NARRator

OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER
OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD REFEREES
December 2003

A NEWBIE LOOKS AT RAILROAD DISPUTE RESOLUTION
by
Rex Wiant

I am new to the world of dispute resolution in railroads. A newbie. My background includes over twenty years in labor relations with the last ten as an arbitrator. In 2001, I was added to the railroad panel by the National Mediation Board (NMB). In 2002, I took the training by that agency and attended my first NARR meeting. I admit that many have far more experience when it comes to railroads/unions and arbitration. I do have a fresh pair of eyes and a brain that sometimes works pretty well. I hope to remind you of some of your successes and raise other issues for discussion. I would like to confine my remarks to two areas: things overlooked and problems I do not understand.

THINGS OVERLOOKED

LABOR PEACE. The single most impressive thing I saw was a system that delivers labor peace. Most advocates and referees forget that they have a system that works so well. The system provides a framework for the parties to deal with conflicts that arise in the day to day business of moving a big part of the American economy.

EFFICIENCY. The system may be remarkably efficient. Cases can be resolved or get to hearing quickly if needed. The system also handles thousands of cases seamlessly and hums like a well-oiled machine. When I even suggest handling two simple cases in from a Wagner Act both management and union steadfastly refused.

TECHNOLOGY. Some of the parties are leading the way in the use of electronic hearings. Last June at the National Academy of Arbitrators meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, representatives of a carrier and union, along with the NARR President Frank Quinn, put on a mock hearing to an amazed audience. This does not mean that every hearing is right for this type of system, but many of them could easily be handled by such a system.

TRAINING. The system depends on top notch representatives for both the carriers and unions. In this business the only way anyone gets to this level is through training and experience. I can understand how the big Class 1 carriers can afford the time and effort to build strong staffs, but what about the small guys? Big carriers have taken the time to train field managers in the fine points that they may deal with in running their operations. What about the small lines with fewer than 100 miles of track? How do they afford the time and money it takes to have people trained in the basics of the Railway Labor Act? There is no exemption based on size.

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX. Everybody I talk to has ideas about changes that need to be made to improve the Act. Some changes are small and others major, but making changes to this Act may be opening Pandora's Box. They may be creating more problems than they solve. I do not know who would win or lose, but I do see a real possibility for everybody to lose.

PROBLEMS

BACKLOG. I do not understand how a system can exist with such a large backlog of cases waiting for hearing. Some cases heard by boards are over ten years old. If the parties had to produce a witness or the supervisor who made a decision, it would be impossible as those individuals may have died, retired, or simply left the company. This problem was not created overnight and will not be solved quickly. Even if the parties and NMB created many new boards, scheduled twice as many hearing days, or if they could get the Agency to fund a massive expansion of the system, they would at best whittle the backlog down to half its current size in ten years. This also would call for both carriers and unions to expand their staffs so they could ramp up to the new hire level of activity. Let's face it, none of this is going to happen. The backlog is like the national debt - something we leave for future generations to solve.

DEPENDENCY. The current system is dependent on government funding and no one wants the government to leave. I do not see the reason the NMB pays the wages and expenses of referees. Why shouldn't each party pay half the costs?

STRIKES. In the rare case where there is a strike, why does it go national? Why also does the President intervene, and why is Congress quick to pass legislation when the realities of economics will drive the parties back to the bargaining table. In the Wagner Act area, the President has not ordered use of the ninety day cooling off period in over twenty years. In short, why are the railroads different?

I hope I have stimulated discussion and invite people to post their comments on the NARR bulletin board.

OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY AUTHORS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE POSITION OF NARR ON ANY ISSUE

Return to NARRator Archive