Assignments of wages-constitutionality of statute (Mutual Loan Co. Compensation of workmen for injuries-cooperative insurance sys- tem-police powers-equal protection of the law-constitution- ality of statute (State ex rel. Yaple v. Creamer).. Eight-hour day-construction of levees-extraordinary emergency- Federal statute (United States v. Garbish)... Employers' liability-employment of children-age limit-employ- ment in violation of statute (Woods v. Kalamazoo Paper Box Co.).. Employers' liability-fellow servants-act of superintendence- railway section men-operation of trains (Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.).... Employers' liability-mine regulations-negligence of foremen (Davis v. Mabscot Coal & Coke Co.)... Employers' liability-mine regulations-refuge holes-negligence (Helliel v. Piney Coal & Coke Co.)............... Hours of labor of employees on railroads-State and Federal regula- tion-conflict of laws-commerce (Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hours of labor of women-posting schedule-police power-con- struction of statute (Commonwealth v. Riley).... Licensing employments-equal protection of the law-constitution- ality of statute (Quong Wing v. Kirkendall)...... Licensing of stationary engineers-occupation tax-constitution- ality (City of New Orleans v. Cosgrove)....... Mine regulations-sales of powder-commerce (Williams v. Walsh).. Payment of wages-semimonthly pay day-coal operators (State v. Trade-marks of trade-unions statutory protection-fraudulent use Contract of employment-hospital fund-deductions from wages— obligations of employer (Jackson v. Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Employers' liability-contracts of waiver-fraud-employees of Employers' liability-fellow servants-acts of superintendence- dual capacity (Bedard v. Nonotuck Silk Co.)................ Labor organizations-interference with employment-rights of unions-injunctions (Minasian v. Osborne et al.)............. Labor organizations-use of sidewalks-interference with private rights-nuisance-injunction-past acts (Iverson v. Dilno)....... 730,731 Employment of labor-employment of aliens by corporations-equal protection of the law-constitutionality of statute (Ex parte case). 479, 480 Injunctions-boycotts-conspiracy-jurisdiction-labor organiza- tions-liability of members (Loewe et al. v. California State Federa- Mechanics' liens-waiver by contractors-rights of subcontractors- constitutionality of statute (Kelly et al. v. Johnson et al.)................. 484, 485 Railroads-safety appliance law-interstate commerce-cars used in intrastate traffic-power of Congress (Southern Railway Co. v. Contract of employment-breach-grounds for discharge-rate of wages (Haag v. Rogers).......... Contract of employment-term-grounds for discharge satisfactory service-measure of damages-action before expiration of term— single recovery (Bridgeford & Co. v. Meagher)...... Employers' liability-safe place-scope of employment-questions for jury (Williamson v. Berlin Mills Co.)....... Labor organizations-interference with interstate commerce-tres- pass-injunction (Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. International Labor organizations-restoration of membership-boycott-injunc- tion-restraining orders-dissolution (Allman et al. v. United Broth- erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America et al.)...... Relief departments-sick benefits-color blindness of railroad em- MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN THE UNITED STATES. BY CHAS. P. NEILL. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY. The Federal law commonly known as the Erdman Act, which provides a means for the mediation and arbitration of controversies affecting railways and their employees engaged in railroad train service, has now been on the statute books of the United States for more than 13 years, but it may be said to have been in practical operation only about five years. During the first eight and a half years following the enactment of the law, in June, 1898, one attempt only was made to utilize its provisions. This attempt, which was made within a year after the passage of the law, proved entirely fruitless. During the past five years the provisions of the law have been invoked in nearly 60 different controversies. During that period its provisions have been invoked with increasing frequency, and from the middle of 1908 to the present time there has been only one period as long as three months during which the mediators have not been called upon to act in some pending controversy. The list of formal applications for mediation and arbitration is given on page 44. This list, however, gives an inadequate idea of the extent to which the mechanism for mediation provided in the law has been utilized, as it contains no mention of a considerable number of cases in which controversies arising over the application or the inter 1 For text of this law, see Appendix I, p. 58. 2 This case is discussed at length later on, p. 29. The table on page 2 shows only 48 cases, but the cases numbered 10 and 11 cover, respectively, 6 and 3 separate controversies. They involved the same class of employees, and the requests for mediation were covered in two applications and were for convenience afterward listed as only two cases. See pp. 22-25. 