221 11

July 8, 1966 ................................... Eastern

TWA

United

Northwest

I AM 2 70,858 43

Feb. 27, 1969................................... American TWU 20,000 21

Aug. 8, 1969...................................... Pan American TCWH 24,000 4

1 Includes the FEIA flight engineers' strike at Western and Flying Tiger.

2

Also includes the 1AM strike at National.

SOURCE: Air Transport Association; Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Civil Aeronauties Board, Docket No. 9977

(Renewal), December 1968, pp. 3-5.

1 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Although the agreement may enhance the member 

carriers’ bargaining power, it does not follow that it 

necessarily increases the chances for prolonged strikes:

In the first place, at no time have all the trunk

lines been participating members. Indeed, during

most of its existence five of the trunk line carriers

(Delta, Northeast, Western, National, and Continental)

have stayed out of it . . . Second, while payments

may be helpful, they do not cover actual strike

losses . . . Another weakness is that local service

lines are excluded . . . A final weakness of the

Mutual Aid Pact is that it (MAP) will not automatically prevent unions from winning a new concession from a carrier to which it is not important.32

Union bargaining coordination

The airline unions have also instituted several 

schemes for interunion cooperation although, again, 

no permanent system has evolved. To illustrate, at 

the beginning of the jet crew complement dispute, 

Sept. 3, 1958, the FEIA, IAM, and ALSSA locals at 

Eastern Air Lines agreed to honor each other’s 

picket lines. Soon afterwards, FEIA and IBT entered 

into a mutual assistance pact. On Nov. 24, 1958,

FEIA and IAM simultaneously struck Eastern. Other 

examples of interunion mutual aid have included the 

honoring of the flight engineers’ picket line at Western 

in 1961 by IAM and the navigators, the navigators’ 

picket line at Flying Tiger by ALPA and FEIA, and 

the stewardesses’ picket line at Mohawk by ALPA. 

Given the particular development of airline collective 

bargaining units into numerous crafts or classes, with 

varying economic power, this form of cooperation 

greatly enhanced the economic power of a small or 

weak union.

Another type of interunion cooperation consists of 

granting or loaning strike funds. In later 1955, for 

example, TWU furnished assistance to the flight 

engineers (FEIA) to sustain their strike against United; 

and later, IBT loaned FEIA $100,000 to continue the 

strike. 33 Three years later, FEIA received $200,000 

more from IBT, this time to maintain strike action 

against Eastern. 34

32 John Baitsell, op . cit., pp. 343-45.

33 TWU Express, January 1956, p. 7; The N e w Y ork

Tim es, July 22, 1958, p. 54.

34 The W ashington P ost, Dec. 9, 1958, p. C-10.

1 2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C h a p t e r I I I . L e g a l F r a m e w o r k o f t h e R a i l w a y L a b o r A c t

Originally, the RLA dealt only with industrial relations disputes in the railroad industry; but a number

of events during the mid-1920’s and the 1930’s in the

airline industry gradually resulted in its inclusion under

the act: The Air Mail Act of 1925 authorized the

Postmaster General to award air mail carrier contracts;

the Air Commerce Act of 1926 empowered the Department of Commerce to encourage air commerce and

to promote the growth of airports, airways and other

facilities; the Watres Act of 1930 authorized the Postmaster General to direct, combine, and strengthen the

air transportation industry; and the Air Mail Act of

1934 required carriers to comply with the compensation levels and working conditions prescribed by

National Labor Board Decision No. 83 as a prerequisite for securing air mail contracts. Simultaneously,

there were industrial relations developments which

culminated in legislative action in 1936. As technological changes occurred during the 1931-33 period,

aircraft cruising speeds increased substantially; thus,

the air carriers sought a modification of

their pilots’ pay formula from a monthly base plus

mileage pay to a monthly base plus hourly pay

(flight hours flown). Concerned about the wage and

hour issues involved, ALPA announced its intention to

strike. When the carriers proceeded to institute the

new compensation system, ALPA sought relief from

the NLB. In turn, the NLB created a three-man

factfinding board to investigate the dispute; and their

recommendations directly led to NLB Decision No. 83,

“the most far-reaching ruling ever issued in the airline

industry.” 35

Meanwhile, from its inception in 1931, ALPA, with

the support of the American Federation of Labor,

Congress of Industrial Organization, and the Railway

Labor Executives Association, attempted to persuade

Congress to include the air transportation industry

under the RLA. Finally, on April 10, 1936, Congress

placed the airlines within the scope of the RLA by an

amendment to the Act (“Title II”). “Title II” extended all of the provisions of the 1926 Act (as

amended in 1934) to the commerical airline industry,

except section 3 which dealt with the National Railroad Adjustment Board. 36

N a t i o n a l m e d i a t i o n b o a r d

In the intervening time, the act was amended on

June 21,1934, to create the National Mediation Board,

the successor to the U.S. Board of Mediation which

was established by the original act in 1926. Two

major functions, corresponding to 2 of the 3 types of

disputes covered by the act, were delegated to the

Board:

(1) The mediation of disputes between carriers

and the labor organizations representing their employees, relating to the making of new agreements,

or the changing of existing agreements, affecting

rates of pay, rules and working conditions, after the

parties have been unsuccessful in their at-home bargaining efforts to compose these differences (“major

disputes”) . . .

(2) The duty of ascertaining and certifying the

representative of any craft or class of employees to

the carriers after investigation through secret-ballot

elections or other appropriate methods of employees’

representation choice (“representation disputes”) ...37

An important supplemental duty assigned to the Board

was the settlement of “ minor disputes,” those involving

the interpretation of the existing collective bargaining

agreements.

P u r p o s e s o f t h e a c t

The general purposes of the RLA, as contained in

section 2 of the 1934 amendments to the Railway

Labor Act, are the following: (1) To avoid any

interruption to commerce or to the operation of any

carrier engaged therein; (2) to forbid any limitation

upon freedom of association among employees or any

denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of

the right of employees to join a labor organization;

John Baitsell, o p . c i t „ p. 32.

The 1936 Amendments to the Railway Labor Act,

Congress of the United States. In U.S. 40 States 1921, ch.

166. 74 Cong. (1936), Sec. 201.

37 T h ir ty -F o u r th A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n

B oa rd , Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1969, p. 4.

13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(3) to provide for the complete independence of

carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organization to carry out the purposes of this act; (4) to

provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all

disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working

conditions; (5) to provide for the prompt and orderly

settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances

or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working

conditions. 38

P r o c e d u r a l a s p e c t s o f t h e a c t

To implement its general purposes, the RLA

requires the parties to follow step-by-step procedures

that govern their actions from the initial notice of an

intention to change the terms of an agreement to the

last step which leaves the union free to strike or the

employer to institute a lockout. RLA procedures are

complex and time consuming and consist of: Notice

of intended change in the terms and conditions of

employment by one or both parties; direct negotiations; if direct negotiations are unsuccessful, a request

by the parties for or the proffer of mediation by the

National Mediation Board (NMB) should the facts

warrant it; meditation hearings; proffer of arbitration;

emergency board hearings and recommendations; and

“ status quo” periods. (See chart 1.) The procedure

is set in motion upon the serving of a “ Section 6”

notice of intended change in the collective bargaining

agreement. A “ status quo” period prohibits changes

in the terms and conditions of employment until the

parties reach agreement, or all requisite procedures of

the act have been exhausted, or a period of 10 days

has passed after the termination of discussions without

a request for or proffer of the Board’s assistance. The

parties are expected to negotiate until an agreement is

reached or an impasse develops.

When mediation proves unsuccessful in producing

an accord and arbitration is refused, the Board is required to formally notify both parties of its failure to

reconcile their differences. Again, a “ status quo”

period is instituted, and no unilateral alteration in the

terms of the collective bargaining agreement is permissible for 30 days from the date of notice unless,

in the interim, arbitration is again proffered and is

agreed upon or an emergency board is established

under Section 10 of the act. Action under this

section is taken if, in the opinion of the NMB, an

actual or imminent strike arising out of an unresolved dispute “ threatens to substantially interrupt

interstate commerce.” The Board so notifies the

President who may establish, as a last resort under

the act, an emergency board to examine the nature of

and to make recommendations concerning the issues in

dispute.

Generally, the emergency boards delay the issuance

of a formal report as long as voluntary settlements are

impending or probable. Beyond that, the boards utilize

prolongations of the emergency procedures to effect

accords by means of mediation. Even after the reccommendations are made public, the NMB (under Section 5 of the RLA) may reenter the case and extend

the use of their mediatory facilities.

38 The 1934 Amendments to the Railway Labor Act,

Congress of the United States. In U.S. 48 States 1185, ch.

691, 73d Cong. (1934), Sec. 2.

14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C h a r t 1 . A i r l i n e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e d u r e s a n d 

" s t a t u s q u o ” p e r i o d s u n d e r t h e R a i l w a y L a b o r A c t .

GOVERNMENT

PROCEDURES

CARRIER(S) AND UNION(S)

DISPOSITION

"STATUS Q UO " 

(IN ABSENCE OF 

AGREEMENT)

30 DAYS0 NOTICE OF 

INTENDED CHANGE IN 

AGREEMENT AFFECTING 

RATES OF PAY. RULES.

OR WORKING CONDITIONS

i

AGREEMENT ON TIME 

AND PLACE FOR BEGINNING 

CONFERENCES (WITHIN 10 

DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE)

CONFERENCES 

(BEGIN WITHIN THE 30 DAYS 

PROVIDED IN NOTICE)

||§ AGREEMENT

i

REQUEST BY EITHER PARTY 

(OR BOTH)

FOR MEDIATION,

OR ITS PROFFER BY NMB

NATIONAL 

MEDIATION 

BOARD

L

f

MEDIATION 

AS ITS FINAL

AGREEMENT

MEDIATORY ACTION, AGREEMENT

NMB PROFFERS TO ARBITRATE

ARBITRATION

l

1

BOARD OF 

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION

1 i .........k. BINDING

1 * AWARD

THE PRESIDENT

EMERGENCY

BOARD

IF. IN ITS JUDGMENT 

DISPUTE THREATENS 

SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE 

WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE 

NMB SO NOTIFIES PRESIDENT

»

I

PRESIDENT, IN HIS DISCRETION 

ESTABLISHES EMERGENCY BOARD

...... ...................... I

EMERGENCY 

BOARD INVESTIGATES DISPUTE 

1_______

■" A c t i o n w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d 

w hen p re ce d e n t action 

has been taken.

— —• P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r r e a c h i n g 

agreem ent and a ctio n s 

w h ich are d iscre tio n a ry .

REPORT TO PRESIDENT, WITH 

RECOMMENDATIONS (WITHIN 

30 DAYS OF CREATION OF BOARD)

I

*-----------------------P AGREEMENT

PARTIES FREE 

OF LEGAL RESTRAINT

FROM

NOTICE

UNLESS 10 

DAYS ELAPSE 

FOLLOWING 

TERMINATION 

OF

CONFERENCES 

WITHOUT 

REQUEST FOR 

OR PROFFER 

OF

MEDIATION

TO

30 DAYS 

FOLLOWING 

NMB

NOTICE TO 

PARTIES THAT 

MEDIATION

HAS

FAILED AND 

ARBITRATION 

WAS REFUSED

FROM 

CREATION 

OF BOARD

TO

30 DAYS 

FOLLOWING 

EMERGENCY 

BOARD 

REPORT

15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C h a p t e r I V . A i r l i n e M e d i a t i o n C a s e s

39

Mediation was an indispensable tool in the NMB’s

efforts to conclude settlements in the air transportation

industry. Over the 34-year span since 1936, the NMB

disposed of 1,465 airline mediation cases, 905 (61.8

percent) since 1955. 40 Almost 50 percent of all the

mediation cases were settled in one decade, 1951-1960

(715 mediation cases), years that were characterized

first by a rapid rise in the Consumer Price Index

and later by the introduction of jet aircraft. With the

addition of 3 more years (1963, 1967, 1968), the 13

years combined accounted for 62.4 percent of all

mediation cases.

Ranging from a high of 83 in 1959 to none in

1936 and 1937, the distribution of cases successfully

mediated, withdrawn by the parties, or dismissed by

the Board was uneven within the 34-year period. In

the formative years of organization (1936-45), only

40 mediation cases, the majority involving pilots and

mechanics, were processed. (See appendix 2.) Over

the next 5 years (1946-50), organizational activities

among airline employees not previously represented

substantially contributed to the increase in the use

of the Board’s mediatory services (231 cases).

Beginning in the latter part of this period and extending through the mid-1950’s, unsettled labor

conditions precipitated by the failure to agree on

wage and rule changes, especially for flight groups

and mechanics, frequently required the intervention

of the Board. 41 The use of jets in the late 1950’s

and early 1960’s ushered in another period of

conflict (338 mediation cases), focussed in demands

for changes in rules and pay. Between 1963 and the

present, pressures induced by innovations and substantial rises in the CPI generated union demands

which resulted in continual NMB intervention in

labor-management disputes (374 mediation cases),

although not as many cases were docketed annually

as in the two previous periods.

G r o u n d a n d f l i g h t g r o u p s

Of the mediation cases disposed of between 1936

and 1969 that could be classified by major occupational group, 595 (42.3 percent) involved flight employees and 812 cases (57.7 percent) concerned

ground crafts. (See appendix 3.) 42 Doubtlessly,

flight personnel groups accounted for an inordinately

large and growing share of mediation cases over the

years, especially in light of their relative numbers.

Between 1955 and 1969, flight employees constituted

slightly less than 20 percent of the total airline labor

force; yet they were involved in approximately 40

percent of all airline mediation cases, as shown in

table 3.

Table 3. Mediation cases disposed of, 1936-69 by 

occupational group

Years

Total

Flight

mediation cases

Ground

mediation cases

Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Perber cent ber cent ber cent

1936-69 . . . 1,407 100.0 595 42.3 812 57.7

1955-69 . . . 871 100.0 383 44.0 488 56.0

1936-54 . .. 536 100.0 212 39.6 324 60.4

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

Within these two major groups, pilots and

mechanics were involved in one-half of the total

mediation cases in all three time periods, but increased their relative share between the subperiods.

With the addition of two other crafts, clerical and

related and stewards, stewardesses, and pursers, the

four occupational groups combined participated in

approximately three-fourths of all airline mediation

cases.

3 9 All data, except for work stoppage figures, in this and

in the following sections are based on the fiscal year (ending

June 30).

40 Because of a limitation in data, the analysis proceeds on

the basis of mediation cases disposed of (settled by one means

or another) rather than mediation cases docketed in any particlar fiscal year(s).

41 Between 1951 and 1957, the National Mediation Board

disposed of 482 mediation cases.

42 The category of combined airline employees was eliminated trom the analysis since it was impossible to classify those

mediation cases by major groups. Also, all 11 mediation cases

in 1945 were omitted from the analysis for the same reason.

