APPEAL TO COURTS FROM ARBITRATION DECISIONS.

Section 4 of the act provides for an appeal to the courts from the decision of the arbitrators. After the award has been filed in court, the parties to the controversy are given only 10 days within which to file exceptions thereto preparatory to an appeal from the decision of the arbitrators; and the only basis of an appeal is for error of law apparent on the record."

The right of appeal from the award of the arbitrators is, first, to the circuit court of the United States; and after the decision of the circuit court either party has a further right of appeal to the circuit court of appeals. The only instance in which an appeal has been taken from an award of the arbitrators to the court was in one of the earliest cases of arbitration under this law. In this case the employees filed exceptions to certain parts of the award before the expiration of 10 days, but asked that the provisions of the award to which they did not take exception become effective at the expiration of the 10 days provided in the law. The decision of the court in the case was not handed down until a little over four months after the date of the decision by the arbitrators. The court partly sustained the exceptions taken by the employees but held that until the final disposition of the case no part of the award became effective. The company then took a further appeal, as allowed by law, from the decision of the court. The hearing on the second appeal could not be reached by the court for nearly six months after it was made. A year after the award the matter was still in litigation in the courts, and no part of the award had become effective. The parties to the controversy thereupon began direct negotiations with one another and finally reached an agreement, whereupon the litigation in court was abandoned and the dispute was thus finally disposed of 14 months after the decision had been rendered by the arbitrators.

As was clearly demonstrated in this case a provision for court appeals in an arbitration act must inevitably either remain a dead letter or defeat the very purpose of the law itself. Arbitration is a quasi-judicial method adopted for the speedy settlement of industrial controversies. Industrial controversies of the kind contemplated in this act as well as industrial controversies in general relate to questions which if they are to be settled effectively must be settled promptly. They can not be settled to the satisfaction of either side by any such lengthy process as is involved in litigation in one or more courts. This fact was so clearly demonstrated in the case just described that not only has no other case been carried from the arbitrators to the courts, but, on the contrary, practically all of the agreements to arbitrate made since that time have been accompanied by further agreements between the parties to the controversy to waive

the right of appeal to the courts and to accept the decision of the arbitrators as final and binding.

CONCERTED MOVEMENTS.

It will be seen by reference to Table I that in a number of instances a large group of roads, in three cases representing over 100,000 miles of line and in one case directly involving over 40,000 employees, have been involved jointly in a single case. This has come about through what is known as a "concerted movement." These concerted movements usually cover a certain definite territory. There have gradually grown up in the railroad world three distinct wage zones. These may be defined as the Western Territory, which includes the Illinois Central Railroad and all roads lying west of a line formed by that road and the western shore of Lake Michigan; the Eastern Territory which includes the roads lying north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway and east of the Illinois Central and Lake Michigan; and the Southern Territory, lying south of the Chesapeake & Ohio and east of the Illinois Central.

For some years past the organizations of railroad employees in taking up questions dealing with the revision of the wage scale or of general working conditions have endeavored through concerted movements to have the questions at issue settled for an entire territory through one series of negotiations. The method through which this is carried out is somewhat as follows: Representatives of a given. class of employees on all the roads in one of the territories outlined above meet and formulate certain proposals respecting wages and conditions of employment which it is desired to secure from all the roads in that territory. The local committees representing the employees involved then present these proposals to their respective roads, asking the latter to unite in forming a committee representing all the roads in that territory to meet a committee representing jointly the employees on these roads, in order to reach an agreement applying alike to each road in the territory.

In the Western Territory this practice has been the rule in dealing with employees in train service since 1906. Thus, in case 4 shown in Table I, practically all the Western roads were involved in a controversy with their conductors and trainmen. In the negotiations between the roads and their employees previous to the mediation, the roads had been represented by a committee of 10 of the general managers who had been given full authority by each road involved to make a binding settlement. The negotiations on the part of the employees were conducted by a large committee consisting of something over 160 members.

The conductors and trainmen, though having separate organizations, regularly conduct their negotiations jointly. In the nego

tiations in question the committee representing the employees consisted of several conductors and trainmen from each of the roads concerned in the negotiations and several of the grand officers of their respective organizations.

When the mediation proceedings began, the negotiations were carried on for the railroads by the committee of general managers and for the employees by a subcommittee of 12 headed by the grand officers of the respective organizations.

The settlement reached applied alike to each of the roads given under this case in the table, thus settling in a single movement the matter of wages and certain working conditions for the entire Western Territory.

In the same way cases 29 and 40 represent concerted movements embracing a large number of roads and involving firemen and engineers, respectively. Case 35 similarly represents a concerted movement covering the Southern Territory. Cases 23 and 25 involving switchmen represent similar cases, although the territory covered does not correspond with that outlined heretofore. Case 23 covered practically all the railroads leading out of St. Paul and Minneapolis or having switching service there. Case 25 involved all the roads. leading out of Chicago, whose switching service at that point was carried on with the organization of the Switchmen's Union of North America.

