Evening star., 1949-11-24
Capital Transit
Pay Ruling Due
About Dec. IS
Union Hammers at
Company Claim 1t
Cont Roise Wages

"A QeClSlOu ny d uPc-Iudu dI ul-
tration bbard in the dispute be-
tween the Capital Transit Co. and
its union workers over terms of a
new contract probably will be
reached about December Is, Board
Chairman Alfred H. Colby predict
ed today.
After hearing final arguments
in the case on Tuesday, the board
will take about 10 days or two
weeks to study the evidence and
arguments. he said. Then it will
60 into executive session here to
reach conclusion.
Union Counsel Eli Oliver yester.
day hammered, away for hours on
contentious of the company that
1t could not afford to pay the cost
Of union demands for IS cents
an hour across the board pay
raise and other benefits.
He contended the company's f.
nancial situation is stronger than
has been pictured by its spokes-
men during the board hearings.
ICC Report Cited.
Introducing several exhibits
based on various official reports of
the transit firm. Mr. Oliver in
terpreted one as showing the bal
ance in the depreciation reserve
stood at $21, ,793. .009 last December
81.
He quoted from a report of an
ICC examiner as showing assets
of the corporation on May 81.
1949. were $43,919169; current as
sets were $9.s14,S84, and cash and
cash investments, which he said
really meant money in hand"
amounted to $7,700.000. Current
liabilities, the ICC statement
showed, were $3,612,588.
The examiners report was is
sued in connection with the ICC
consideration of the sale last sum-
mer of a controlling interest in
the company to a group of Florida
investors, headed by Louis Wolf
son.
Mr.. Wolfson was quoted by Mr..
Oliver as having said In an inter-
view here that the company had
an unrestricted reserve" Of about
$2,500, 900.
Says Big Dividend Possible.
Using these figures to reply to
company claims that 1t would
have to get increased fares and
reduced service, even II union
demands were denied by the
board, Mr.. Oliver said he believes
the company now is in a position
to distribute very substantial
dividend, if it wanted to. Such
distribution could have been
made in 1916, 1947 and 1948, the
union counsel insisted. I
But on this point he declared: |
'I am not saying you are unwise.
The stockholders decided not toI
take these funds out In dividends.
That's a reflection of policy
Mr.. Oliver insisted, however
that such a policy, and the COM
pany's reports, were not an ade-
quate reflection Of real earnings.
II the company had not charged
off depreciation on some wartime
equipment. when permitted to do
so by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. and had used a resulting
tax refund at the time to help
retire some outstanding indebted
ness, Mr.. Oliver declared, the
company earnings now would
show up as being larger than they
are. The refund was not listed
in company reports as income,
the witness insisted.
"Real Wage" Cited.
He said, however. the company
had the right to take the de-
probation at the time, and that
ut was sound business to do it. "
The company, Mr.. Oliver con-
tended usually has set aside q
larger fund for replacement OF
equipment each year than is
needed or used. Company off,
cials insisted such depreciation
funds are necessary.
The union spokesmen submitted
statistics to claim that the real"
basic wage rate of workers here
has not kept up recently with
that of workers in all manufacture
ing industries in the country.
The company's claim that aver
age increases in transit wages
throughout the country were on
the decrease month by month this
year was disputed by Mr.. Oliver,
He submitted q new table of
such increases, in which he in
sisted the November average in
crease was IA cents per hour,
instead of the 33 cents per hour
indicated by the company exhibit.
Contracts Let for Addition
To Union Bridge School