AGREEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER LEGISLATION Mr. BOREN. Does this agreement in any way affect other legislation that might be introduced as regards railway labor or the railroads? Mr. HARRISON. I am glad you asked that question. This agreement we made with the railroads stands on its own bottom; it has no relation whatever to any other railroad legislation. It stands on its own bottom. There were no promises made by representatives of labor that anything would be forgotten because of this agreement, nor did the railroads make any promises that they would give up anything because of this agreement; it stands by itself, on its own bottom. BILL EXPLAINED Now, taking up an explanation of the bill: The bill is a bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935, and the effect of the proposed legislation, should it be enacted into law by Congress, will be to repeal, so far as the terms of the present legislation is concerned-although provision is made later in the bill for the protection of those employees who have been granted an annuity under the existing legislation, and I shall explain that when I get to that section in the last part of the bill-the provisions of the existing law. SCOPE OF BILL-PERSONS SUBJECT THERETO Now section 1 might be referred to as the scope of the legislation. Section 1 makes the bill applicable to those that are defined in that section as employers. Now the employers defined in section 1 are express companies, sleeping-car company, or carrier by railroad that are subject to part 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, and in addition thereto it is proposed to include as employers any company which may be directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the express company, the sleeping-car company, or railway company, or under common control by one or more of such companies, when those companies are engaged in the business of transporting passengers or property for the railroad, or other service that is a part of railway transportation, such as grain elevators, private car lines, refrig erator car companies, or other individual or body, judicial or otherwise, when in the possession of the property or operating all or any part of the business of these previously identified employers which are, express companies, sleeping-car companies, or carriers by railroad. That, therefore, makes the act applicable to a trustee that may be in possession of the railroad's property because of insolvency. It also applies to a Federal court in the event the railroad is in receivership and the Federal court in that event, being the body in charge of the property, the act applies to the court, or the receiver, who are bound by the act just the same as the officials of the railroad company, who operate under direction of the board of directors. Now, the language used thus far, as explained by me, is the same language, I think it could be said, that has been incorporated in the Railway Labor Act; that was incorporated in the previous railroad retirement legislation. But at that point now we expand the application of this legislation as compared to the present law. JOINT ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER AGENCIES COVERED We include such joint associations as may be formed or operated by two or more railway companies. For example, they have joint agencies that are engaged in the collection of freight bills, used as a clearing house, make deposits of funds that are collected. The agency is supported by the member railways. They have joint passenger agencies and ticket associations that are operated and supported by the railways. They have inspection and weighing and demurrage bureaus operated by the railroads. The railroads have joint organizations dealing with labor matters for railway management, and they have a joint association known as the Association of American Railways. All these joint agencies that are performing service which is incidental to railroad transportation and supported in whole or in part by the railroad companies are included as employers. RAILWAY LABOR UNIONS COVERED We further expand the application of the proposed legislation by including the 21 standard railway labor unions that represent the employees, and we make the railway labor unions, for the purposes of the act, employers. In the international headquarters of these various labor unions we have a staff of clerks, clerical employees and officers, and they will be given the benefit of this proposed legislation in just the same manner that they would if they were working for a railroad company. The railway unions will be the employers, exactly the same way as the railroad companies will be employers. Mr. MAPES. May I ask you a question? Mr. HARRISON. Yes, Mr. Mapes. Mr. MAPES. Where is the language that broadens the scope in this bill as you have described it, distinguishing it from existing law? Mr. HARRISON. If you will look at page 3, beginning at the end of the first line, with the words "the term", and start reading there, you will find the expansion of the scope of the legislation. Mr. MAPES. That sentence is practically new legislation? Mr. HARRISON. Yes. Now, in addition to covering employees in the international offices of labor unions, it also covers the committees of each railroad, including express and Pullman, representing the employees and members of those unions and on various railways throughout the country, and such office staff as those committees may engage to carry on their office work. It also includes State legislative committees of the various unions; it includes, as I said before, the employees in the insurance department of the various unions when membership in the union is requisite to secure insurance. Those units must be provided for in the constitution of the labor unions and a part of union operations before they come within the language. Now, going on to paragraph (b) of section 1, which is found near the bottom of page 3. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kenney would like to ask you a question. Mr. KENNEY. What percentage of the total railway employees would be in the class that you have here referred to? Mr. HARRISON. Well, as near as I can give you the information on that, there are about 1,500 employees in the offices of these unions at their international headquarters; there are perhaps another 16 or 17 hundred throughout the United States in the individual railroads as officers or members or clerks to the general committees, and then perhaps there are 225 State legislative representatives, and there are about 200 in the international insurance departments, so that I should say perhaps 36 or 37 hundred; perhaps a few more. In any event, I do not think it would exceed 4,000. Mr. WITHROW. What provisions have you made for employees temporarily on leave of absence who may have been elected to some public office, for instance, and secured a leave of absence? Mr. HARRISON. If you wish, I can explain that now; but I will take it up later. Mr. WITHROW. Very well. Mr. HARRISON. But just answering your question directly and in a very limited way, we regard an employee who has been granted a leave of absence as being in an employment relation, and he will be eligible for all the benefits of the proposed legislation. Mr. MARTIN. Would you permit a brief interjection right there? Mr. HARRISON. Yes. Mr. MARTIN. As a general thing, all of these existing committee employees retain their seniority rights on the railroads while on service? Mr. HARRISON. I think that could be said to be universally true, although there may be isolated instances in some small contract that the organization holds with a railway company which does not make specific provision for granting indefinite leave of absence to employees who are selected to represent employees. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harrison, what is the significance of the use of the word "international" in the organization you have referred to? Mr. HARRISON. The organizations having members in other countries than the United States. For instance, in talking about my own. organization-and I talk about it because I know it better than the others we have members in the United States, in the Dominion of Canada, and Newfoundland, and Alaska; and, therefore, we are international in scope. Now, some of the unions are not international. I just use that expression. EMPLOYEES DEFINED Now, proceeding with the explanation of the bill: Page 3, section 1, subsection (b), defines the term "employee", and that term is defined as any person who is in the service for compensation from one or more employers that are subject to the act or in employment relation thereto; and service is defined as being subject to the direction and the continuing authority of the employer who supervises the manner in which they render their service. Now, the last half of my explanation is standard language that this committee has approved heretofore in the Railway Labor Act. But the definition of employee, as herein contained, is different from the definition under the present legislation in expressly including service wherever performed. The existing legislation defines an employee that is included within the holding of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and there has been much difficulty in trying to find the line between service included and excluded, from president, board of directors, down to water boy. Now, it will include such employees, even though they do not perform their work in the United States, but since they get their compensation from employers in the United States they will be employees within this legislation. That was a very desirable change, because many of those employees have worked for many years in the States, and they have been assigned to foreign offices, and so that is true also of a portion of several railroads that cross the boundary line into the Dominion of Canada. For instance, the Wabash, Pere Marquette, Michigan Central, and others; they have a small portion of their lines that operate across the border, but they are all employees of the United States railroads, and they get their compensation from the United States, so they are included in it. And that is a desirable change, as compared with it, existing legislation. In some instances the seniority districts extend across the line, and the men exercise their rights back and forth. Mr. WADSWORTH. Would this act apply to the members of the legislative committee of one of its unions residing in Newfoundland? Mr. HARRISON. If they have a legislative chairman in Newfoundland, and he receives his compensation from the international organization which is in the United States, then he would be in the same position as would an employee of the Wabash Railroad working at Windsor, Ontario; if it was provided for in the constitution of the international organization, it would make no difference where he got his compensation, because the legislative board of those unions are defined as employers. Mr. WADSWORTH. Of course, citizenship would make no dif ference? Mr. HARRISON. Citizenship would make no difference. Now, paragraph (c), of section 1, provides that a person is in the service of an employer wherever his service is rendered. That covers the explanation I have just made that applies to these people even though they may be working outside of the United States. EMPLOYMENT RELATION DEFINED Paragraph (d) defines when a person is in the employment relation. A person is considered in the employment relation to an employer if he is actually in the service working; if he has been furloughed as a result of temporary reductions in business and has a right to return when they again increase their forces, or if he is absent on account of sickness, or if he is absent on account of disability or on leave for any other reason, all of which absences, however, must be recognized in accordance with the standard practice in effect on that particular employer. And, by way of explanation, I should say that we have those matters generally provided for in our agreements with the various railway and express companies. Now, that is an enlargement- Mr. REECE. What would be the status of an employee of a railroad that does not have a retirement system at present, but who has become incapacitated for work and has been continued on the pay roll in some way, but is not actually in the service? Mr. HARRISON. Well, under the present legislation, if the employee was not ready and willing to work on the 29th day of August 1935, he is denied the benefits of the law. That has been construed to mean that if you were incapacitated or sick on the 29th day of August 1935, you might have been willing, but certainly were not ready, and, therefore, they have denied the benefits of the law to that man. Now, answering directly the question you asked: If a man was sick or incapacitated on the 29th of August 1935, or thereafter, he is recognized as being in an employment relation and should he recover and return to the service he will be eligible to get his benefits when and if he can qualify. Should he reach the age of qualification before he does recover he can apply, and he is eligible, to receive his benefits. Now, taking a case in point: Let us assume that an employee was incapacitated and was away from work on the 29th of August 1935, and that he was 64 or 63 years of age; he continued in that condition, until he attained the age of 65. He never goes back to work. When that man attains the age of 65 he can apply to the Retirement Board and be granted his annuity, or he could apply at any age if he had 30 years of service. He could also apply at age 60 but if he had less than 30 years' of service the pension would be reduced one-fifteenth for each year under 65. That is a decided improvement as compared to the present legislation. There were about 8,000, as near as we can determine, sick and disabled employees on the 29th day of August 1935 that will be denied the benefits of the present legislation, for the reason that they were not ready to go to work on that particular day but are covered by the proposed legislation. Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Harrison, the provisions of this bill then will take a man who on August 29, 1935, who was passed 63, and unable physically to attend his regular duties. Mr. HARRISON. Yes; if he had an employment relation as it is herein defined on the 29th day of August 1935, irrespective of his age, he will receive the benefits. Mr. PEARSON. If the employment relationship was in existence? Mr. HARRISON. At that time. It does not attempt to go out and pick up, so to speak, the employees who had severed their relations with our industry prior to the 29th of August 1935. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren. |