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Pilots Pilots, mechanics, clerical

and and related, stewardesses

Years mechanics and stewards

1936-69 ....................... 51.4 72.9

1955-69....................... 53.0 74.4

1936-54 ....................... 49.1 70.3

I s s u e s

Union demands for changes in an existing agreement

are seldom confined to a single issue. Most frequently

they include economic as well as noneconomic proposals for change. Nevertheless when an impasse has

been reached, generally, one broad issue can be

identified as the roadblock to agreement. Although

full agreement may not have been reached on all

of the provisions which were considered in negotiations, in the data discussed here and in appendix 2,

mediation cases were classified by the issue considered

by the parties and the mediators to be the one that

most hindered agreement.

Because of the unavailability of data for the pre1955 period, the analysis was confined to subsequent

years. Of the 905 mediation cases disposed of

between 1955 and 1969, 30 were concerned with the

negotiation of first agreements, 534 with rates of pay,

328 with work rules, and 13 with miscellaneous issues.

Combined, rates and rules were the principal subjects

of mediation cases docketed by the Board; they

accounted for over 95 percent of the mediation cases

disposed of during this period. The negotiations of

new agreements was undoubtedly relatively more

important an issue in the pre-1955 period since

organization of most of the crafts was substantially

completed by the mid-1950’s.

D i s p o s i t i o n o f m e d i a t i o n c a s e s 4 3

Of the various methods of disposition of these 905

cases, mediation agreements far exceeded those of

other categories. Between 1955 and 1969, 586 of

these agreements, accounting for 64.8 percent of disposition of all airline mediation cases, were consummated. Thus, after direct negotiation, this second

line of defense was an effective device in assisting the

parties to reach agreement.

Table 4 indicates the consummation of mediation

agreements varied between the 5-year periods, with a

decline between the first and second subperiods, due

to an increase in the relative number of dismissals and

withdrawals, and with an upswing in the third period.

Even more interesting was the comparision between

1955-62 and 1963-69. Although more cases were disposed

Table 4. Number of mediation agreements and percent of total, 

1955-69

Years 1

Number

of

mediation

agreements

Mediation agreements 

as a percent of total 

mediation cases 

disposed of

1955-59 ............. 233 66.0

1960-64 ............. 173 58.1

1965-69 . . . ___ 180 70.9

1955-69............. 586 64.8

1 Subdividing the 15 years into these 5-year periods was 

based on convenience, not on any economic criterion.

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

of by mediation agreements in the former period, in

relative terms the years from 1963 to 1969 were characterized by greater success by the NMB’s mediation

activities. Over the 8-year period 1955-62, the average

annual number of mediation agreements signed by air

carriers and unions was 42; for the 1963-69 period, 36

cases were annually disposed of on the average by this

means. However, 6 of the 9 years in which mediation

agreements constituted the most prevalent method of

settlement occurred in the second time period.

Arbitration, another method to dispose of mediation cases, was seldom used by the parties in the

air transportation industry. During the 15-year period

under consideration, only 12 agreements to arbitrate

were consummated, an average of, less than one

annually. Since 1955, the parties interest in this

procedure apparently declined.

Percent of mediation

cases disposed of by

Years Number arbitration agreement

1955-59 ...................... 7 1.98

1960-64 ...................... 3 1.01

1965-69 ..................... 2 .79

1955-69 ...................... 12 1.33

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

Two other categories of disposition remain, withdrawals and dismissals. 44 Over the 15-year span,

they accounted for 189 dispositions (82 and 107,

4 3 Data on disposition of airline mediation cases was also

unavailable prior to 1955. See appendix 2.

44 A withdrawal refers to the action of the party which

initially requested the mediatory services of the Board when

the party retracts its application. A dismissal refers to the

action of the Board when it discharges the request for its service according to the conditions required under the act (RLA).

1 7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
respectively). Between the three subperiods, the

distribution of dismissals plus withdrawals was relatively stable, 19.6 percent of all dispositions

between 1955 and 1969, 22.5 percent between 1960

and 1964, and 20.9 percent between 1965 and

1969. Within these three periods, however, they

varied considerably.

R e l a t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n o f m e d i a t o r y s e r v i c e s

To ascertain whether labor and management relied

heavily upon the mediatory assistance of the Board to

resolve their differences, an attempt was made to

establish a measuring rod of the efficiency of the

parties to dispose of industrial relation controversies

by means of direct negotiations. Limitations, mainly

due to data constraints, were quickly apparent. No

accurate statistics were available to indicate the number of “ Section 6” notices of intended change in

collective bargaining agreements or the number of

disputes settled by direct negotiations. Moreover, the

number of mediation cases that involved airlines annually was not ascertainable. These statistics were to

be utilized to indicate the percent of “ Section 6”

notices requiring the mediatory services of the NMB.

Thus, without these data, accurate quantification of

the parties’ success in solving their collective bargaining problems on their own was impossible.

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter V. Airline Emergency Boards

Since 1936, the Board has dealt with 1,465 airline

mediation cases; and only 63 required this final step

of the procedure. 45 In total, 33 boards were

created, two-thirds between 1955 and 1969 but none

during the last 3 years. (See table 5.) The incidence

of airline emergency boards over time was irregular,

most occurring in scattered clusters.

Between May 1946 and November 1954, 13 emergency boards were established. Fourteen boards,

created between January 1958 and March 1962,

coincided with the introduction of the jet plane and

centered on work rules for ground employees and

manning issues for flight deck personnel as the

principal subjects in dispute. In the last seven airline

emergency boards, which were confined to ground

crafts, wages was the prime issue.

The use of emergency boards in the past 20 years

has been depicted as a “proliferation” of such procedures and a domination of labor-management

negotiations in the industry by the Government,

contrary to the original intent of the act. Critics have

frequently charged that the Board has pursued a

policy of automatically notifying the President of

almost any dispute which was unsettled after it had

intervened, the only criterion being whether a work

stoppage was imminent. Since the airline unions

routinely set a strike date when an impasse is reached

in negotiations or in mediation conducted by the

Board, the occurrence of “imminent work stoppages”

has been extremely high. Consequently, it appears

that the effectiveness of the emergency board procedures as a last resort has been reduced and the

parties have integrated this procedure into their collective bargaining strategy.

If this lessening of effectiveness has occurred, its

cause lies, perhaps, in the evolution of the act. Originally, the act was limited exclusively to railroads,

an industry in which collective bargaining relationships were well-structured and one in which a work

stoppage, even on smaller lines, could entail a substantial impact on an area. The law was phrased

to reflect the nature of the industry and its relative

importance vis-a-vis the national economy as it

existed at the time of passage in 1926. Thus,

Section 10, 1st, and Section 2, 1st, referred to

disputes which “threaten substantially to interrupt

interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive

a section of the country of essential transportation

service” and to the settlement of all disputes “in

order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to

the operation of any carrier. . . .” Considering the

size of some of the smaller airline carriers and the

Civil Aeronautics Board practice of awarding two

or more carriers access to major routes, as well as

the existence of other means of transportation, a

strict interpretation of Section 2, 1st, may not have

been necessary to protect the public interest.

In 1966, former Secretary of Labor W. Willard

Wirtz refused to classify as a national emergency

the labor-management controversy which interrupted

about 50 percent of domestic trunkline air service

and which caused the creation of Emergency

Board 166. This particular controversy probably

had the greatest economic impact of any airline

emergency board dispute, and it may serve as a

measure of the economic impact of the other 32

cases.

Most emergency boards involving a single carrier

and a single union (especially those in the late

1940’s and early 1950’s) were created to resolve

controversies which may not have fulfilled the

conditions of threatening to substantially deprive

a section of the country of essential transportation

services, except in the narrowest sense. For

instance, it would seem that when the Brotherhood

of Railway Clerks struck Braniff (a domestic trunkline carrier) in late 1951, the dispute did not

threaten to substantially interrupt interstate commerce or deprive a section of the country of

essential transportation services for the following

reasons: The clerks are not essential personnel in

the same sense that mechanics and flight deck

personnel are; the major airline routes assigned to

Braniff were also flown by other carriers; and other

forms of transportation were available to provide

essential services to the affected areas. The

45 Some of the 63 mediation cases were combined into one

emergency board case; others were considered separately.

1 9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 5. Airline emergency boards, 1936-69

Emergency

board

number

Union(s) Carrier(s)

Major craft involved Major issues

"Section 6"

notice date

Flight Ground

New

agreementsWages Rules Other

168

167

166

158

156

152

149

146

144

143

142

140

136

135

128

125

124

123

122

121

120

108

103

102

101

100

99

94

90

67

62

38

36

TWU

TWU

1AM

1AM

1AM

TWU

TWU

FEIA

FEIA

ALPA

ALPA

TWU

1AM

FEIA

BRC

TWU

ALPA

FEIA

1AM

ALPA

FEIA

1AM

FEIA

1AM

FEIA

1AM

TWU

ALPA

BRC

1AM

(ALPA

(1AM

1AM

ALPA

Pan American........................... Mechanics and related . X______ May 31,1966

Mar. 1,1966

Oct. 1,1965

Oct. 31,1962

May 1,1962

(Aug. U l9 6 1 »

(Feb. 28,1962

Oct. 26,1960

Feb. 8,1960

Jan. 2,1960

Aug. 30,1960

May 31,1961

[Feb. 9,1960*

(May 31,1960

Mar. 8,1960

Oct. 9,1959

Oct. 30,1958

Jun. 21,1957

Sep. 23,1957

Aug. 1,1957

Aug. 1,1957

Aug. 30,1957

Aug. 30,1957

Jul. 30,1957

Aug. 30.1957

Aug. 29,1957

Mar. 27,1957

Feb. 26,1957

May 26,1954

Dec. 26,1951

Sep. 21,1951

Mar. 28,1952

Mar. 11,1950

Oct. 31,1951

May 31,1949

Apr. 10,1949

May 28,1948

May U l9 4 7

Mar. 1,1946

(0

American........... __ ______ X..............

[Eastern...................................

| x ..............

1 National...................- ...............

■{Northwest................. ............

TWA..........................................

Mechanics and related________

1

X..............

(.United.................... ....... ...........

Braniff___________________

Continental_____________

Eastern___ ________ _____ _

Northwest________________

X______

TWA..........................................

United__________ ______ _

Pan American..................... . X..............

American................................... X______

TWA............. ............................ Engineers............... X.........

Eastern......... ........................ .. X______

Pan American......................... Pilots .. X______

TWA..................................... Pilots.......................... X..............

TWA_____________________ Navigators............ X..............

Northwest______________ _ X......... .

Pan American_____ ____ _ X..............

Pan American_____________ X.............

Pan American............... ......... Service___________ X..............

American_________________ Pilots ____________ X .. .

TW A____________________ X .

[Eastern____ _____ ________

1

X.......... X..............

TWA______________ _____ _

United___________________

Northwest____

Northeast.................................

X

Capital........ .........................

National...................................

Pilots .

X

[Capital_____________ _____

Mechanics and related................ X......... X______

National__________________

Northwest________________

United...................................

X..............

Eastern............. .......................

United___________________ Engineers............

Northwest________________ Engineers . .. X______

TWA........................................... Engineers________ X______

Northwest________ ______ X______

Pan American_____________ X..............

American_________________ Pilots.. .. _____ X.........

Braniff___________________ X.............

Northwest............................... X______

National__________________ Pilots . X..............

National.................................... X ....

Northwest__________ _____ X______ X...........

TWA 17....................................... Pilots____________ X______ X______

2 Includes m a nning req u ire m e n ts , w o rk rules, and technolog ical in n o v a tio n issues.

D id n o t respond to reco m m en d atio n s.

3 N o fo rm a l em erg en cy board, re p o rt, settled d ire c tly by th e parties.

4 "S e c tio n 6 " filin g date n o t available.

5 D isp u te in w h ic h 2 m e d ia tio n cases involving th e sam e parties w ere considered jo in tly .

6 N o specific rec o m m en d a tio n s on eco n o m ic issues.

7 N o s e ttle m e n t; bargaining agent changed.

8 B oard rec o m m en d e d resum ing neutral fa c t fin d in g , w ith no rec o m m en d a tio n s on specific issues, e x c e p t th a t s e ttle m e n t should n o t

c o n flic t w ith Feinsinger C om m ission's rec o m m en d a tio n s .

9 P artial accep tance (re je c tio n ).

Mediation Board’s hesitancy, apparent since the mid1960’s, to recommend the appointment of emergency boards for some single carrier disputes was

probably a recognition of the need to reverse this

policy.

Unions and carriers involved

The requirement that boards be appointed to

consider disputes that may substantially interrupt

interstate commerce has limited to a small proportion the U.S. scheduled air carriers and major

airline unions involved in emergency procedures.

In most cases, emergency boards were appointed by

the President to aid in disputes between one carrier

and one union, usually a major airline union and a

domestic carrier. With the exception of one emergency dispute, none involved more than one union;

and only five were concerned with more than one

2 0

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TabU 5. Airlint emergency boards, 1936-69— Continued

Duration

under act

(calendar

days)

Work stoppages Emergency board recommendations

Emergency

board

number

Number of

workers

involved

(thousands)

Mar.-days

idle

(thousands)

Occurred Response of parties Settlement deviated from

recommendations on:-

Before

emergency

board

created

After

emergency

board

created

Rejec

Union

ed by

Carrier

Accepted

by both

parties

Economic

issues

Job security

issues i

182 X _________ X__________ 168

179 X____ . . . . (2> X______ .. 167

277 I »

| 1,922 jx jx . __ jx__ 166

436

1

(3) (3) (3) 158

231 X X__________ 156

163 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) ' (3) 152

225 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) (3) 149

582 2 6 X («) 146

842 17 912 X. _______ 0 144

586 8'X X............. .. 143

502 (») («) X_____ ____ 142

186 (») (») X........... ......... 140

444 4 210 X____ _____ (») (») X..................... 136

499 20 100 10x_____ X 135

266 X X. 128

258 X X 125

469 21 118 X____ _____ (ID (11) 6z) 124

335 (*) 0 123

14 13 371 X

/

14 141 X.....................

434 X X 122

7 185 X.....................

511 X X .. X ................... 121

359 14 13371 X______ X X..................... 120

204 (3) (3)

1

(3) 108

402 04) 1 X__________ X X..................... 103

372 X X________ -- 102

184 X X__________ 101

802 (3) (3) (3) 100

139 4 8 X__________ (») 99

754 X X ... ........ 94

538 X 90

316 (3) (3) (3) 67

t15) (14) 30 X__________ X_............ .. X X____ _____

439 1 83 X__________ X___ (11) (11) 01) 62

189 2 3 X____________ 0 6) 46) X......... ........... 38

252 13 244 X ................ X X ___________ 36

! j W o rk stoppage occurred im m e d ia te ly a fte r th e c reatio n o f th e em ergency board and b efo re m em bers w ere ap p o in ted .

. - N o rec o m m en d a tio n s on specific issues.

. , E m ergency board recom m en ded th a t th e parties bargain in good fa ith , b u t a strike occurred sh o rtly th e re a fte r.

N u m b e r o f w ork e rs involved and m an-days lost include I A M and F E IA strikes a t Eastern. B LS c o u n ted it as one strike.

. 5 Less than 5 0 0 .

N o fig u re given becau^a m ajor issue was a grievance; inclusion w o u ld bias results because regular procedures, including a

"S e c tio n 6 " n o tic e , w ere n o t req uired.