1 pretation of agreements made under the provisions of the law have been brought back to the mediators and understandings have thus been reached over the matters in dispute. The controversies which have been brought before the mediators have ranged in importance all the way from a few instances of small roads, involving less than 100 miles of line and fewer than 100 employees, up to cases of exceptional magnitude, embracing over 50 roads and involving more than 100,000 miles of line and over 40,000 employees in a single controversy. In one year, 1910, the assistance of the mediators under the act was called for in 16 cases, these cases involving nearly 300,000 miles of railroad and directly involving nearly 80,000 railway men. The total mileage involved in the 48 cases in which the provisions of the law have been invoked is over 500,000, and the total number of employees directly involved is over 160,000.1 In the following table the number of cases brought before the mediators under the act, the railroad mileage involved, and the number of employees directly involved are shown year by year, the cases being classified according as the application came from the railroad company, the employees, or from both jointly: NUMBER OF CASES OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER THE ERDMAN ACT, WITH RAILROAD MILEAGE AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN SUCH CASES, FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW, JUNE 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING AS APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY, THE EMPLOYEES, OR JOINTLY BY COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES. Year. Num- road ployees Num- road ployees Num- road ployees Num- road ployees cases. in- ly in- cases. involved. ly involved. 1 Not reported. 16 76, 120 19,080 48 2505, 8802 163,050 2 Not including 1 case for which mileage and employees directly involved were not reported. In spite of the large number of serious controversies successfully handled, the law may be said to be in an experimental stage, and it is too early yet to predict that it will meet the exigencies of the future as it has those of the past five years. It will be noted that these figures represent approximately twice the entire railroad mileage of the United States. This is due to the fact that many roads have been involved in more than one case. Some of its defects have already become apparent, and in a number of aspects it can be strengthened and improved through amendment, but its success has been marked during the five years in which it has been in practical operation. Its provisions have been invoked in nearly every possible form of controversy that could arise out of the relation of employer and employee in the railroad-train service. Serious disputes as to wages, hours, and ordinary working conditions have been frequent. In two instances controversies on southern roads involving the race issue have precipitated strikes of the most dangerous kind, and in several other instances disputes involved counterclaims over jurisdiction on the part of different organizations a class of controversy which is always delicate and difficult in an exceptional degree. In no case has there been a repudiation by either side of the award of an arbitration board. In some instances, as is inevitable, there have been different interpretations placed on certain sections of the award and there has been consequent friction in some of these instances, but the awards as a whole, it can be said, have been acceptable and lived up to by both sides. SCOPE OF THE ERDMAN ACT. The provisions of the law apply only to those classes of employees actually engaged in train operation, so its practical scope is limited to controversies involving engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen, switchmen, and telegraphers. During the past five years there has been no serious strike and no important controversy threatening a serious strike involving any of these classes of employees in which the provisions of this act have not been invoked by one or the other party to the controversy; and with one exception there has been no case in which mediation was invoked and accepted before the actual beginning of a strike in which an amicable adjustment has not been brought about. In the case in question the strike had actually been ordered before mediation was invoked. When the mediation conferences began it developed that the strike was set for the following day, and, upon the refusal of the representatives of the organization involved to consider arbitration or to defer the inauguration of the strike, mediation proceedings were discontinued. The strike was begun the following day. It was costly to the roads affected by it, caused grave inconveniences and loss to the public, and proved disastrous to the employees involved and to their organization. The mediation proceedings provided for in the act are purely voluntary, so far as concerns either of the parties to the controversy. The act merely provides that in case of disputes actually interrupting or seriously threatening to interrupt interstate traffic either party to |
