TELEGRAM. Hon. MARTIN A. KNAPP, Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission, Hon. CHARLES P. NEILL, Washington, D. C. Commissioner of Labor, Washington, D. C. After earnest effort to agree on wage scale with of these companies they have refused to accept our offers and on appeal have voted to support demands of their committee. Will you kindly arrange hearing in accordance with provisions of Erdman Act and mediate between and ourselves? Mr. Brotherhood of — Hotel -, represents men. v. P., R. R. The following are copies of applications for mediation made by representatives of the employees: TELEGRAM. Hon. MARTIN A. KNAPP, Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C. Hon. CHARLES P. NEILL, Commissioner of Labor, Washington, D. C. A controversy has arisen between the lines: on the following This controversy concerns and unless peacefully adjusted may lead to serious interruption of interstate traffic on these lines. The above lines are all practically owned and controlled by the same interests, and the on each of these lines are alike represented by the undersigned, acting for the Brotherhood of It is our earnest desire to avoid a rupture of our relations with these carriers, and if possible to find a peaceful adjustment of the existing controversy. We, therefore, request the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor to put themselves in communication with the president of the roads above mentioned, as provided in the act of June 1, 1898, commonly known as the Erdman Act, with a view to bring about an amicable settlement of the controversy through the mediation and conciliation provided by said act. Railway Commissioner of Labor, Washington, D. C. on the and the officials in charge of operations, which unless peacefully adjusted may lead to serious interruptions of interstate traffic on the various lines entering on account of the close intermingling of the business of the carriers in question with the other properties. It is our earnest desire to avoid a rupture in our relation with these carriers. We therefore request the Chairman of Interstate Commerce Commission and Commissioner of Labor to put themselves in communication with the officers of these lines as provided in act of June 1, 1898, known as the Erdman Act, with a view of bringing about an amicable adjustment. The following are copies of applications that have been received in cases where both parties to the controversy have united in a joint agreement: Hon. MARTIN A. KNAPP, TELEGRAM. Presiding Judge, Commerce Court, Washington, D. C. Hon. CHARLES P. NEILL, Commissioner of Labor, Washington, D. C. A controversy existing between The Ry. Co. and its relative to wages and working conditions, threatens to interrupt interstate commerce, and in accordance with the Erdman Act, both parties to the negotiations hereby respectfully solicit your good offices in an effort to harmonize the difference. Will you kindly indicate the time and place the hearing will be held. The parties to the controversy would be very agreeable to as the place, but will be pleased to meet at any point the mediators name. The officials of the U. S. Commissioner of Labor, em Railway Company and the ployed thereon have been in conference at various times during the past two months; and having failed to agree upon certain questions at issue, jointly invite your good offices as mediators under provisions of the Erdman Act, and request your presence here at your earliest convenience to that end. Please wire answer immediately. First Vice President, Order Railroad Upon receipt of an application for mediation, the mediators usually wire immediately to the other party to the controversy tendering their friendly offices in a communication of which the following is typical: TELEGRAM. The Railroad Company has applied to the undersigned under the Erdman Act, so called, to exercise our friendly offices in an endeavor to settle a pending controversy between that company and your organization. Kindly wire us the nature of this controversy and advise us of your willingness to accept our services in aid of a peaceable settlement. CASES OF REJECTION OF MEDIATION. Almost invariably, no matter by which side the application has been made, the offer of the mediators' services is at once accepted. As already indicated, the history of the law shows two distinct periods the time from its passage up to 1906, during which its provisions were invoked only once; and the period from 1906 up to the present time, during which it has been called into play with steadily increasing frequency. In the one case of the earlier period, the act was invoked by the empolyees, and the principal roads concerned emphatically declined to become parties either to mediation or arbitration. During the latter period there has been no single instance in which mediation has been definitely rejected in any case of consequence in which a strike was seriously threatened. There have been a few cases in which mediation under the law has been invoked by one side and declined by the other, as the table on page 44 shows; but these have either been cases insignificant in the mileage or number of employees involved, or else cases in which the application was premature, and no interruption of traffic was seriously threatened. Moreover, these cases are distinctly exceptional. As a rule, whenever an application for mediation has been made by either side in any serious