16 In fo rm a tio n n o t available.

1 7 Includes 1 2 o th e r carriers; T W A was th e m a jo r case.

S O U R C E S : N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n B oard, B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, C ivil A ero n au tic s B oard, and presid en tial em ergency

board reports.

carrier— four of which involved the International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Another prominent structural characteristic of emergency board participation was its concentration by

economic size. All the airlines involved in these disputes

were either domestic (trunk and local) or international

carriers. Of the 21 major domestic and international

airlines, American, Eastern, United, and TWA constituted

slightly under one-half of carrier participation in such

disputes. When Pan American and Northwest are added,

these six airlines accounted for approximately threefourths of the carriers involved in the disputes. Only 5

of the 14 unions that represent a significant number

of airline employees were involved in the emergency

2 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
board procedures: The Machinists on 11 occasions;

Air Line Pilots Association, Flight Engineers International Association, and Transport Workers Union of

America, 7 times each; and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handler, Express

and Station Employees, twice.

The ability of flight personnel to close down a

carrier’s operations (because of the essential nature

of the occupation and the economic regulations of

the Civil Aeronautics Board) is reflected in the

number of emergency cases in which they participated. Eighteen of the 33 emergency boards

involved flight crafts only, a disproportionate

participation, considering their relative numerical

importance in the industry. Another 10 dealt

exclusively with ground crafts, and five included

both of these groups. Three occupational groups

participated in the majority of the boards: The

pilots, the flight engineers, and the mechanics.

Since 1955, these three groups increasingly came

before emergency boards, as shown below:

Major group involved

in emergency board 1936-691 1955-691 1936-54

Flight personnel:

Pilots................ 7 4 3

Flight engineers .. 10 6 4

Other flight

personnel......... 2 2 0

Ground personnel:

Mechanics ......... 12 9 3

Other ground

personnel......... 3 1 2

1 Fiscal year, based on date emergency board was created.

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

Execpt for four emergency boards, the involvement

of other ground crafts— stock and stores and clerical

and related— in this procedure was incidental to their

representation by the Transport Workers and the

Machinists and to the unions’ practice of negotiating

concurrently for the various classes represented by

them. Similarly, in only two cases were flight

personnel other than pilots or flight engineers directly

involved in national emergency disputes; and both

crafts (flight navigators in Emergency Board 140

and flight service employees in Emergency Board

125) were organized by the Transport Workers. In

four other instances of participation, these flight

service personnel were involved because of their

organization by the two unions and their common

negotiations for the various crafts represented.

Issues

A distinct pattern of major issues has precipitated

emergency disputes. Major issues were fairly evenly

divided between wages (16 cases) and rules (13).

Both issues came before emergency boards twice.

Of the two remaining disputes, one involved the

revision of the entire agreement, and one dealt with

the negotiation of an initial agreement and miscellaneous issues. In the late 1940’s to early 1950’s,

which were characterized by a rapidly rising cost

of living and continuous aircraft technological change,

wages predominated in emergency board disputes.

With the advent of the jet plane, during the late

1950’s and early 1960’s, rules became the prime

issue between the parties, especially for flight personnel. By the mid-1960’s, the emphasis reverted to

economic issues, which generated several conflicts

involving ground employees. Flight deck personnel

(pilots and flight engineers) tended to participate

in emergency boards dealing primarily with demands

for rule changes. As the following tabulation shows,

ground employees were involved in a majority of

boards facing demands for changes in pay.

1936-69 1955-69 1936-54

New agreement:

Flight.............. 0 0 0

Ground............. 1 0 1

Wages:

Flight.............. 6 0 6

Ground............. 13 10 3

Rules:

Flight.............. 12 11 1

Ground............. 3 2 1

Miscellaneous:1

Flight.............. ___ 1 0 1

Ground.............

1 . .

2 1 1

1 Apparent discrepancies are explained by multiple issues and

crafts involved in Emergency Boards 36, 38, 62, 67, 99, 108, and

1 2 2 .

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

Another important characteristic of the disputes

was the disparity in duration, 46 from the Section

6 notice to 30 days after the emergency board

report, by major issue. Cases involving rule issues

were on the average longer in duration than those

dealing with rates of pay, 471 days compared with

269 days.

46 Average duration refers to the mean duration of the emergency boards, defined as the time span between the issuance of

the “ Section 6” notice and 30 days after the emergency board

report.

2 2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For all emergency boards, from the date of the

“Section 6” notice to 30 days after the issuance of

the emergency board report, 47 the average duration was 381 days, with an array ranging from 109

days in Emergency Board 99, which dealt with

adjusting wages, to 812 days in Emergency Board

144, which involved rule changes. This long duration was primarily the result of three factors: First,

under the provisions of the act, no time limitations

were placed on mediation. Defined as the time

span between the initiation of the mediation sessions

by the Board and the offer of arbitration, the

average duration of mediation activities was 74 days,

the longest period covering 338 calendar days. 48

Second, although Section 10 of the act established

a time limit for the emergency board procedure

(30 days from the date of the Board’s creation to

the date of its report), with the consent of both

parties, the Board can notify the President that an

extension is neccessary which he, in turn, is authorized

to grant.

As measured by the time span between the establishment of the emergency board and its report,

the average duration of an airline emergency board

hearing was 75 days, the longest 200 days.49 Of

the 12 prolonged emergency board hearings (those

requiring more than 60 days), the majority were

concerned with flight personnel groups asking for

rule changes. Third, too often the parties contributed to the duration by bringing issues before

the Board on which they had spent little time

bargaining, as demonstrated by this statement of the

National Mediation Board:

In the handling of mediation cases the following situations constantly occur: One is the lack of sufficient

and proper negotiations between the parties prior to

invoking mediation . . . in other instances prior to

invoking the services of the Board, the parties have

only met in brief session without a real effort to resolve the dispute or consideration of alternative

approaches to the issues in dispute . . . Frequent

recesses of this nature (due to the two above

problems) do not permit a prompt disposition of the

dispute as anticipated by the act . . . In other

instances mediation proceeds for only a short time

before it becomes apparent that the designated

representative of one or both sides lacks the authority

to negotiate the dispute to a conclusion . . . Another

facet of this problem is the requirement that an agreement which has been negotiated by the designated

representatives must be ratified by the membership of

the organization. Failure of the employees, in some

instances, to ratify the actions of their designated

representatives casts a doubt on the authority of these

leaders and a question as to the extent to which they

can negotiate settlements of disputes. . . . 50

Refusals to arbitrate

As noted earlier, the Board has the option under

the law to suggest that the parties submit the dispute

to arbitration. Mediation cases culminating in emergency boards were closed when carriers rejected

arbitration in five cases (15 percent of the total),

unions on 22 occasions (67 percent), and both parties

in six instances (18 percent). In no case did both

parties agree to submit the dispute to arbitration.

As early as 1941, a formal censure of the parties’

tendency to decline arbitration, the next to last step

left to the parties to agree on a method of settlement,

was recorded by the Board and was reiterated almost

every year since then in the Board’s Annual Report:

“The Board has always felt that arbitration should be

used by the parties more frequently in disposing of

disputes which have not been settled in mediation . . .”S1

Up until the 1950’s, the carriers were inclined to reject the offer of arbitration; but since then, the

unions have usually refused the offer.

Emergency board recommendations

The Railway Labor Act does not compel the

parties to reach an accord; rather the act places

maximum reliance on self-determination by labor

and management. While the right to strike is an

integral part of this public policy, the parties are

required to adhere to a step-by-step process during

which the nature of the dispute and the merits of

the opposing claims would be made public. The

assumption in the law was that this type of disclosure would generate public pressures that contribute to a “just” and “equitable settlement.”

Of the 23 substantive and 3 less detailed emergency board recommendations that were produced,

the vast majority were rejected by one or both

47 The act permits no unilateral change in the terms and

conditions of employment for a 30-day period following the

emergency board report.

4 ® This is a somewhat arbitrary definition since hearings

are often intermittently held, sometimes informal in nature (for

example, over the telephone) and often extend beyond the

formal period as defined by the act.

49 Four Emergency Boards— 158, 152, 149, and 100—

were not included because no emergency board reports were

issued.

50 T h ir ty -F o u r th A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n

B o a r d (for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1968), pp. 23—24.

51 Ibid., p.6.

23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
parties. 52 In fact, labor and management accepted

the board’s specific recommendations only twice:

the reduction to a three-man crew in the Air Line

Pilots Association-Eastern dispute in 1958 (Emergency Board 121) and the pay increase and

retrocative decisions in the Flight Engineers International Association-United controversy in 1953

(Emergency Board 103). 53 National Mediation

Board, Civil Aeronautics Board, and other government records indicate that on 16 occasions airline

unions rejected the boards’ recommendations; and,

in two instances, airline carriers acted similarly.

Unions’ responses were partially negative on five

other occasions, and managements’ on four

occasions. 54 Flight groups accounted for 13

rejections (including four partial rejections), and

ground personnel, for eight rejections (including one

partial rejection).

Thus, the pressure of public opinion was not

adequate to force the parties to accept a board’s

recommendations, nor was voluntary compliance

common. As early as 1951, the Board recognized

the increasing predisposition of the unions to reject

emergency board recommendations, an action contrary

to the anticipated operation of the act. To explain

this tendency, the Board argued that the complicated

and technical issues precipitating these disputes were

given little publicity and beyond that they were

somewhat incomprehensible to the public.55

In no case did the parties completely repudiate

the emergency boards’ recommendations or reach

a settlement entirely outside of those suggestions.

At various times, the boards’ recommendations

served as a basis for eventual agreements with out

interruption of service. For example, in Emergency

Board 123, the parties (FEIA and TWA) implemented

the recommendation of a reduction to a three-man

jet crew, with flight engineers having prior rights

to the third seat and eligibility for training at company time and expense.

At other times, the parties materially changed the recommendations in their final agreements, such as in

the settlement between the Machinists’ flight engineers

and Northwest (Emergency Board 102) in which the

parties substituted a monthly base pay with additional

compensation based on hours, miles, and gross weight

for the board recommendation of an increase in the

existing flat monthly salary based on longevity.

Even when the boards were unsuccessful in reconciling the parties’ differences, they did narrow the

scope of the dispute so that the parties were able to

effect a settlement in less time and with less interruption of airline services. For instance, in Emergency Board 90 some rule proposals were withdrawn

or agreed upon during the hearings.

Except for Emergency Board 124, in which recommendations on specific issues were not issued,

all post-emergency board strikes were disputes in

which one party rejected the recommendations

entirely. No post-emergency board strikes occurred

in situations in which partial rejections were

registered.

Methods of settlement

Over the 34-year period, few emergency board

reports have served as a basis for quick settlement 56

of airline disputes. Even after the emergency boards’

appointments and the issuance of their reports, the

National Mediation Board generally reentered the

case, offering its mediatory assistance and the use of

arbitration, as evidenced by the number of mediation

and arbitration agreements consummated by the

parties. The principal method of settlement was

ascertainable for 31 emergency cases. Of these, 10

accords were reached by mediation, 6 by arbitration,

and 14 by the parties directly. 57 Flight groups

accounted for five of the arbitration agreements,

four of which concerned rules and the fifth, rules

and wages. Of the 15 party agreements, 8 were

signed by flight personnel, 5 by ground classes, and

2 by both. All 5 party agreements dealing with

rules were consummated by flight personnel.

Ground employee groups were involved in seven wage

5 2 Substantive recommendations were issued in Emergency

Boards 36, 38, 90, 94, 99, 1 0 1 -0 3 , 1 2 0 -2 3 , 125, 128, 136,

140, 142, 144, 146, 156, 166—68; less detailed recommendations, in Emergency Boards 62, 135, and 143. No formal emergency board reports or recommendations were promulgated

by Emergency Boards 67, 100, 108, 124, 149, 152, and 158.

Although the parties initial response was favorable, the,

parties deviated from the recommendations in subsequent

negotiations.

54 Lack of available information mads it impossible to

include the response of the parties involved in Emergency

Board 38.

55 S e v e n t e e n t h A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n

B o a r d (for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1951), p. 33.

56 It is assumed that a negotiated agreement was the

principal method of settlement when there was no indication that either a mediation agreement or an arbitration agreement was consummated. In boards involving more than one

carrier or union, the method of disposition was determined

by the author’s knowledge of the prevalent means of settlement used by the parties.

57 The principal method of settlement in Emergency

Board 122 in which one party agreement and one mediation

agreement was consummated was not included. In the

immediate discussion dealing with the number of each type

of settlement, the two agreements were included.

24

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
settlements, including one signed by both flight

and ground crafts. One-half of the mediation

agreements, the majority dealing with wages, were

secured by flight personnel.

During the 1936-69 period, as the following

tabulation indicates, labor and management were

more inclined to dispose of emergency board disputes by negotiated agreements than the other two

methods of settlement. During the 1955—69 period,

the parties increased their reliance on arbitration

agreem ents rather th an on direct negotiations.

1936-69 1955-69 1936-54

Number, total . 30 21 9

Arbitration agreements .............. ___ 6 5 1

Mediation agreements .............. ___ 10 7 3

Party agreements . . ___ 14 9 5

Percent, total . ___ 100.0 100.0 100.0

Arbitration agreements .............. ___ 20.0 23.8 11.1

Mediation agreements .............. ___ 33.3 33.3 33.3

Party agreements . . ___ 46.7 42.9 55.6

SOURCE: National Mediation Board data.

Disposition

Of the 33 emergency boards, 6 were disposed of

by the parties, with or without the aid of the Board,

either before board members were appointed or

before a formal report was issued. All six were

settled without a strike, three with the mediatory

assistance of the Board. Except for one (Emergency Board 100), these boards involved ground employee groups, organized by the Machinists and

Transport Workers, with rates of pay as the principal

subject in dispute.

The remaining 27 emergency board disputes, 17 of

which involved flight employees, were settled after a

formal emergency board report. Of these 27 boards,

approximately one-half were concerned with wages

and one-half with rules. Following the boards’

reports, eight of the above 27 post-emergency settlements were preceded by a work stoppage. Seven of

these were primarily concerned with the actual or

anticipated effects of technological changes on wages

and work rules. Nine strikes were called by airline employees participating in these eight emergency boards

(two in Emergency Board 62 and three in Emergency

Board 122, ond of which also involved the parties in

Emergency Board 120). Moreover, seven work stoppages occurred 'prior to the creation or appointment of

an emergency board, 58 a legal course of action once

a 30-day status quo period has been observed.

In total, then, 14 disruptions of airline services,

were evident in 12 emergency boards. Only one

was an illegal work stoppage called in definance

of the Railway Labor Act emergency procedures.

Even though Emergency Board 135 was created to

hear the job security dispute between the Flight

Engineers (FEIA) and Pan American, those employees

refused flight assignments for 7 days, an action

which resulted in 100,000 man-days of idleness

for 20,000 workers.

Combined, the 14 work stoppages entailed 4,326,911

man-days lost by 187,953 airline employees. This

represented 72.1 percent of all airline man-days idle

during 1936—69 and 46.8 percent of all airline

workers involved in strikes during the same period.

