Evening star., 1946-01-06
Rail Pay Case Indicates
Value of Fact-Finding Boards
Compromise Acceptable to Both Sides Reached
After Unbiased Study of Income, Costs
and Fair Dividends
BY E. B. MiHeIman


economists, fact-hnding, as now pro-
posed for industrial disputes, has sud-
denly become a major public interest.
The public us not so much interested in
the fact-finding process as in the result,
but. not fully aware of the process, is
either terrified by what the result might
be. or is overenthusiastic about it. Thus
one side sees nothing in the fact-find-
ing but virus that will ultimately de-
stroy private enterprise and ease the
yay for communism or fasciSm; and
the other, a shield against industrial
imperialism, world domination and ul-
timately world destruction.
Fact-finding of sort is not alto
gether new even to the public. 1t is as
old as industrial disputes are. The only
difference is that, heretofore, the public
learned only such facts as the parties
to a dispute were willing to give or cook
up. When management was still un-
willing to deal with unions, the unions
generally determined for themselves
what the facts were, and called strike
to prove them. Guided by its own facts,
MANAGEMENT sometimes sought to fore
stall the unions by locking them out.
Even in negotiations, with the unions
recognized, each side still presents its
own brand of facts If the negotiations
are successful it is only because the
favorable and unfavorable facts are
compromised into some sort of working
relationship.
If compromise is out of question at
this stage, and the Government steps
in, the conciliator tries to ascertain the
facts of the case, first from one side,
then from the other, and, if possible,
from both together in a meeting. In
conciliation, just as in negotiation, each
side tries to hold on to its own version
of the facts, yielding here and there on
, some If the other side yields on others.
Turn to Arbitration.
If the two sides are so far apart that
they cannot get together, they might,
before resorting to a strike or lockout,
agree to turn their facts over to an
arbitrator to be judged on merit. There
the procedure becomes quasijudicial in
stead of partisan. But since the arbi-
traitor works only with the consent OF
the parties concerned, and depends on
them for the facts of the case, his con-
clusions are very often just as much
compromise as the parties themselves
would have come to had they been in
q negotiating mood, or had they not
been so far apart in their facts at the
outset.
Where the parties cannot come to
an agreement themselves, and one or
both dA not want conciliation or arbi-
tration, the only remedy is for the pub
lie to consider the facts Of the case on
It's own account through board of its
own choice providing the public interest
Is involved. Since such board op-
crates independently of the two parties
concerned, the procedure here is more
nearly quasijudicial than it can pos
sibly be under an arbitrator. The diff
ference, however, is only one of degree.
Both bear the influence of the two
parties concerned, and of the public,
with the public counting somewhat more
heavily in the fact-fnding procedure
than in arbitration.
In all these procedures it is not
question of using or not using facts
Facts are used in all of them. 1t is only
question of using remote or direct
facts In most procedures except those
involving the railroads, the current
practice is to use facts which are any
thing but to the point
Railroad Case Cited.
Take the 1941 railroad fact-finding
case, the case that came to head just
before Pearl Harbor, as an illustration
of the use of relevant facts. At the
time of the attack the defense program
had been more than a year under way.
The defense plants were bidding for
help and were bidding up wages. The
cost of living had begun to 60 up. The
railroads, on the other hand, had, since
1899, increased their business by about
billion dollars. The men thought that
they ought to share in the prosperous
conditions of the time. They asked, with
other things, 80 per cent increase in
daily wages for the operating employees
and 80 cents an hour for the nonoper-
ating employees. The roads countered
with a complicated proposal which in
effect amounted to a Is per cent in
crease per week but only on the first $50
earned and paid only on an emergency
basis according to the combined show
ing Of gross income and the cost of liv-
ing. The fact-fnding board was made
up of three lawyers, among whom Sena-
tor Wayne L. Morse, the chairman, was
one and two economists one with public
utility experience. Both sides came with
charts and documents which served as
evidence on which the board reached a
decision.
In this, as in other cases, the evidence
covered many features of the industry,
including working, operating and finan-
cial conditions and for purposes of
comparison, the same features of other
industries. Since conditions vary from
road to road and from industry to in
dustry, each side tried to emphasize only
such evidence as supported its position
Anything which one side claimed on
the basis of one set of facts was refuted
by the other, on the basis of another
set. If the men showed how the cost of
living was going up, and how the grow
ing volume of traffic was putting the
roads on easy street, the roads showed
how, in the course of the years, bank
ruptcy had overcome many of them.
If the men presented evidence to
show that their earnings did not ad-
vance as rapidly as, or were lower than