case, the other party to the controversy has cordially accepted the mediators' tender of friendly offices, and negotiations have been undertaken which have uniformly resulted in an amicable adjustment of the pending controversy. The acceptance of tenders of mediation come in all varieties of forms. Below are given copies of two acceptances received, the differences in the tenor of which are indicative of the different degrees to which the preceding negotiations had brought about a tension in the existing relations between the parties in controversy. It might be added that in the second case as well as the first a strike vote had been taken and the company notified of the intention of the employees to withdraw from the service unless a more satisfactory settlement of the differences could be reached than anything previously offered by the road. Washington, D. C. Your wire date. Ninety-eight per cent our membership employed vote in favor strike controversy over wages and conditions, and we have served notice on president of line that unless company recedes from position taken, men will retire from service. We will, however, defer all action until -, to allow opportunity for exercise of your friendly offices here toward peaceful settlement. Washington, D. C. Telegram received. The controversy between the Ry. Co. and the -employed is one of rates of wages, rules, etc. The committee representing these find it impossible to reach an agreement with that company and will be glad to accept your friendly offices to the end that an amicable adjustment of pending controversy may be effected. Answer. THE MEDIATION PROCEEDINGS. When both sides have agreed to mediation proceedings they are as a rule begun very promptly, usually the only delay being that which is involved in getting the parties concerned together at the place decided upon. By reference to the date and place where the mediation proceedings have begun, and comparing these with the date the application was received, as shown in Table I, page 44, some idea may be gained of the promptness with which it has been felt necessary to take up negotiations in the majority of the cases in which the provisions of the Erdman Act have been invoked. There is no fixed rule as to where mediation proceedings shall be held. In numerous instances the representatives of the parties in controversy have come to Washington, and the negotiations have been conducted there. When this has not been feasible or desirable, one or both mediators have gone to the place in which the parties. had up to that time conducted their negotiations, and the mediation conferences have been carried on there. The mediators have covered a rather wide range of territory, having carried on conferences at points as remote from Washington as St. Paul, Denver, and El Paso. The proceedings are purposely kept as informal as possible, in order that they may be the more readily adapted to the exigencies of any given case. Conferences are always held with the two parties to the controversy separately, and a joint meeting is never arranged until either a complete settlement of the questions in dispute or an agreement to arbitrate has been brought about by the mediators and agreed to in writing by the two parties. Ordinarily the mediators begin by meeting the representatives of the side by which the mediation was invoked. After learning the matters at issue and discussing these in a general way, a conference is held by the mediators with the other party to the dispute. Successive conferences are then held by the mediators with one or the other party alternately, or it may happen that several successive conferences are held with one side before again conferring with the other side. The procedure in this respect is a matter governed entirely by the nature of the questions at issue and the particular conditions existing in any given case. No limit is set to the number of conferences which may be held nor to the period which may be devoted to the mediation proceedings. Some cases have been brought to a successful termination within a few days, but these are exceptions; from one to two weeks is more nearly the rule. In some of the large cases where conditions were peculiarly acute, and a tension existed which made it important to secure a settlement at the earliest possible moment, conferences have for days at a time been carried on throughout the entire day and far into the night; and even what were practically all-night sessions have not been unusual. While the procedure usually follows the above lines, any variation which seems desirable may be introduced, and the only fixed and unvarying rule is that neither side shall know what concessions the other side is willing to make unless and until an amicable agreement is reached. This rule has been adopted because both sides are more likely to make concessions if there is no danger that these concessions may later on be used to their disadvantage if the case should go to arbitration. It is always possible that the mediation proceedings may prove ineffective and that the case may go to arbitration. In that event, if any concessions offered by either side were known to the other side and could be adduced before the arbitrators as offers once made, it is obvious that the side which had offered the concessions in the mediation proceedings would be to that extent at a disadvantage in arbitration proceedings. The rule above referred to |