As the following tabulation indicates, ground crafts

accounted for a substantial share of these losses,

largely because of six machinists’ strikes, such as, a

43-day stoppage in 1966 which involved 70,858

workers and 1,922,031 man-days idle and one

extending for 37 days in 1958 at Capital, which

involved 6,838 workers and 184,626 man-days lost.

Workers involved Man-days idle

Number Percent Number Percent

Total, all airline

work stoppages. .. 401,862 5,988,345

Total, emergency

disputes............... 187,953 100.0 4,326,911 100.0

Flight ........................ 75,493 40.2 1,615,202 37.3

Ground...................... 94,353 50.2 2,333,447 53.9

Both......................... 18,107 9.6 378,262 8.7

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

58 Two of these strikes (Emergency Board 62) extended

both prior to and after the creation of the board.

25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter VI. Airline Work Stoppages

One indicator of the development and status of the

collective bargaining relationship was the frequency

and intensity of work stoppages during the 34-year

span under consideration. Between 1936-69, the airlines

experienced 129 work stoppages— slightly under four a

year— that involved 401,862 workers and 5,988,345

man-days of idleness, averaging 46,421.2 man-days and

3,115 workers annually. (See appendix 4.) By far,

the largest number of strikes, involving the majority

of workers and man-days idle, have occurred since

1954, as would be expected by the dynamic growth

in the number of workers employed and the concurrent organization of the various crafts by the

airline unions. In the post-1954 period, the average

annual number of workers involved in the stoppages

and the average annual number of man-days idle

increased substantially (1,148 employees vs. 4,000

employees and 13,076.8 man-days idle vs. 61,407.5

man-days idle), again as would be expected. (See

table 6.)

Table 6. Number of airline work stoppages, workers 

involved, and man-days idle, 1936-69

Years 1

Number

of

stoppages

Workers involved

Number Average

1936-69.................... 129 401,862 3,115

1955-69.................... 89 355,960 4,000

1936-54.................... 40 45,902 1,148

Man-days idle

1936-69.................... 5,988,345 46,421.2

1955-69.................... 5,465,268 61,407.5

1936-54.................... 523,077 13,076.8

1 Pre-1954 and post-1955 comparisons are shown because 

most of the major crafts were substantially organized by 1955.

In only 9 years were there over 100,000 man-days

lost; and, with one exception, these years were also

characterized by 10,000 employees or more going out

on strike. The later years predominated these measures of size; they accounted for 7 out of 9 man-days

and 8 out of 9 workers involved in strikes between

1936 and 1969.

Other characteristics of size

Almost 57 percent of the 129 work stoppages

involved groups of less than 500 employees and slightly

under one-third dealt with strikes of less than 100 workers. (See appendix 4.) In the post-1954 period, the

relative number of stoppages involving fewer than

100 workers and those involving 10,000 workers and

over increased substantially. Each reflected the

influence of a particular group of employees on a

specific class of carrier. Ground employees strikes

against smaller carriers, such as domestic cargo,

regional and helicopter lines, and foreign carriers,

made up the bulk of the under 100 size group. A

large proportion of the workers in the largest size

groups consisted of flight deck personnel and

mechanics and related occupations, generally in

dispute with a single major carrier.

Table 7. Number and percent of airline work stoppages 

by size, selected periods, 1936-69

Year

Total Under 100

Number Percent Number Percent

1936-69 .................. 129 100.0 42 32.6

1955-69 .................. 89 100.0 32 36.0

1936-54.................. 40 100.0 10 25.0

100 and under 500 500 and under 1,000

1936-69 .................. 31 24.0 16 12.4

1955-69 ............... .. 20 22.5 9 10.1

1936-54 .................. 11 27.5 7 17.5

1,000 and

under 10,000 10,000 and over

1936-69.................. 30 23.3 10 7.8

1955-69 .................. 19 21.3 9 10.1

1936-54.................. 11 27.5 1 2.5

Another prominent characteristic of these work

stoppages was the number of companies and unions

participating in the disputes. As would be expected

by the relative lack of bargaining coordination, singleunit work stoppages were most common (123). Only

six strikes, five of which occurred in the 1955-69

2 6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
period, were multi-unit in nature: One in 1945 involving two carriers and two unions; one in 1958

and two in 1967 dealing with two unions; one 7-

carrier strike in 1961; and one 5-carrier work

stoppage in 1966. Of these six multi-unit strikes,

two were “ industrywide” in nature— the 7-carrierFEIA dispute in 1961 and the 5-carrier-IAM dispute

in 1966.

Stoppages involving 10,000 workers or more were

almost as infrequent as multi-unit disputes. (See table

8.) Over the three-plus decades, 10 major strikes of

this magnitude occurred in the airline industry, all

but one since 1955.

In a vast majority of major work stoppages, the

principal subjects in dispute were wages and work

rules, i.e., the FEIA-Eastern job security strike in

1962 and the IAM-5-carrier wage dispute in 1966.

Major airline disputes accounted for the bulk of

the man-days of idleness (76.4 percent) and of the

employees (70.9 percent) involved in all stoppages

between 1936 and 1969. The duration of these

large strikes ranged from 7 days in an FEIA-7-carrier

job security controversy in 1961 to 82 days in an

Eastern-FEIA wages and rules dispute in 1962; the

mean was 27.0 days.

Table 8. Major airline work stoppages, selected years, 1936-691

Work stoppages

Year Carrier(s) Union(s)

Number

of

workers 

involved 2

Duration 

(in days)

Man-days

idle

No

emergency

board

created

Prior to the 

creation of an 

emergency 

board

Following 

(Section 10) 

"status quo” 

period

1936-45 ...................... No stonoaaes

1946 ............................ TWA ALPA 12,967 

14,123 

20,819 

14,252

73,483

17,107

17,221

70,858

24,050

20,225

26 244,267

141,230

118,081

370,552

329,434

912,401

137,768

1,922,031

96,200

303,375

X

1958 ............................ TWA I AM 16

1961 .............................

3

American

Eastern

Pan American

ALPA 

I AM and 

FEIA 

FEIA

22

38

7

4

X

X

1962 ............................

Western

Eastern

National

Flying Tiger

American

TWA

Eastern FEI A 

ALPA 

I AM

TCWH

5 82

1965 ............................. Pan American 11

1966 ............................ Eastern 43

1969 .............................

National

Northwest

United

TWA

Pan American 4

American TWU 21 X

1 Work stoppages involving 10,000 workers or more, lasting more than 1 day.

2 Number of workers involved may include members of other unions or nonunion workers idled by disputes in the same establishment.

3 Dimensions of Major Work Stoppages 1947-59, BLS Bulletin 1298, p. 14.

4 Shortly after Emergency Board No. 135 was created, flight engineers refused assignments at the 7 carriers.

Full operations resumed in mid-September without a formal settlement after some engineers returned to work and other 

personnel were trained as flight engineers.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics Analysis of Work Stoppages annual bulletins, 1936-69.

National Mediation Board Annual Report, 1936-69.

2 7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Duration

In comparison with the major strikes, the average

mean duration of all airline work stoppages over the 34-

year span was 21.2 days, which was also the average for

both the 1936-54 and the 1955-69 periods. Interestingly, the average duration for the Nation as a whole

was slightly less than 1 day (0.7 days) below the airline average over the 1936-69 period, 2.5 days shorter 

in the 1936-54 period, and approximately 1 day

(1.2 days) longer in the 1955-69 period. 59

Slightly more than 50 percent of the airline disputes

lasted 6 days or less; and approximately 80 percent

continued for fewer than 30 days:

Duration 1936-69

Number of

stoppages

Percent

of total

6 days or less . . . . 67 51.9

Less than 15 days . 85 65.9

Less than 30 days . 104 80.1

Less than 60 days 116 89.9

Less than 90 days . 122 94.5

Only 7 of the 129 work stoppages extended for more

than 90 days, five of which occurred after 1954. Of the

prolonged strikes, the flight engineers and mechanics

were involved twice; and the pilots, three times. Only

three unions— IAM and ALPA three times each;

FEIA, once— and three crafts participated in work

stoppages whose duration extended beyond 90 days.

The uneven distribution of prolonged strikes in the

subperiods illustrated another important characteristic

of airline work stoppages. Over the years, the relative number of longer strikes (more than 30 days)

increased while the relative number of work stoppages

with a shorter duration declined. Perhaps, this

relationship has been influenced by the increased

ability of the parties to sustain a strike through the

establishment of strike funds, Mutual Aid Pact, 

and other forms of cooperative ventures.

Flight vs. ground personnel

Another pattern in the airline work stoppages was

the different involvement of major occupational groups.

Between 1936 and 1969, ground personnel were involved in 101 stoppages, and flight employees participated 

in 30 work stoppages during the same period. 60

Ground crafts were involved in the majority of labormanagement disputes, especially in the 1955-69 period

when they increased their strike participation rate

vis-a-vis the flight groups. (See table 9.)

Table 9. Distribution of major groups involved in stoppages,

selected periods, 1936-69

Years

All work stoppages Flight

Number Percent Number Percent

1936-69___ __ 129 100.0 28 21.7

1955-69 ........... 89 100.0 15 16.9

1936-54........... 40 100.0 13 32.5

Ground Both

1936-69........... 99 76.7 2 1.6

1955-69........... 73 82.0 1 1.1

1936-54 ........... 26 65.0 1 2.5

Another important difference between flight and

ground personnel strikes was the incidence of issues

involved in their disputes. (See table 10.) In each of

the three periods (1936-69, 1955-69, 1936-54) for

flight personnel, economic issues were more numerous

in both absolute and relative terms than job security

issues. Moreover, the relative distribution of major

issues precipitating flight disputes remained extremely

stable in all three time periods; economic issues were

the primary reason for 57.1 percent of all flight work

stoppages between 1936 and 1954 and 56.2 percent

between 1955 and 1969. On the other hand, the

incidence of major issues was not invariant for the

ground crafts. In the pre-1955 period, economic

issues, especially wages, predominated in ground labormanagement disputes and accounted for 55.6 percent

of all ground work stoppages. In 1955-69 and 

for the entire period 1936-69, noneconomic issues,

particularly plant administration and union organization and security, became the principal subjects in

dispute; they generated 67.6 percent and 61.4 percent of the strikes, respectively.

59 For the Nation as a whole, analysis was conducted exclusive of 1969 data which was unavailable

when this bulletin was prepared.

60 In two cases both groups were involved.

2 8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 10. Major issues in airline work stoppages, by craft,

selected periods, 1936-69

Issues

1936-69 1955-69

Flight Ground Flight Ground

Economic 117 l 39 9 24

Wages .......................... 113 l 34 9 21

Supplementary

benefits...................... - 2 - 2

Wage adjustments .... 3 3 - 1

Hours of work ........... 1 - - -

Security 13 62 7 50

Union organization

and security............... 1 20 - 15

Job security ................ h J17 *11

Plant administration. . . 5 21 3 21

Other working

conditions.................. - 1 - 1

Interunion or Intraunion ........................... - 3 - 2

1936-54

Economic *8 1 15

Wages .......................... J4 113

Supplementary

benefits......................

_ _

Wage adjustments......... 3 2

Hours of w o rk ............. 1 -

Security 6 12

Union organization

and security............... 1 5

Job security.................. 3 6

Plant administration. . . 2

Other working

conditions.................. - -

Interunion or Intraunion.......................... _ 1

1 Includes 1 strike where both flight and ground were 

involved.

Flight employee disputes were larger and longer on

the average than stoppages called by ground personnel

although mechanics’ strikes displayed a similar tendency.

(See appendix 4 and table 11.)

This observation was also substantiated by the flight

crafts’ participation in stoppages involving fewer than

100 workers and those involving 10,000 workers or

more. Of the 42 smaller strikes, 36 were called by

Table 11. Number of workers and man-days idle in airline work

stoppages by major occupational group, selected period, 1936-69

Years

Ground

Average 

number of 

workers

Average

man-days

idle

1936-69........................ 2,305 35,994.3

1955-69........................ 2,803 46,537.5

1938-54........................ 904 7,098.1

Flight

1936-69 ........................ 6,239 91,039.5

1955-69........................ 10,175 149,502.8

1938-54........................ 1,742 24,224.2

ground employee groups and six by flight personnel.

Over the years, relatively fewer flight stoppages and

relatively more ground strikes were in this category,

demonstrating the tendency for ground employee

strikes to involve smaller carriers and to entail lower

economic losses than did flight personnel work

stoppages as shown below:

Years Ground Flight

1936-69.................... 36 6

1955-69..................

29 3

1936-54.................. 7 3

Issues

Within the 34-year span, the incidence of major

issues in the airline industry varied considerably; but

some patterns did emerge. (See appendixes 4 and 6 and

table 12.) These issues were classified into those involving

economic matters, such as supplementary benefits,

wage adjustments, and hours of work; and those

concerned with workers’ security, i.e., union organization and security, job security, plant administration,

other working conditions, and interunion or

intraunion matters.

29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 12. Airline work stoppages, selected periods, 1939-69, by major issue

Economic issues

Supplementary Wage Hours of Total economic

Years Wages benefits adjustments work issues

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1936-69 ................................... 46 35.7 2 1.6 6 4.6 1 0.8 55 42.6

1955-69 ................................... 30 33.7 2 2.2 1 1.1 0 33 37.1

1936-54................................... 16 40.0 0 5 12.5 1 2.5 22 55.0

Security issues

Union organization Job Plant

and security security administration

1936-69 ................................... 21 16.3 23 17.8 26 20.2

1955-69 ................................. .. 15 16.9 14 15.7 24 27.0

1936-54................................... 6 15.0 9 22.5 2 5.0

Other Intraunion or Tc tal

working interunion survival

conditions matters issues

1936-69 ................................... 1 0.8 3 2.3 74 57.4

1955-69 ............. ..................... 1 1.1 2 2.2 56 62.9

1936-54................................... 0 1 2.5 18 45.0

Table 13. Duration of airline work stoppages and issues involved

Duration

Issue 1 30 days and over 60 days and over 90 days and over

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Wages . ........................

Union organization

12 48.0 7 53.8 3 42.8

and security............... 6 24.0 4 30.8 2 28.6

Job security.................. 5 20.0 1 7,7 1 14.3

Plant administration. . . 1 4.0 1 7.7 1 14.3

1 Based on 129 strikes and all issues (including hours, wage adjustments, supplementary benefits, interunion or intraunion 

matters, and other working conditions).

30

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Of the issues that were reported to be the cause of a

significant number of stoppages, wages was by far the

principal subject in dispute in both absolute and relative terms during the three time periods. Although

the results were not completely consistent in all

periods, plant administration was the next most

troublesome issue, followed by job security and union

organization and security, respectively.

The two issues generating internal pressure— union

organization and security and job security— on the

average had the longest duration (31.9 days and 24.9

days, respectively), followed by wages (24.0 days)

and plant administration (9.4 days). (See table 13.)

Survival issues, on the other hand, engendered longer

periods of dispute than economic issues; but, within

these two major categories, wages was the issue in

most of the longer strikes.