In all of these cases before mediation was invoked the controversy had reached a point at which a strike vote had been taken on every one of the lines involved in the controversy; and the entire mileage was thus threatened with the paralysis of traffic that would have inevitably followed the withdrawal from service of such a large number of employees.

While the negotiations in the Western Territory with the train organizations are usually carried on by concerted movements, it has been the exception in the territory east of the Illinois Central. The only instance in which a concerted movement has been carried on in this territory east of the Illinois Central was in the summer of 1910, when the principal southeastern roads acting in concert met the representatives of the conductors, trainmen, and switchmen. These negotiations finally reached the stage where mediation was invoked, and the roads involved may be seen by reference to case 35 in Table I. In the spring of 1910 the conductors and trainmen asked the eastern roads to join in a concerted movement to consider their proposals for wage increases and certain changes in working conditions. The eastern roads declined to do so, and negotiations were then undertaken with each road separately upon identical proposals that had been submitted to them.

Similarly, in October, 1911, the engineers formulated certain proposals concerning increased pay and changes in working conditions and presented them to all the roads in the Southern Territory, with the request that these roads would join in a concerted movement and consider the proposals through a committee representing all the roads alike. The roads declined to act jointly in the matter, and the proposals were then taken up separately with each road by the representatives of the engineers' organization.

In both these cases, it might be added, the results worked out practically as they would have in a concerted movement. In each instance a settlement was effected with a single road, and the organizations concerned then declined to make any settlements with other roads on terms different from those secured in the first settlement. In the end the settlements secured over the entire territory were substantially the same, although they were secured through negotiations with the individual roads rather than in a concerted movement.

In cases 10 and 11, shown in Table I, several roads have been grouped together as in the concerted movements discussed above, but in neither of these cases was the movement similar to the ones already referred to. The facts in these cases are as follows:

Practically all the contracts of working agreements between railroads and employees in train service contain a provision that either party desiring a change in any of the rates or regulations covered by the contracts shall give 30 or 60 days' notice, the period being different in different contracts.

In December, 1907, and January, 1908, the southeastern roads enumerated under cases 9, 10, and 11 served notice on the engineers and other train organizations of a desire to reopen the contracts, after the expiration of the time prescribed in the notices, with a view to readjusting the wage scale. It was, of course, understood that this meant a reduction in wages. The first of these roads upon which the contract was actually reopened and negotiations begun was the Southern Railway. All of the train organizations declined to agree to any reduction of wages, declaring their intention of withdrawing from service in case the railroad company should put a reduced rate of pay into effect, and the road thereupon invoked mediation under the Erdman Act. Within a few days after these negotiations had begun the 30 or 60 day periods required to elapse after the serving of notice of a desire to change the rates of pay provided in the existing contracts began to expire in the cases of some of the other roads concerned. In the case of the Louisville & Nashville the date of expiration was March 1, and it was understood that that road was prepared to put reduced rates of pay into effect immediately thereafter.

The officers of the engineers' organization were determined to resist the threatened reductions in pay, even to the extent of inaugurating a strike, and it was apparent that a crisis was approaching with the possibility of a strike of engineers beginning on the Louisville & Nashville that would quickly spread in turn to the other roads in that territory.

In order to preserve the status quo and prevent a strike on any of the other southern roads over the same issue that was then in mediation in the case of the Southern Railway, the representatives of the engineers' organization who were then in Washington filed an application invoking mediation under the Erdman Act in the case of the seven roads enumerated under case No. 10. The mediators immediately wired to the principal official of each of these roads a communication of which the following is a copy:

TELEGRAM.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 28, 1908.

In accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 1, 1898, and commonly known as the Erdman Act, representatives of the locomotive engineers of your company have invoked the mediation of the undersigned in an endeavor to bring about a mutually satisfactory adjustment of the controversy now existing between your company and its locomotive engineers.

We are at present engaged in a similar mediation in the controversy between the Southern Railway Co. and its employees engaged in train operation and can not take up the controversy with your company for some days. We beg to ask that you forward us any statements you may desire to make concerning the matters in controversy and urge upon you not to take any action likely to create a breach between your company and its employees until we have had an opportunity to exercise our friendly offices in an effort to secure an amicable adjustment.

(Signed)
(Signed)

MARTIN A. KNAPP,

CHAS. P. NEILL,

Chairman.

Commissioner of Labor.

In response to this request of the mediators, each of the roads addressed agreed to suspend action at the expiration of the respective periods at which each of them would have been free under its contract with the engineers to put into effect a reduced scale of wages, and to take up the controversy through mediation when the mediators had concluded the pending negotiations between the Southern Railway and its employees. The mediation of the Southern Railway controversy, as is explained below, continued for a considerable time and was postponed and renewed at intervals until the close of the calendar year. Although no formal agreement was entered into to this effect,