I
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1463
To provide for the adoption of mandatory standards and procedures governing
the actions of arbitrators in the arbitration of labor disputes involving
transit agencies operating in the national capital area.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 6, 1995
Mr. WOLF (for himself and Mr. DAVIS) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To provide for the adoption of mandatory standards and
procedures governing the actions of arbitrators in the
arbitration of labor disputes involving transit agencies
operating in the national capital area.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Capital Area
Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) affordable public transportation is essential
to the economic vitality of the national capital area
and is an essential component of regional efforts to
improve air quality to meet environmental require-
ments and to improve the health of both residents
of and visitors to the national capital area as well
as to preserve the beauty and dignity of the Nation’s
capital;
(2) use of mass transit by both residents of and
visitors to the national capital area is substantially
affected by the prices charged for such mass transit
services, prices that are substantially affected by
labor costs, since more than 2⁄3 of operating costs
are attributable to labor costs;
(3) labor costs incurred in providing mass tran-
sit in the national capital area have increased at an
alarming rate and wages and benefits of operators
and mechanics currently are among the highest in
the Nation;
(4) higher operating costs incurred for public
transit in the national capital area cannot be offset
by increasing costs to patrons, since this often dis-
courages ridership and thus undermines the public
interest in promoting the use of public transit;
(5) spiraling labor costs cannot be offset by the
governmental entities that are responsible for sub-
sidy payments for public transit services since local
governments generally, and the District of Columbia
government in particular, are operating under severe
fiscal constraints;
(6) imposition of mandatory standards applica-
ble to arbitrators resolving arbitration disputes in-
volving interstate compact agencies operating in the
national capital area will ensure that wage increases
are justified and do not exceed the ability of transit
patrons and taxpayers to fund the increase; and
(7) Federal legislation is necessary under Arti-
cle I of section 8 of the United States Constitution
to balance the need to moderate and lower labor
costs while maintaining industrial peace.
(b) PURPOSE.—It is therefore the purpose of this Act
to adopt standards governing arbitration which must be
applied by arbitrators resolving disputes involving inter-
state compact agencies operating in the national capital
area in order to lower operating costs for public transpor-
tation in the Washington metropolitan area.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act—
(1) the term ‘‘arbitration’’ means—
(A) the arbitration of disputes, regarding
the terms and conditions of employment, that is
required under an interstate compact governing
an interstate compact agency operating in the
national capital area; and
(B) does not include the interpretation and
application of rights arising from an existing
collective bargaining agreement;
(2) the term ‘‘arbitrator’’ refers to either a sin-
gle arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, chosen
under applicable procedures;
(3) an interstate compact agency’s ‘‘funding
ability’’ is the ability of the interstate compact agen-
cy, or of any governmental jurisdiction which pro-
vides subsidy payments or budgetary assistance to
the interstate compact agency, to obtain the nec-
essary financial resources to pay for wage and bene-
fit increases for employees of the interstate compact
agency;
(4) the term ‘‘interstate compact agency operat-
ing in the national capital area’’ means any inter-
state compact agency which provides public transit
services;
(5) the term ‘‘interstate compact agency’’
means any agency established by an interstate com-
erning conditions of employment without considering the
following factors:
(1) The existing terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(2) All available financial resources of the inter-
state compact agency.
(3) The annual increase or decrease in
consumer prices for goods and services as reflected
in the most recent consumer price index for the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States
Department of Labor.
(4) The wages, benefits, and terms and condi-
tions of the employment of other employees who per-
form, in other jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C.
standard metropolitan statistical area, services simi-
lar to those in the bargaining unit.
(5) The special nature of the work performed
by the employees in the bargaining unit, including
any hazards or the relative ease of employment,
physical requirements, educational qualifications, job
training and skills, shift assignments, and the de-
mands placed upon the employees as compared to
other employees of the interstate compact agency.
(6) The interests and welfare of the employees
in the bargaining unit, including—
(A) the overall compensation presently re-
ceived by the employees, having regard not only
for wage rates but also for wages for time not
worked, including vacations, holidays, and other
excused absences;
(B) all benefits received by the employees,
including previous bonuses, insurance, and pen-
sions; and
(C) the continuity and stability of employ-
ment.
(7) The public welfare.
(b) COMPACT AGENCY’S FUNDING ABILITY.—An ar-
bitrator rendering an arbitration award involving the em-
ployees of an interstate compact agency operating in the
national capital area may not, with respect to a collective
bargaining agreement governing conditions of employ-
ment, provide for salaries and other benefits that exceed
the interstate compact agency’s funding ability.
(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL AWARD.—In resolv-
ing a dispute submitted to arbitration involving the em-
ployees of an interstate compact agency operating in the
national capital area, the arbitrator shall issue a written
award that demonstrates that all the factors set forth in
subsections (a) and (b) have been considered and applied.
An award may grant an increase in pay rates or benefits
(including insurance and pension benefits), or reduce
hours of work, only if the arbitrator concludes that any
costs to the agency do not adversely affect the public wel-
fare. The arbitrator’s conclusion regarding the public wel-
fare must be supported by substantial evidence.
SEC. 5. PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.
(a) MODIFICATIONS AND FINALITY OF AWARD.—In
the case of an arbitration award to which section 4 applies,
the interstate compact agency and the employees in the
bargaining unit, through their representative, may agree
in writing upon any modifications to the award within 10
days after the award is received by the parties. After the
end of that 10-day period, the award, with any such modi-
fications, shall become binding upon the interstate com-
pact agency, the employees in the bargaining unit, and
the employees’ representative.
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Each party to an award that
becomes binding under subsection (a) shall take all actions
necessary to implement the award.
(c) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Within 60 days after an
award becomes binding under subsection (a), the inter-
state compact agency or the exclusive representative of the
employees concerned may file a civil action in a court
which has jurisdiction over the interstate compact agency
for review of the award. The court shall review the award
on the record, and shall vacate the award or any part of
the award, after notice and a hearing, if—
(1) the award is in violation of applicable law;
(2) the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s pow-
ers;
(3) the decision by the arbitrator is arbitrary or
capricious;
(4) the arbitrator conducted the hearing con-
trary to the provisions of this Act or other statutes
or rules that apply to the arbitration so as to sub-
stantially prejudice the rights of a party;
(5) there was partiality or misconduct by the
arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party;
(6) the award was procured by corruption,
fraud, or bias on the part of the arbitrator; or
(7) the arbitrator did not comply with the pro-
visions of section 4.
Æ