In the terms of the number of man-days idle and

workers involved, economic issues generated greater

losses than did noneconomic issues, primarily because

of the number of major work stoppages based on

wages or wage adjustments (eight entailing 3,875,353

man-days lost by 197,370 workers). Within these two

major categories, wages was again the primary issues.

(See table 14.)

Table 14. Number of airline work stoppages, workers involved 

and man-days idle, by issue involved, 1936-69

Issue

Number

of

stoppages

Workers involved

Number

Percent 

of total 

1936-69

Average 

number per 

stoppage

Total, all

work stoppages . . . . 129 401,862 100.0 3,115

Wages........... 46 238,532 59.4 5,185

Union organization and

security . . . 21 8,927 2.2 425

Job security ............. 23 106,741 26.6 4,641

Plant administration......... 26 28,281 7.0 1,088

Man-days idle

Total, all work

stoppages . 5,988,345 100.0 46,421

Wages........... 4,434,373 74.1 96,399

Union organization and

security. . . 279,107 4.7 13,290

Job security . 814,005 13.6 35,391

Plant administration......... 174,834 2.9 6,724

31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 1. Airline unions

Initials used by— Membership (1968)

Union National

Mediation

Board1

Bureau 

of Labor 

Statistics

Total

In

airline

industry

2

Air Line Employees Association 

(A F L-C IO )................................................................ ALEA ALEA 8,500 8,500

Air Line Dispatchers Association 

(A F L-C IO )............................................................... ALDA ALDA 930 930

Air Line Pilots Association, International 

(AFL-CIO) ................................................................ ALPA ALPA 24,155 24,155

Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses 

Association, International 2 (AFL-CIO) ............. ALSSA ALSSA 8,000 8,000

Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association 

(Ind.) ......................................................................... AMFA AMFA _

Allied Pilots Association (In d .)................................. APA APA 3,500 3,500

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship 

Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station 

Employees (A F L-C IO )............................................ BRAC BRASC 320,000 312,000

Communication Workers of America 

(AFL-CIO) .............................................................. CWA CWA 357,500 3 600

Flight Engineers International 

Association (AFL-CIO) .......................................... FEIA FEIA 1,700 1,700

International Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) .............................

1AM and 

AW 1AM 903,01 5 3 80,000

International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers 

of America (In d .)..................................................... IBT

TCWH 

or IBT 1,755,025 3 30,000

Transport Workers Union of America 

(A F L-C IO )................................................................ TWU TWU 97,754 347,695

1 Corresponds to employee representatives found in table on page 8.

2 Affiliate of ALPA.

Union estimate.

32

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 2. Airline1 involvement in RLA procedures, fiscal years 1936-69

Collective bargaining agreements Mediation cases2

Airlines Airlines

Year

Total Railroads Number

Percent

of

total Total Railroads Number

Percent

of

total

number number

1936 ............................ 3,485 3,485 0 0 81 81 0 0

1937 ............................ 3,836 3,832 4 .10 158 158 0 0

1938 ............................ 4,055 4,039 16 .39 101 98 3 2.97

1939 ............................ 4,095 4,061 34 .83 148 144 4 2.70

1940 ............................ 4,193 4,149 44 1.05 182 178 4 2.20

1941 ............................ 4,292 4,233 59 1.37 171 166 5 2.92

1942 ............................ 4,390 4,319 71 1.62 228 223 5 2.19

1943 ............................ 4,466 4,389 77 1.72 234 229 5 2.14

1944 ............................ 4,563 4,484 79 1.73 217 214 3 1.38

1945 ............................ 4,665 4,567 98 2.10 359 348 11 3.06

1946 ............................ 4,833 4,694 139 2.88 381 348 33 8.66

1947 ............................ 4,937 4,769 168 3.40 242 206 36 14.88

1948 ............................ 5,002 4,811 191 3.82 259 209 50 19.31

1949 ............................ 5,060 4,836 224 4.43 309 246 63 20.39

1950 ............................ 5,092 4,851 241 4.73 234 185 49 20.94

1951 ............................ 5,102 4,858 244 4.78 269 203 66 24.54

1952 ............................ 5,118 4,864 254 4.96 273 201 72 26.37

1953 ............................ 5,137 4,878 259 5.04 297 225 72 24.24

1954 ............................ 5,157 4,887 270 5.24 250 171 79 31.60

1955 ............................. 5,180 4,905 275 5.31 312 241 71 22.76

1956 ............................. 5,190 4,913 277 5.34 324 260 64 19.75

1957 ............................. 5,196 4,916 280 5.39 263 205 58 22.05

1958 ............................ 5,205 4,925 280 5.38 305 228 77 25.25

1959 ............................ 5,215 4,933 282 5.41 248 165 83 33.47

1960 ............................ 5,218 4,934 284 5.44 226 153 73 32.30

1961 ............................ 5,220 4,935 285 5.46 229 177 52 22.71

1962 ............................ 5,221 4,935 286 5.48 205 152 53 25.85

1963 ............................ 5,226 4,940 286 5.47 199 133 66 33.17

1964 ............................ 5,228 4,941 287 5.49 252 198 54 21.43

1965 ............................ 5,230 4,942 288 5.51 236 188 48 20.34

1966 ............................ 5,235 4,945 290 5.54 236 200 36 15.25

1967 ............................ 5,275 4,957 318 6.03 242 181 61 25.21

1968 ............................ 5,285 4,961 324 6.13 284 212 72 25.35

1969 ............................ 5,404 5,050 354 6.55 343 306 37 10.79

See footnotes at end of table.

33

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 2. Airline1 involvement in RLA procedures, fiscal years 1936-69— Continued

Year

Mediation cases 2 Disposition 3

Airlines

4

Arbitration

agreements

Emergency

boards

Major issues 4

Mediation

agreements

Agreements

Rates

of

pay

Rules Miscellaneous

1936 ............................. 0

1937 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1938 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1939 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1940 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1941 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1942 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1943 ............................. - - - - - 0

1944 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1945 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1946 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1947 ............................. - - - - - - 2

1948 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1949 ............................. - - - - - - 2

1950 .................................... - - - - - - 0

1951 ............................. - - - - - - 2

1952 .................................... - - - - - - 2

1953 .................................... - - - - - - 3

1954 ............................. - - - - - - 0

1955 .................................... 5 54 9 3 47 1 1

1956 .................................... 4 45 7 8 41 0 0

1957 ............................. 5 42 10 1 40 0 0

1958 .................................... 2 35 39 1 49 0 0

1959 .................................... 2 69 12 0 56 6 6

1960 .................................... 2 45 26 0 40 1 1

1961 .................................... 2 34 16 0 31 0 2

1962 .................................... 1 44 8 0 31 1 5

1963 ............................. 1 55 10 0 48 0 2

1964 ............................. 0 4 50 0 23 1 2

1965 ............................. 0 5 43 0 32 0 0

1966 ............................. 0 24 12 0 30 0 1

1967 ............................. 3 28 30 0 43 1 2

1968 ............................. 3 50 19 0 50 0 0

1969 ............................. 0 0 37 0 25 1 0

1 The definition of the industry group conforms to industry classifications 4511 and 4512 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1967 Edition.

2 Collective bargaining agreements on file with the National Mediation Board and mediation cases disposed of in a fiscal year 

ending June 30.

The difference between the total number of mediation cases disposed of and those settled by means of mediation, arbitration, and emergency boards is accounted for by withdrawals, dismissals, and other means of settlement. 4

Refers to the means by which mediation cases are "disposed" of driving the fiscal year.

NOTE: Dashes indicate no data available.

SOURCE: National Mediation Board annual reports; Bureau of Labor Statistics annual reports on work stoppages.

34

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 3. Airline mediation cases disposed of by National Mediation Board 1936-69,

by major occupational group

Major occupational groups 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 19451 1946 1947

o

Combined airline ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 2 2

Mechanics.................................................................. 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 - 9 4

Radio and teletype operators ................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 5 4

Clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger

service .................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 31 0 3 2

Stewards, stewardesses and flight persons............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 1 1

Pilots........................................................................... 0 0 1 2 3 4 2 4 0 7 17

Dispatchers................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0

Mechanical foremen.................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0

Meteorologists........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0

Flight engineers......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0

Navigators.................................................................. - - - - - - - - - _ 5 -

Miscellaneous ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 1 6

T o ta l................................................................ 0 0 3 4 4 5 5 5 3 11 33 36

1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

2

Combined airline ..................................................... 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 6 5

Mechanics.................................................................. 8 22 8 12 20 19 24 26 14 18 14 12

Radio and teletype operators ................................. 6 6 7 7 4 7 4 5 3 5 0 8

Clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger

service .................................................................... 7 7 5 8 13 9 5 3 6 3 8 13

Stewards, stewardesses and flight persons ........... 5 12 6 11 3 4 9 5 4 9 9 12

P ilots.......................................................................... 11 6 5 13 21 12 19 19 19 9 21 19

Dispatchers................................................................ 3 7 8 2 3 8 8 7 7 7 7 4

Mechanical foremen ................................................ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meteorologists........................................................... 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0

Flight Engineers......................................................... 1 2 3 8 3 6 3 1 6 2 5 7

Navigators.................................................................. 1 0 - - - - - - - - - -

Miscellaneous............................................................. 2 0 3 3 3 7 6 4 3 4 7 3

T o ta l................................................................ 50 63 49 66 72 72 79 71 64 58 77 83

1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1936-69

2

Combined airline ..................................... ........... 2 0 0 3 0 1 5 7 5 0 47

Mechanics.................................................................. 7 8 18 17 14 15 6 16 20 16 357

Radio and teletype operators ................................. 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 83

Clerical, office, stores, fleet and passenger

service .................................................................... 13 6 6 4 8 6 1 11 5 2 156

Stewards,stewardesses and flight persons ............. 6 4 4 10 4 6 2 3 11 2 144

P ilots........................................................................... 24 13 18 23 20 12 7 15 14 8 368

Dispatchers.................................................................. 8 3 1 2 4 5 5 2 5 2 108

Mechanical foremen................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 1

Meteorologists........................................................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 15

Flight engineers......................................................... 5 7 3 1 3 0 4 1 2 4 77

Navigators ................................................................ - - - ' - - - - - - 6

Miscellaneous............................................................. 5 8 2 5 1 2 5 5 7 0 92

T o ta l................................................................ 73 52 53 66 54 48 36 61 72 37

L _

No distribution available. SOURCE. National Mediation Board data.

Mediation cases in which more than 1 craft was involved.

Stock clerks.

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 4. Annual highlights of work stoppages in the airline industry, 1936—69

(W orkers and m an-days in thoyisands)

Distribution of number of stoppages by size of unit Mean 2Issues involved

Man-days 

idle 1

500 and under 1,000 and under 10,000 w orkers duration

Y ear Stoppages W orkers 

involved 1

workers 500 w orkers 1,000 w orkers 10,000 w orkers and over (in

calendar W orkers Man-days 

idle 1

Flight Ground Both Flight Ground Both Flight Ground Both Flight Ground Both Flight Ground Both days) Stoppages involved 1

1969s 5 55. 7 556.6 1 2 2 14. 8 3 52. 0 

. 1

508. 8

1968 6 2 . 1 7.7 3 3 1 6 . 2 1 4. 9

1967 11 7. 0 29.6 3 5 1 2 15. 1 4 1. 6 16. 4

1966 8 72. 3 1,945. 3 5 2 1 18. 0 3 71. 5 1, 924. 5 

1965. ... ........ 3 17. 4 139. 9 1 1 i 31.0 2 17. 2 139. 0

1964........................... 9 13. 7 31.5 2 5 2 6 . 8 5 13. 0 30. 3

6 3. 4 4. 7 i 2 1 i 1 12. 3

1962 ...................... 1 17. 1 913.4 i 82. 0 1 17. 1 912. 4

1961 ........................... 2 77. 1 343.8 1 1 6 . 5 1 3. 6 14. 3

1960 9 16. 4 336. 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 54. 0 3 4. 9 254.7

1959. . .............. 5 5. 3 9. 5 2 1 2 8 . 4

1958.......................... 12 62.9 975. 2 i 3 1 i

_

i 2 1 1 1 20. 3 6 44. 1 595.9

1957 2 3. 0 68.4 1 1 21.5

1 956 3 1.6 74. 2 2 1 29. 3

1955........... . ....... 7 1.0 30.4 i 3 . 1 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 25. 8 1 (4) (4)

1 9 5 4 ....................... 4 3. 5 34. 5 2 1 1 8 . 2 2 (4) (4)

1953 7 3.8 30. 7 1 2 1 l 2 15. 1 3 2. 3 7. 3

1952 ..................... 7 2. 5 7. 7 2 2 1 2 4. 9 3 . 8 4. 9

1951 5 6 . 7 25. 5 1 1 1 1 1 7. 2 2 4. 0 

1950 ........................ 3 8 . 3 38. 1 1 2 4. 7 4. 0 4.0

1949........................... 3 . 4 1.2 i 1 1 3. 3 2

1948 3 1.8 113. 8 1 2 165. 7

1947 . ......... 2 1.5 11.0 1 1 25. 5 . 2

1 946 2 14. 7 246. 8 1 1 15. 5 2 . 6

1945. ....................

1944 ___ ______

2 2. 7 1 2 . 0

- * - - - - - - - - 2

- - -

6 . 5 -

1943____ ________ i (4) (4) - 1 . - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 1 (4) (4)

1 942

1941 ......................

1940______________ _ - - _ - _ - - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _

1939......................... i . 1 1.7 1 2 0 . 0

1938...........................

1 Q

T otals, 5

1936.69 — 129 401.9 5,988.3 6 36 8 23 "

2 13 "7 23 i 5 4 i 21.5 46 238. 5 4, 434. 4

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A ppendix 4. Annual highlights of w ork stoppages in the airline industry, 1936—6 9 ---- C ontinued

(W ork ers and man -days in thousands)

Issues involved— Continued

Year

Supplementary

benefits

Wage

adiustment

H ours of 

w ork

Job

security

Union organization 

and security

Plant

adm inistration

Interunion or 

intraunion m atters

Other working 

conditions

Stoppages

W ork ers 

i n - j 

volved

M andays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W orkers 

involved 1

Mandays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W ork ers 

inv olv ed 1

M andays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W ork ers 

involved 1

M andays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W ork ers 

inv olv ed 1

M andays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W ork ers 

involved 1

M andays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W orkers 

involved 1

M andays 

idle 1

Stoppages

W ork ers 

involved 1

M andays 

idle 1

1969 3- .......................

. . . . . _ . . _ . . . 2 3. 7 47. 8

1968 --------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 1.5 2. 3 - - _ _ 1 0. 5 0. 5

1967 --------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - i

(4) (4 ) 4 3. 9 11.2 2 1 .6 2. 0 - - -

1966 --------------------- i 0. 6 19.5 - - - - - - - - - i

(4 ) 0.8 3 . 2 . 4 - - - - - -

1965 ........................ - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 .2 . 9 - - - - - - - - -

1964 --------------------- 1 (4 ) . 1 - - - - - - 2 0. 7 1. 0 - - - 1 (4 ) . 1 - - _ - - -

1963 --------------------- - - - - - - - - 3 2. 3 3. 5 i

(4 ) . 2 2 1. 0 1. 0 - - - - * -

1962 ^------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1961 ______________ - - - _ _ - _ - - 1 73. 5 329.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

1960 ..................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 1.6 14. 9 3 10. 0 66. 7 - - - - - -

1959 --------------------- - - - - - - - - - 3 2. 5 3. 9 - - - 2 2. 7 5. 6 - - - - - -

1958 --------------------- _ - - i 0. 2 0. 2 - - _ 2 17.8 377. 7 1 (4 ) (4 ) 2 . 7 1. 3 - _ - _ - -

1957 ______________ _ - - - - - - - - - - - 2 3. 0 68. 4 - - - - - - - - -

1956 --------------------- _ - - - - - - - - 1 (4 ) . 1 2 1.5 74. 1 - - - - - - - - -

1955 ______________ - - - - - - - - - 2 . 4 5. 3 3 . 4 24. 9 1 . 2 . 2 - - - - - -

1 95 4 ______________ - - - - - - - - - i . 4 2. 0 - - - 1 3. 1 32. 5 - - - _ - -

1953 --------------------- _ - _ - - - - - - 3 1.4 21.5 1 (4) 1. 9 - - - - - - _ - -

19 52 ______________ _ _ - 1 . 6 1. 8 - - - 1 . 9 . 9 2 . 1 . 1 - - - - - - _ _ _

1951 ______________ - - - - - - 1 0. 9 7. 8 1 . 8 1. 7 1 1.0 8. 0 - - - - - - - - -

1950 --------------------- - - - i <;> (4) - - - 1 4. 3 34. 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

1949 --------------------- - - - i

(4 > . 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1948 ...................— - - - i . 8 . 8 - - - 1 . 1 30. 0 1 . 8 8 3 . 0 - - - - - - - - -

1947 --------------------- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1. 3 5. 7 - - - - - -

1946 --------------------- - - - i 13. 0 244. 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1945 ______________ - - - - - - - - - 1 1.6 3. 1 - - - - - - 1 1. 1 9. 0 - - -

1944 --------------------- - - - - - - - “ - - - - - - - -

1943 --------------------- - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1942 ........................ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1941 --------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1940 ------------- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1939 --------------------- - - - - - - - - - 1 . 1 1. 7 - - - - - - - - -

1938 --------------------- - - - - - " - " - " - - - - - - - -

1937 --------------------- - - - - - - - " - - " - - - - - - - - - -

1936 ---------------------

Totals, 5

1936-69 — 2 0. 6 19. 6 6 14. 8 247. 3 1 0.9 7. 8 23 106. 7 814. 0 21 8. 9 279. 1 26 28. 3 174.8 3 2. 7 10. 9 1 0. 5 0. 5

1 R o u n d e d t o th e n e a r e s t t h o u s a n d .

2 F i g u r e s a r e s i m p l e a v e r a g e ; e a c h s t o p p a g e s in g i v e n e q u a l w e i g h t r e g a r d l e s s o f s i z e .

3 T h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 1 96 9.

4 L e s s th a n 100.

5 B e c a u s e o f r o u n d i n g , s u m s o f i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s m a y n ot e q u a l t o t a l s .

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 5. Duration of airline w ork stoppages, selected periods, 1936-69

1936-69

Duration Stoppages Workers nvolved Man-days idle

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All stoppages .................. 129 100.0 401,862 100.0 5,988,345 100.0

1 d a y ........................................ 25 19.4 23,508 5.8 23,508 .4

2 to 3 days............................... 28 21.7 26,050 6.5 53,637 .9

4 to 6 days............................... 14 10.9 30,762 7.7 122,692 2.0

7 to 14 days............................. 18 14.0 110,823 27.6 597,423 10.0

15 to 29 days.......................... 19 14.7 85,535 21.3 1,029,649 17.2

30 to 59 days.......................... 12 9.3 97,585 24.3 2,611,683 43.6

60 to 89 days.......................... 6 4.7 19,105 4.8 998,326 16.7

90 days and o v e r.................... 7 5.4 8,494 2.1 551,427 9.2

1955-69

All stoppages .................. 89 100.0 355,960 100.0 5,465,268 100.0

1 d a y ........................................ 16 19.1 17,192 4.8 17,192 .3

2 to 3 days............................... 19 21.3 16,353 4.6 36,146 .7

4 to 6 days............ ................. 9 10.1 29,141 8.2 115,012 2.1

7 to 14 days............................. 12 13.5 103,513 29.1 542,201 9.9

15 to 29 days.......................... 13 14.6 66,803 18.8 733, 254 13.4

30 to 59 days.......................... 9 10.1 96,322 27.1 2,584,111 47.3

60 to 89 days........................... 6 6.7 19,105 5.4 998,326 18.3

90 days and over...................... 5 5.6 7,531 2.1 438,429 8.0

1936-54

All stoppages. . .................. 40 100.0 45,902 100.0 523,077 100.0

1 d a y ........................................ 9 22.5 6,316 13.8 6,316 1.2

2 to 3 days............................... 9 22.5 9,697 21.1 17,491 3.3

4 to 6 days............................... 5 12.5 1,621 3.5 7,680 1.5

7 to 14 days............................. 6 15.0 7,310 15.9 55,222 10.6

15 to 29 days........................... 6 15.0 18,732 40.8 295,795 56.5

30 to 59 days........................... 3 7.5 1,263 2.8 27,572 5.3

60 to 89 days.......................... - - - - - -

90 days and ove r.................... 2 5.0 963 2.1 113,001 21.6

3 8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 6. Duration of airline w ork stoppages, by major issue, selected periods, 1936-69

Issues

Duration General wage Supplementary benefits Wage adjustment

1936-69 1955-69 1936-54 1936-69 1955-69 1936-54 1936-69 1955-69 1936-54

1 d a y ......................................................... 5 1 4 _ - . 2 1 1

2 to 3 days................................................ 10 5 5 1 1 - 2 - 2

4 to 6 days................................................ 8 2 6 - - - - - -

7 to 14 days.............................................. 4 4 - - - - 1 - 1

15 to 29 days............................................ 7 4 3 - - - 1 - 1

30 to 59 days............................................ 5 4 1 1 1 - - - -

60 to 89 days............................................ 4 4 - - - - - - -

90 days and over ...................................... 3 3 - - - - - - -

Total.................................................... 46 27 19 2 2 - 6 1 5

Percent .................................................... 35.7 30.3 47.5 1.6 2.2 - 4.6 1.1 12.5

Hours of Union organization Job

work and security security

1 d a y ......................................................... _ . . 4 2 2 6 4 2

2 to 3 days................................................ - - - - - - 5 3 2

4 to 6 days................................................ - - - 2 2 - 2 2 -

7 to 14 days.............................................. 1 - 1 3 3 - 4 1 3

15 to 29 days............................................ - - - 6 4 2 1 1 -

30 to 59 days............................................ - - - 2 1 1 4 3 1

60 to 89 days............................................ - - - 2 2 - - - -

90 days and o v e r..................................... - - - 2 1 1 1 - 1

Total ..................................... ............. 1 - 1 21 15 6 23 14 9

Percent ..................................................... 0.8 - 2.5 16.3 16.9 15.0 17.8 15.7 22.5

Plant Other Interunion or

administration working conditions intraunion matters

1 d a y ......................................................... 7 7 _ _ . . 1 1

2 to 3 days................................................ 9 9 - 1 1 - - - -

4 to 6 days................................................ 2 1 1 - - - - - -

7 to 14 days.............................................. 4 4 - - - - 2 1 1

15 to 29 days............................................ 3 - 3 - - - - - -

30 to 59 days............................................ - - - - - - - - -

60 to 89 days............................................ - - - - - - - - .

90 days and o v e r..................................... 1 1 - - - - - - -

Total .................................................. 26 22 4 1 1 - 3 2 1

Percent ..................................................... 20.2 24.7 10.0 0.8 1.1 - 2.3 2.2 2.5

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A ppendix 7. C hronology o f the airline R LA —E m ergency Board, 1936—69

D irect negotiations Date of request 

for m ediation 1

P ro ffe r of 

arbitration D isposition of em erg en cy b oard dispute

E m e r ­

gency

Date of 

"section 

6 "

Date of 

p ro ffe r

Initiation

o f

Date of 

national Date Date of With a strike

National m ediation B egin- Ending

Date R ejected

m ediation

board

e m e r ­

gency

e m e r ­

gency T y p e o f D ate o f 2

B efore

em erg en cy A fter

date session by notifica- board board a g ree- a g ree- board em e rtion to created report ment ment created gency

resident or during board

em erg en cy report

A - 7 8 4 1 ------------------------------- 168 5 -3 1 -6 6 6 -7 -6 6 6-27-66 . 6-27-66 6-3 0 -6 6 8-2 5 -6 6 Union 9-2 9 -6 6 9-3 0 -6 6 10-30-66 M ediation 3 12-3-66

A - 7789 ................................- 167 3 -3 1 -6 6 4 -1 5 -6 6 4 -2 1 -6 6 - 4 -27-66 - 4 -2 8 -6 6 6 -2 2 -6 6 do 7-2 6 -6 6 7-2 7 -6 6 8-2 7 -6 6 N egotiation4 9 -2 9 -6 6 - -

7 -8-66

A - 7 6 5 5 ------------------------------- 166 10-1-65 10-18-65 1-10-66 1-11-66 1-11-66 2 -1 -6 6 3-1 8 -6 6 do 4 -1 5 -6 6 4 -2 1 -6 6 6 -5 -6 6 do 8 -1 9 -6 6 -

to

8 -19-66

A - 6 8 9 8 ------------------------------- - - 11-12-62 (S) - - - - - - - - - (5 ) 12- 16-63 _ _

A - 6 8 9 9 --------------------- --------- - - 11-27-62 - - 1-23-63 - - - - - - -

(5 ) D e c . 1 63 _ _

A - 6 9 0 0 —--------------------------- 158 10-3 1 -6 2 (?) 1-18-63 1-23-63 - - 4 -2 -6 3 9 -6 -6 3 d o 12-10-63 12-11-63 (6 ) (5 ) J a n . ! 64 _ _

A-6901 ------------------------------ - -

(5 ) 3-4-63 - - - - - - - - Negotiation

(5 )

1-10-64 - _

A - 6 9 0 3 ------------------------------- - - 11-13-62 (?) - - - - - - - - - D e c . ' 63 _ _

A -6 9 0 4 ------------------------------- - - 11-27-62 <5 ) - - - - - - - - - (5 ) J a n . ' 64 _ _

A - 6 9 0 5 ------------------------------- 156 5 - 1 - 6 2 5 - 2 8 - 6 2 6 - 6 - 6 2 7 - 2 3 - 6 2 - - 4 -2 -6 3 9 -6 -6 3 Both 10-4-63 10-9-63 11-18-63 N egotiation 12-30-63 _ _

A - 6 7 0 1 -------------------------------

152 (5 ) 5 -3 -6 2 5-28-62 - 5-28-62 - 5-3 1 -6 2 7 -1 8 -6 2 Union 8 -1 1 -6 2 8 -1 4 -6 2 (6 ) d o 9 -1 3 -6 2 _ _

A -6 6 6 3 -------------------------------

149

2 -2 8 -6 2 3 -7-62 3-27-62 3-27-62 4 -2 -6 2 4 -1 8 -6 2

6-1 9 -6 2 [ 6 - 2 0 - 6 2 i d o M ediation 7 -1 7 -6 2 A - 6 5 8 2 ------------------------------- 8 - 1 0 - 6 1 9 - 6 - 6 1 10-25-61 10-26-61 - 1-17-62 3 -1 9 -6 2 Union _ _

A -6 4 0 6 ------------------------------- 146 1 0 -2 6 -6 0 1 1-16-60 12-29-60 12-29-60 3-20-61 7 -17-61 3 -16-62 3 -20-62 5 -1 -6 2 Negotiation 11-21-62

A r b i t r a t i o n 7 5-1 3 -6 3 "

6 -23-62

A - 6 2 8 9 ------------------------------- 144 2 -8 -6 0 5-1 6 -6 0 7-8 -6 0 “

7 -22-60 9 -1 2 -6 0 8-1 6 -6 1 d o 2 -2 1 -6 2 2-2 2 -6 2 do Negotiation 12-11-64 -

to

12-11-64

A - 6 3 2 8 ------------------------------- 143 6 - 2 - 6 0 7 - 1 9 - 6 0 8 -19-60 8 -22-60 - - 10-20-60 2-15-61 do (8 ) 11-10-61 12-10-61 Arbitration 5-2 1 -6 2 _ _

A - 6 4 0 7 ------------------------------- 142 8 - 3 0 - 6 0 9 - 2 0 - 6 0 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 0 12-20-60 - - 4-2 4 -6 1 6 -28-61 do 10-31-61 11-15-61 12-15-61 d o 5 -6 -6 2 _ _

A - 65 3 7 ------------------------------- 140 5 - 3 1 - 6 1 7-7-61 7-20-61 7-21-61 - - 8-7 -6 1 8-25-61 d o 10-4-61 10-5-61 11-3-61 do 12-5-61 _

A - 6 1 7 6 -------------------------------

A - 6 3 4 3 ------------------------------- 136 2 -9 -6 0

5 -3 1 -6 0 6 -1 4 -6 0

2-26-60

9 -13-60 _

3 -3-60

9-15-60

" 4 -2 6 -6 0

11-7-60

6 -3 -6 0

1-13-61

Both

Union }2 -23-61 J 2 - 2 4 - 6 1 15-24-61

Negotiation 7-1 2 -6 3 1 0-11-60 

2 - i 4 - 61

A - 6 2 4 5 ------------------------------- 135 3 - 8 - 6 0 5 -1 0 -6 0 5 -18-60 _

5 -24-60 8 -2 -6 0 1-9-61 2-13-61 2-17-61 6-20-61

Negotiation 7-2 5 -6 2 2 -17-61 9

Arbitration 11-10-62 2 - S - 6 1 A - 6 1 3 0 ------------------------------- 128 10-9-59 11-16-59 12-11-59 12-11-59 - - 12-17-59 2 -5 -6 0 do 3-1 4 -6 0 3-1 8 -6 0 6 -2 -6 0 M ediation 7 -2 -6 0 _

E - 193 -------------------------------- 125 10-30-58 11-17-58 " - 11-26-58 4 - 4 - 5 9 10 11-28-58 1-26-59 d o 2-2 5 -5 9 4 -2 2 -5 9 6 -1 5 -5 9 d o 7 -1 5 -5 9 _ _

A - 5 5 6 7 -------------------------------

12-19-58

124 6-2 1 -5 7 7-1 5 -5 7 8 -2-57 8-7 -5 7 “ 10-23-57 12-6-57 do 6-1 1 -5 8 6-1 9 -5 8 9 -3 -5 8 d o 1-11-59 -

to

1-11-59

A - 5 6 3 0 ------------------------------- 123 9-2 3 -5 7 10-18-57 11-5-57 - 11-6-57 - 2 -3 -5 8 2-2 0 -5 8 do 3 -25-58 3 -27-58 7-2 5 -5 8 Negotiation 7-2 9 -5 8 - -

11-24-58

A - 5 5 9 9 ------------------------------- 8 -1 -5 7 8-19-57 9-30-57 9-30-57 11-25-57 1-24-58 d o (5 ) 12- 14-58 to

12-31-58

11-21-58

A - 5 6 1 3 ------------------------------- d o 9 -9 -5 7 10-8-57 - 10-15-57 - 12-9-57 1-30-58 Both M ediation 12-7-58 - to

12-3-58

A -5 6 1 5 ..................... - ............ 8 -3 0 -5 7 9 -24-57 10-24-57 10-24-57 - - 12-2-57 1-25-58 Union N egotiation 4 -1 4 -5 8 - -

A - 5 6 1 8 ------------------------------- 122 d o 9 -17-57 10-8-57 10-24-57 10-24-57 - 1-16-58 1-29-58 d o 2 -24-58 2-2 7 -5 8 9-1 5 -5 8

M ediation 11-19-58 - -

A-5621 — ................. -.......... 7-3 0 -5 7 (5 ) 10-10-57 10-19-57 - - 12-16-57 2 -8 -5 8 do do 2 -10-58 - -

10-14-58

A - 5 6 4 2 ------------------------------- 8 -3 0 -5 7 - 11-21-57 - 11-26-57 - 1-15-58 2 -6 -5 8 do N egotiation 11-19-58 - to

11-23-58

A - 5 6 4 3 ------------------------------- 8 -2 9 -5 7 - 11-25-57 - d o 12-18-57 1-31-58 do do 11-25-58 “

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A ppendix 7. C hronology o f the airline R LA —E m ergency Board, 1936—6 9 ---- C ontinued

D irect negotiations Date of request 

fo r m ediation1

P ro ffe r of 

arbitration D isposition of em erg en cy board dispute

E m e r - Date of Date of 

p ro ffe r 

o f

m ediation

Initiation

o f

m ediation

session

national Date Date of With a strike

National m ediation 

board case numbergency

board

num ber

"section

6 "

notice

B eginning

date

Ending

date Union A irline Date R ejected

b y

m ediation 

board 

n otification to

e m e r ­

gency

board

created

e m e r ­

gency

board

report

Type of 

a g re e ­

ment

D a t e o f 2 

a g re e ­

m ent

B efore

em ergen cy

board

created

After

e m e r ­

gency

president o r during board

em ergen cy report

board

121 3 -2 7 -5 7 5 -1 4 -5 7 1 1 -1 8 -5 7 1-10-58 1-17-58 1-24-58 d o 1-27-58 1-28-58 7 -2 1 -5 8 d o (8 -2 2 -5 8

11 -1 -5 9 11-24-58

A -5 6 1 2 ------------------------------- 120 2 -26-57 7-10-57 10-22-57 10-23-57 10-23-57 - 11-18-57 12-13-57 do 1-21-58 1-21-58 do M ediation 12-31-58 to

12-31-58

A -4 5 7 9 ------------------------------- (5) (5 ) ( 5) (5) d o - -

A -4 5 8 0 ------------------------------- d o - -

A -4581 ------------------------------ 108 5-26-54 - - 8 -1 3 -5 4 9 -15-54 10-7-54 d o 11-15-54" 11-16-54 4 -1 3 -5 5

d o 3-11-55 - -

A - 4 5 8 2 ------------------------------- d o

A - 4 5 8 3 ------------------------------- - - - do - -

A - 4 5 8 4 ------------------------------- (5) (5 ) (5) ( ) do 4- 14-55 - -

11-5-52

A - 3 9 1 0 ------------------------------- 103 12-26-51 2-4-52 2-8-52 2-25-52 - - 4 -1 5 -5 2 5 -23-52 do 11-5-52 11-6-52 1-2-53 Negotiation 1-30-53 to -

11-6-52

A - 3 8 9 4 ------------------------------- 102 9 - 2 1 - 5 1 - 2-5-52 2-29-52 - - 3-18-52 5 -29-52 d o 7-9 -5 2 7 -10-52 8 -29-52 (5 ) 11-5-52 - -

A - 3 9 6 8 ------------------------------- 101 3-28-52 5-1-52 5-22-52 - 5-26-52 - 6 -4 -5 2 6 -6 -5 2 do 7 -7 -5 2 7-9 -5 2 do Mediation 10-24-52 - -

A - 3 5 6 6 ------------------------------- 100 3-1 1 -5 0 7 -31-50 11-7-50 11-15-50 - * 1-15-51 7-10-51

11-28-51

C a rrier

Union 1 - 3 - 5 2 11 1 - 4 - 5 2 (6) Negotiation 4 -2 4 -5 2

12-16-51

-

A - 3 8 2 7 ------------------------------- 99 10-30-51 11-12-51 12-6-51 - 12-6-51 - 12-7-51 12-8-51 Both 12-15-51 12-17-51 2 -1 6 -5 2 do 4 -1 4 -5 2 to -

12-18-51

A -3 2 5 5 ------------------------------- 94 5 -31-49 8-3 -4 9 9-2-49 9-1 3 -4 9 - - 12-14-49 8 -4 -5 0 C a rrier 1-9-51 1-13-51 5-25-51 M ediation 11-5-51 - -

A -3 1 4 9 ------------------------------- 90 4 -1 0 -4 9 M ar. *49 6 -5 -4 9 - 6 -5 -4 9 - 6 -8 -4 9 3-2 3 -5 0 d o 7 -1 0 -5 0 7-1 2 -5 0 8 -3 1 -5 0 (5 ) A u g . * 50 - -

A - 2913 ------------------------------- 67 5-28-48 6-15-48 7 -30-48 7 -3 0 -4 8 “ 7 -30-48 - 8-3 0 -4 8 10-28-48 d o 1-13-49 1-19-49 3-1 0 -4 9 M ediation 3 -24-49 - -

A -2 7 0 7 -------------------------------

(” ) .................

62 ] 5 - 2 6 - 4 7 1* 10-21-47 10-29-47 10-31-47 - - -

12-1-47 12-10-47 do

5-1 3 -4 8 5-1 5 -4 8 [7-9-48

N egotiation

d o

12-30-48

11-24-48

1 - 24-48 to 12-30-48

2 - 3-48 to 11-24-48

1

7-3 -4 6

38 3 -1-46 3-19-46 4 -18-46 5 -8-46 5 -8 -4 6 6 -7 -4 6 7 -3 -4 6 Union 7 -3 -4 6 " 7 -3 -4 6 8 -7 -4 6 9 -6 -4 6

7 -4 -4 6

10-21-46

A -2 2 1 9 ------------------------------- 36 14 - 11-28-45 12-12-45 12-21-45 - - 1-11-46 2 -15-46 C a r r i e r 15 5 -6 -4 6 5-7 -4 6 7 -8 -4 6 A rbitration 1-22-47 - to

11-18-46

I D a t e th at o n e o f th e p a r t i e s f i r s t r e q u e s t e d th e m e d i a t o r y s e r v i c e s o f th e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d .

Date (1) agreem en t was reached by the parties, (2) agreem ent was ratified, o r (3) arbitration award was rendered.

3 M e d i a t i o n a g r e e m e n t .

P arties settled directly; no evidence to indicate mediation o r arbitration was utilized to reach an agreem ent.

5 N o d a t a a v a i l a b l e .

No form a l em ergen cy board report issued.

7 A r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t .

8 N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d f i l e o n A - 6 3 2 8 n o t a v a i l a b l e .

9 I l l e g a l s t r i k e c a l l e d o n F e b . 17 , 1961 in d e f i a n c e o f E m e r g e n c y B o a r d N o . 1 35 .

10 C o m p a n y o r i g i n a l l y r e q u e s t e d m e d i a t i o n , an d a t e n t a t i v e a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d . W h e n th e a g r e e m e n t w a s n o t r a t i f i e d , th e N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d 

tory s e rv ice s .

II I n f e r r e d f r o m N a t i o n a l M e d i a t i o n B o a r d c a s e f i l e s .

12 D a t e u n i o n ( I A M ) w a s c e r t i f i e d a s b a r g a i n i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r th e c l e r k s at N a t i o n a l A i r l i n e s .

A L P A —N a t i o n a l d i s p u t e o v e r g r i e v a n c e m a c h i n e r y ; did n o t f o l l o w r e g u l a r R L A ~ e r n e r g e n c y b o a r d p r o c e d u r e s .

14 T w e l v e o t h e r c a r r i e r s w e r e i n v o l v e d in th is e m e r g e n c y , but T W A ( A - 2 2 1 9 ) w a s th e m a i n d i s p u t a n t w i t h A L P A .

15 W i t h d r e w f r o m a r b i t r a t i o n .

reopened the case and proffered its m ediaSOURCE; National M ediation B oard case files, National Mediation B oard Annual R eports, P residential em erg en cy board reports.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 8. Railway Labor Act, as Amended, Selected Sections

General purposes.

General duties.

Agreements by carriers and 

employees concerning pay, working 

conditions, etc.

Conferences to speedily consider, etc., disputes.

Functions of Mediation Board.

Right of either disputant to 

invoke service of Board.

Proffer of services by Board.

Action if arbitration refused.

“Section 2. The purposes of the Act are: (1) To avoid any interruption

to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein;

(2) to forbid any limitation upon freedom of association among employees or any denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of

the right of employees to join a labor organization; (3) to provide for

the complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter

of self-organization to carry out the purposes of this Act; (4) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning

rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; (5) to provide for the

prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances

or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates

of pay, rules, or working conditions.

“First. It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents,

and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain

agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and

to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such

agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation 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.

“Sec. 5. First. The parties, or either party, to a dispute between

an employee or group of employees and a carrier may invoke the

services of the Mediation Board in any of the following cases:

“(a) A dispute concerning changes in rates of pay, rules, or working conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference.

“(b) Any other dispute not referable to the National Railroad

Adjustment Board and not adjusted in conference between the

parties or where conferences are refused.

“The Mediation Board may proffer its services in case any labor

emergency is found by it to exist at any time.

“In either event the said Board shall promptly put itself in communication with the parties to such controversy, and shall use its

best efforts, by mediation, to bring them to agreement. If such

efforts to bring about an amicable settlement through mediation shall

be unsuccessful, the said Board shall at once endeavor as its final

required action (except as provided in paragraph third of this section

and in section 10 of this Act) to induce the parties to submit their

controversy to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of this

Act.

“If arbitration at the request of the Board shall be refused by one

or both parties, the Board shall at once notify both parties in writing

that its mediatory efforts have failed a*id for thirty days thereafter,

unless in the intervening period the parties agree to arbitration, or an

emergency board shall be created under Section 10 of this Act,

42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 8. Railway Labor Act, as Amended, Selected Sections— Continued

Functions of Mediation Board — 

Continued

No change in pay,- etc., rates to 

be made.

Procedure in changing rates 

of pay, rules, and working 

conditions.

Notice of intended, to be given 

in writing.

No alteration in rates, etc., 

by carriers until final action, 

etc., by Board.

Arbitration.

Emergency Board.

no change shall be made in the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions 

or established practices in effect prior to the time the dispute arose.

“ Sec. 6. Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at 

least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements 

affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and 

place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of 

the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon 

within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall 

be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case 

where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences 

are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation 

Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has 

proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions 

shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been 

finally acted upon as required by Section 5 of this Act, by the 

Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after 

termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the 

services of the Mediation Board.”

“ Sec. 7. First. Whenever a controversy shall arise between a carrier 

or carriers and its or their employees which is not settled either in 

conference between representatives of the parties or by the appropriate adjustment board or through mediation, in the manner provided 

in the preceding sections, such controversy may, by agreement of 

the parties to such controversy, be submitted to the arbitration of 

a board of three (or, if the parties to the controversy so stipulate, of 

six) persons: P r ov id ed , h o w e v e r , That the failure or refusal of

either party to submit a controversy to arbitration shall not be construed as a violation of any legal obligation imposed upon such party 

by the terms of this Act or otherwise’.’

“ Sec. 10. If a dispute between a carrier and its employees be not 

adjusted under the foregoing provisions of this Act and should, in 

the judgment of the Board of Mediation, threaten substantially to 

interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Board of 

Mediation shall notify the President, who may thereupon, in his 

descretion, create a board to investigate and report respecting such 

dispute.”

The 1936 Amendments to the Railway-Labor Act 

(Chapter 166.)

An Act

To amend the Railway Labor Act.

B e it en a c ted b y th e S e n a te a n d H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f th e

U n ited S ta tes o f A m e r ic a in C on g ress a ssem b led , That the Railway

4 3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 8. Railway Labor Act, as Amended, Selected Sections— Continued

Arbitration— Continued

Title II.

Designated provisions extended 

to carriers by air.

Adjustment Board provisions 

excluded.

Application of Act to 

carriers by air and employees.

National Mediation Board. 

Adjustment of disputes.

Pay, working conditions, etc. 

other disputes.

Proffer of services in 

emergency.

Invoking of Board's services.

Handling employer-employee 

disputes.

Reference to adjustment 

board upon failure to agree.

Boards of adjustment; 

establishment; jurisdiction.

Labor Act, approved May 20, 1926, as amended, herein referred to as 

“ Title I,” is hereby further amended by inserting after the enacting clause 

the caption “ Title I” and by adding the following title II:

“Title II

“ Section 201. All of the provisions of title I of this Act, except 

the provisions of Section 3 thereof, are extended to and shall cover 

every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, 

and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with 

the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person who 

performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such 

carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service.

“ Sec. 202. The duties, requirements, penalties, benefits, and privileges prescribed and established by the provisions of title I of this Act, 

except Section 3 thereof, shall apply to said carriers by air and their 

employees in the same manner and to the same extent as though such 

carriers and their employees were specifically included within the definition of ‘carrier’ and ‘employee,’ respectively, in Section 1 thereof.

“ Sec. 203. The parties or either party to a dispute between an employee or a group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air may 

invoke the services of the National Mediation Board and the jurisdication 

of said Mediation Board is extended to any of the following cases:

“ (a) A dispute concerning changes in rates of pay, rules, or working 

conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference.

“ (b) Any other dispute not referable to an adjustment board, as 

hereinafter provided, and not adjusted in conference between the 

parties, or where conferences are refused.

“ The National Mediation Board may proffer its services in case any 

labor emergency is found by it to exist at any time.

“ The services of the Mediation Board may be invoked in a case 

under this title in the same manner and to the same extent as are the 

disputes covered by Section 5 of title I of this Act.

“ Sec. 204. The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air growing out of grievances, or 

out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates 

of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on the date of approval of this Act before the National Labor 

Relations Board, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and 

including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle 

such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the 

disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party 

to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full 

statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.

“ It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through 

their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of this title,

4 4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 8. Railway Labor Act, as Amended, Selected Sections— Continued

Employee-carrier boards 

of adjustment.

National Air Transport 

Adjustment Board.

Composition

Meeting, organization, etc.

Filling vacancies, etc.

Powers conferred.

to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards 

of adjustment, under the authority of Section 3, title I, of this Act.

“ Such boards of adjustment may be established by agreement between 

employees and carriers either on any individual carrier, or system, or group 

of carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their employees; or pending the establishment of a permanent National Board of Adjustment as hereinafter provided. Nothing in this Act shall prevent said carriers by air, or 

any class or classes of their employees, both acting through their representatives selected in accordance with provisions of this title, from mutually 

agreeing to the establishment of a National Board of Adjustment of temporary duration and of similarly limited jurisdiction.

“ Sec. 205. When, in the judgment of the National Mediation Board, it 

shah be neccessary to have a permanent national board of adjustment in 

order to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of disputes between 

said carriers by air, or any of them, and its or their employees, growing 

out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements 

between said carriers by air or any of them, and any class or classes of its 

or their employees, covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, the 

National Mediation Board is hereby empowered and directed, by its order 

duly made, published, and served, to direct the said carriers by air and such 

labor organizations of their employees, national in scope, as have been or 

may be recognized in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to select 

and designate four representatives who shall constitute a board which shah 

be known as the ‘National Air Transport Adjustment Board.’ Two members 

of said National Air Transport Adjustment Board shah be selected by said 

carriers by air and two members by the said labor organizations of the 

employees, within thirty days after the date of the order of the National 

Mediation Board, in the manner and by the procedure prescribed by 

title I of this Act for the selection and designation of members of the 

National Railroad Adjustment Board. The National Air Transport Adjustment Board shall meet within forty days after the date of the order of 

the National Mediation Board directing the selection and designation of 

its members and shall organize and adopt rules for conducting its 

proceedings, in the manner prescribed in Section 3 of title I of this Act. 

Vacancies in membership or office shah be filled, members shall be 

appointed in case of failure of'the carriers or of labor organizations of 

the employees to select and designate representatives, members of the 

National Air Transport Adjustment Board shall be compensated, hearings 

shall be held, findings and awards made, stated, served, and enforced, 

and the number and compensation of any necessary assistants shall be 

determined and the compensation of such employees shall be paid, all 

in the same manner and to the same extent as provided with reference to 

the National Railroad Adjustment Board by Section 3 of title I of this 

Act. The powers and duties prescribed and established by the provisions 

of Section 3 of title I of this Act with reference to the National Railroad 

Adjustment Board and the several divisions thereof are hereby conferred 

upon and shall be exercised and performed in like manner and to the

45

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix 8. Railway Labor

Election by employee-carrier 

boards to come under jurisdiction 

of.

Transfer of pending cases 

to Mediation Board.

Custody of papers, 

records, etc.

Separability provision.

Appropriation authorized.

Act, as Amended, Selected Sections— Continued

same extent by the said National Air Transport Adjustment Board, not 

exceeding, however, the jurisdiction conferred upon said National Air 

Transport Adjustment Board by the provisions of this title. From and 

after the organization of the National Air Transport Adjustment Board, 

if any system, group, or regional board of adjustment established by 

any carrier or carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their 

employees is not satisfactory to either party thereto, the said party, 

upon ninety days’ notice to the other party, may elect to come under 

the jurisdiction of the National Air Transport Adjustment Board.

“ Sec. 206. All cases referred to the National Labor Relations Board, 

or over which the National Labor Relations Board shall have taken 

jurisdiction, involving any dispute arising from any cause between 

common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or 

any carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the 

United States Government, and employees of such carrier or carriers, 

and unsettled on the date of approval of this Act, shall be handled to 

conclusion by the Mediation Board. The books, records, and papers of 

the National Labor Relations Board and of the National Labor Board 

pertinent to such case or cases, whether settled or unsettled, shall be 

transferred to the custody of the National Mediation Board.

“ Sec. 207. If any provision of this title or application thereof to 

any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act 

and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances 

shall not be affected thereby.

“ Sec. 208. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 

as may be necessary for expenditure by the Mediation Board in carrying out the provisions of this Act.”

Approved, April 10, 1936.

46

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Selected Bibliography

Aaron, Benjamin, “ Emergency Dispute Settlement,” L a b o r L a w D e v e lo p m e n ts , 1967.

A d m in istr a tio n o f th e R L A b y th e N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n B oa rd , 1 9 3 4 -5 7 , Washington, D.C., Government Printing 

Office, 1958.

Air Transport Association (ATA), A i r T ra n sp ort F a c ts a n d F ig u res, Annual Reports 1963 and 1968-70.

Air Transport Association, T h e A irlin es o f th e U n ited S ta tes, March 1961.

Air Transport Association, C o m p o s ite M u tu a l A i d A g r e e m e n t as A m e n d e d , March 22, 1962.

American Bar Association, “ Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study National Emergency Disputes,” 

1966.

Baitsell, John M., A irlin e In d u stria l R e la tio n s : P ilots a n d F lig h t E n g in eers, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard 

University Press, 1966.

Blum, Albert A., “ Fourth Man Out,” L a b o r L a w Journal, Vol. 13, No. 8, August 1962.

Briggs, Vernon M., “ The Mutual Aid Pact of the Airline Industry,” In du stria l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w ,

Vol. 19, No. 1, October 1965.

Cullen, Donald, N a tion a l E m e r g e n c y S trik es, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1968.

Curtin, William, “ National Emergency Disputes Legislation: Its Need and Its Prospects in the Transportation 

Industries,” G e o r g e to w n L a w Journal, Vol. 55, April 1967.

D e ter m in a tio n o f C ra ft o r Class o f th e N a tio n a l M ed ia tio n B oa rd , J u ly 1 , 1 9 3 4 -J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 4 8 , Vol. 1, 

Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1948.

Di Pasquale, A., “ Labor and Management At Arms,” L a b o r L a w Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1968.

Dragonette, Joseph E. and Chester Myslicki, “ Air Transport: Trends in Output Per Employee,” M o n t h l y L a b o r

R e v ie w , Vol. 91, No. 2, February 1968.

Ernest, Dale and Robert Raimon, “ Management Unionism and Public Policy on the Railroads and the Airlines,” 

In du stria l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , Vol. 11, No. 4, July 1958.

F ed era l L egisla tion to E n d S trik e s: A D o c u m e n ta r y H is to r y , Vols. 1-2, Washington, D.C., Government 

Printing Office, May 1967.

Henzey, William V., “ Labor Problems in the Airline Industry,” L a w a n d C o n te m p o r a r y P r o b le m s, Vol. 25, No.

1, Durham, N.C., Duke University, Winter 1960.

Herlong, A. Sydney, “ Transportation Strikes: A Proposal For Corrective Legislation,” F o r d h a m L a w R e v ie w ,

Vol. 36, December 1967.

Initial D e c is io n o f H ea rin g E x a m in e r S. T h om a s S im o n , CAB Docket 9977, Washington, D.C., Government 

Printing Office, 1963.

Kahn, Mark L., “ Airline and Maritime Job Security Problems,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , Vol. 89, No. 3,

March 1966.

Kahn, Mark L., “ Airline Flight Crews: Adjustment to Technological Change in a Regulated Growth Industry,”

P r oc eed in g s o f th e 1 9 6 5 S p rin g M e e tin g , Industrial Relations Research Association, 1965.

Kahn, Mark L., In du stria l R e la tio n s in th e A irlin es, Harvard University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1950.

Kahn, Mark L., “ Mutual Strike Aid in the Airlines,” L a b o r L a w Journal, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 1960.

Kahn, Mark L., “ Regulatory Agencies and Industrial Relations: The Airlines Case,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w ,

Vol. 42, No. 2, May 1952.

Kahn, Mark L., “ Settlement of Airline Labor Disputes,” P a p er o f th e M ich iga n A c a d e m y o f S c ie n c e, A r ts , an d

L e tte r s, Vol. 37, 1952.

Kahn, Mark L., “ The National Airlines Strike: A Case Study,” J ou rn a l o f A i r L a w a n d C o m m e r c e , Vol. 19,

No. 1, Winter 1952.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Kahn, Mark L., “ Wage Determination for Airline Pilots,” In du stria l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , Vol. 6, No. 3, 

April 1953.

Kaufman, Jacob J., “ Emergency Boards Under the Railway Labor Act,” L a b o r L a w Journal, Vol. 9, No. 12, 

December 1958

Krislov, Joseph, “ Representation Disputes in the Railroad and Airlines Industries,” L a b o r L a w Journal, Vol. 9, 

No. 2, February 1956.

Lecht, Leonard A., R a ilw a y L a b o r L eg isla tion , New York, N.Y., Columbia University Press, 1955.

Leviton, T.S. and P.D. Bazazian, “ Strikes-Toward a Total Answer,” J ou rn a l o f U rban L a w , Vol. 45, 1967.

Mason, Charles M., “ Collective Bargaining Structure: The Airlines Experience,” T h e S tru ctu re o f C o lle c tiv e

Bargaining, edited by Arnold Weber, New York, N.Y., Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

Mater, Dan H. and Garth L. Mangum, “ The Integration of Seniority Lists in Transportation Mergers,”

In du strial a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , Vol. 16, No. 3, April 1963.

Initial D e c isio n o f H ea rin g E x a m in e r A r th u r S. P resen t, CAB Docket 9977 (Renewal), Washington, D.C., 

Government Printing Office, 1968.

National Mediation Board, T w e n ty Y ears U n d er th e R a ilw a y L a b o r A c t , National Mediation Board,

Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1947.

National Mediation Board, annual reports, 1936-69, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.

Northrup, H.R., “ Collective Bargaining by Air Line Pilots,” Q u a rterly J ou rn a l o f E c o n o m ic s , Vol. 61,

August 1947.

Northrup, H.R., “ The Appropriate Bargaining Question Under the Railway Labor Act,” Q u a rterly J ou rn a l o f

E c o n o m ic s , Vol. 60, February 1946.

Oliver, Eli L., “ Labor Problems of the Transportation Industry,” L a w a n d C o n te m p o r a r y P r o b le m s, Vol. 25,

No. 1, Winter 1960.

Presidential emergency board reports, (Nos. 36, 38, 62, 67, 90, 94, 99, 100-103, 108, 120-25, 128, 135-36,

140, 142-44, 146, 149, 152, 156, 166-68), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.

“ Recommendations on the Airlines-Flight Engineers Dispute,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , Vol. 84, No. 7, July 1961.

Redenius, Charles, “ Airlines: The Railway Labor Act or the Management Relations Act,” L a b o r L a w Journal,

Vol. 20, No. 5, May 1969.

R e p o r t o f th e P resid en tia l R a ilroa d C o m m is sio n , Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, February 1962.

R e p o r t o f th e Task F o r c e o n N a tion a l A v ia tio n G oals, 1961 (Project Horizon), Federal Aviation Agency, 

September 1961.

Ruppenthal, Karl M., “ Compulsory Retirement of Air Line Pilots,” In du stria l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w ,

Vol. 14, No. 4, July 1961.

Shils, Edward B., “ Industrial Unrest in the Nation’s Airline Industry,” L a b o r L a w Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, 

March 1964.

“ Six Carrier Mutual Aid Pact: A New Concept of Management Strike Strategy in the Airline Industry,”

C olu m b ia L a w R e v ie w , Vol. 60, No. 2, February 1960.

Sloane, Arthur, “ National Emergency Strikes: The Danger of Extralegal Success,” B u sin ess H o r iz o n s ,

Summer 1967.

S ta tistica l H a n d b o o k o f A v ia tio n , annual reports 1966-68, Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, D.C., 

Government Printing Office.

S tatistical H a n d b o o k o f C ivil A v ia tio n , annual report 1958, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., Government 

Printing Office.

Stern, James, “ Alternative Dispute Settlement Procedures,” W iscon sin L a w R e v ie w , Vol. 41, Fall 1968.

Wisehart, Arthur M., “ Transportation Strike Control Legislation: A Congressional Challenge,” M ich iga n L a w R e v ie w ,

Vol. 66, June 1968.

Wisehart, Arthur M., “ The Airlines Recent Experience Under the Railway Labor Act,” L a w a n d C o n te m p o r a r y

P r o b le m s, Vol. 25, No. 1, Winter 1960.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, A n a ly s is o f W ork S to p p a g es, annual bulletins, 1936-68.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, T ech n o log ica l T ren d s in M a jo r A m e ric a n In d u stries, BLS 

Bulletin 1474(1966).

* U . S. G O V ERN M EN T PRINTING O F F IC E : 1971 O - 4 37-207 (21)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ORDER FROM: C 3 .1 6 3 / 3

Mail order form with paym ent to: 

S uperintendent o f D ocum ents ...................o f Dc

U.S. G overnm ent Printing Office 

W ashington, D. C. 20402

or any U.S. Departm ent o f C om m erce Field O ffice | 

Make check payable to Superintendent of Documents J

Subscription Quantity Price Amount

1 Year 3.00

2 Years 6.00

3 Years 9.00

..............

Add $.75 For F oreign M ailing Per Year

Enclosed is $

(ch eck , m oney ord er, Supt. D ocs, 

c o u p o n s )o r ch arge D eposit A ccou n t No.

Name

Street Address 

City, State, ZIP

E a s y T o R e a d F o r m a t ^ CMere0 h o u s i n g - D i t t r l b u t t o n

Aariculture - Construction __ Geography '

G o - f Z L n a t i o n -

P o p u l a t i o n

C o m p e n d i a

L is ts a n d wf om_ dia presenting 

R e p o r t s a n d ^ ^ ^ T S r r e n t s u r v e y s , a n d 

S i x t i e s from f ^ ^ f e e n s u s B u r e a u , 

o t h e r p r o g r a m s o p u n c h c a r d s .

S e l e c t e d p ^ ' j “ ^ , h e C o n g r e s s .

P e p e n ^ a n d a r t ic le s p r e p a r e d b y t h e C e n s u s

t o a n n u a 1 ,

s s o is r s K s s t i* * 2 * «— " ■ a

summaries only.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
\ l

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B U R E A U O F LA B O R ST A T IST IC S 

R EG IO N A L O FFICES

Region I

1603-A Federal Building 

Government Center 

Boston, Mass. 02203 

Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617)

Region II

341 Ninth Ave., Rm. 1025

New York, N.Y. 10001

Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212)

Region III

406 Penn Square Building 

1317 Filbert St.

Philadelphia, Pa. 19107

Phone: 597-7796 (Area Code 215)

Region IV 

Suite 540

1371 Peachtree St. NE.

Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404)

Region V

219 South Dearborn St.

Chicago, III. 60604

Phone: 353-7230 (Area Code 312)

Region VI

337 Mayflower Building 

411 North Akard St.

Dallas, Tex. 75201

Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214)

Regions VII and V III

Federal Office Building 

911 Walnut St., 10th Floor 

Kansas City, Mo. 64106 

Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816)

Regions IX and X

450 Golden Gate Ave.

Box 36017

San Francisco, Calif. 94102 

Phone: 556-4678 (Area Code 415)

* *

Regions VII and V III will be serviced by Kansas City. 

Regions IX and X will be serviced by San Francisco.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 

WASHINGTON, D .C 20212

O F F I C I A L . B U S I N E S S

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

r

L

THIRD CLASS MAIL 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis