APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES OF UNITED STATES ROADS IN CANADA Mr. BOREN. I would like to ask with reference to the definition you have just been discussing, if I am correct in understanding that a citizen of Canada might come under the terms of this act and receive compensation? Mr. HARRISON. Yes; take a case in point. If, let us assume, we had a man working for the Wabash Railroad at Windsor, Ontario, and he gets his compensation from the Wabash Railroad. He is an employee within the definitions contained in this bill and he will get his pension when and if he qualifies under this legislation, should it be enacted. Mr. BOREN. To what extent, and what is the proportion of persons who might not be citizens to whom those benefits would extend? Mr. HARRISON. Well, aside from the men who are in foreign traffic offices-and I cannot hazard a guess on that, because I do not know much about it--but taking those who are working on the Canadian portion of United States lines, such as the Pere Marquette, Michigan Central, and the Wabash, and the Soo Line, and the Great Northern, also the Delaware & Hudson, and New York Central. There are perhaps not more than a total of 3,000. Now, I can get better information than that. This is just a leap in the dark and that is about all it is. I can get better information, if I have the opportunity to consult the railroads. I am sure that they will be glad to try to furnish the information. Mr. BOREN. If you will furnish it, I would like to have that information. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may insert that in your remarks when you revise. Mr. HARRISON. I will endeavor to get it. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martin. Mr. MARTIN. To what extent are American railway employees included in employment in the Republic of Mexico? Mr. HARRISON. Well, we have running into Mexico the Southern Pacific Railway of Mexico. The employees on that part of the road will not be covered by this law. Now, we do not have any American railroads, so far as I know, that operate beyond the international boundary point; the international boundary between Mexico and the United States. I think they are all Mexican properties. Most of them are State owned. Some of them are privately owned. Yes; my attention has been called to the fact that there are Pullman conductors and Pullman porters who operate on through trains into Mexico, and I understand that the Pullman Co. operates the Pullman service in Mexico. Mr. MARTIN. Aside from the Pullman service, are all American railroad men excluded from employment on Mexican railroads? Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. Mr. WADSWORTH. The Southern Pacific of Mexico is a separate railroad? Mr. HARRISON. The Southern Pacific of Mexico is a separate railroad. Mr. WADSWORTH. Is it not owned by the Southern Pacific of the United States? Mr. HARRISON. It is a separate corporation that is chartered in Kentucky, as I remember. I think that the stock, however, is owned by the Southern Pacific Co., the same company that owns the stock of the Southern Pacific and the Texas & New Orleans Railway. Mr. WADSWORTH. Many of the train crews are Americans? Mr. HARRISON. I presume so; but I do not know. Mr. WADSWORTH. I have seen them. Mr. HARRISON. I guess many Americans have gone to Mexico from time to time and gone to work on those roads. PERSONS ON CARRIER PENSION ROLLS Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Harrison, what is the position of an employee who is drawing the benefits of the retirement system in operation on a particular railroad on the 29th of August 1935, as to his rights under this act Mr. HARRISON. Well, if you will refer to section 6 of the bill, you will see that matter is therein taken care of. I should be glad to explain it, however, at this point if you wish to have the information. Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, the question occurred to me as the result of the explanation you have just been giving as to the effective date, August 29, 1935. Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. Mr. WOLVERTON. I have in mind that a large number of employees had retired prior to that and were drawing retirement allowances from their respective railroads at that time. I am interested in knowing whether they are taken care of under the provisions of this bill, or whether they would have to depend upon the voluntary attitude of the companies that were at that time giving them their annuities. Mr. HARRISON. Well, the situation in respect to that matter is this: Section 6 provides that if you appear on the pension or gratuity rolls of one of the employers, defined in the bill, on the 1st day of March 1937, then you will be transferred to the annuity rolls created by this act and we will begin to pay benefits to those employees on the 1st day of July, which will include the June pension, and in addition to paying what is now being actually paid up to not more than $120 in any one month, we provide for the restoration to those pensioners such general reductions as have been made in the pension systems since December 31, 1930. In other words, we restore the normal rate of pension benefits, but in no event do we agree to pay more than the maximum of $120, which any other pensioner would get under the act. Then, in the agreement underlying this bill, we obligate the railways to restore such reductions as have been made above $120, so the act and the agreement results in guaranteeing to all pensioners that were on the employer pension, or gratuity rolls on March 1, 1937, the normal rate of their pension for the balance of their life and gives them the same security as we provide for those who retired after the 29th day of August 1935. Now, if there appears on the voluntary pension or gratuity rolls the name of a pensioner on the 1st day of March 1937, who would be eligible to apply for an annuity under the act, he will have the privilege of applying for his annuity under the act. He will be able to apply for his annuity under the act in which event he will be dropped from the voluntary roll of pensioners that was taken over under section 6; but he cannot get a pension under both systems. He either gets his pension under the law, generally, as other pensioners, or he is brought over in accordance with section 6 and gets his pension under that section. Mr. WOLVERTON. Does there occur to you any situation where an employee drawing an annuity at the present time might be precluded under the terms of this act? Mr. HARRISON. None that I know of, unless it is someone who received an annuity under the present legislation through fraud or collusion. Mr. WOLVERTON. In other words, it has been the intention of the drafters of this legislation to make certain that those who enjoy such benefits at the present time shall continue to do so? Mr. HARRISON. That is to make it absolutely sure that they will have security for the balance of their lives. Mr. WOLVERTON. Does the bill contemplate in any way a continuance of private pension plans? Mr. HARRISON. Nothing other than to this extent: We have a provision in the proposed bill that nothing in the bill shall be construed as discouraging or prohibiting the railroad companies to pay pensions in addition to what the law calls for; but I generally understand what will happen in that respect, subject to the views of the railroads, because they control it; but my impression is, if I may state it that way, is that the railways will discontinue all existing private pension systems, but where a pension or pensions were promised above $120 a month by those private pension systems, they will fulfill that promise and make good such amounts in excess of the $120 per month which is the limit under our bill. Mr. WOLVERTON. That is your understanding? Mr. HARRISON. That is my understanding of it. Judge? Would that be it, Mr. FLETCHER. Yes. If you will make clear that there is a positive obligation as to those who have already retired and who get more than $120 a month. Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. Mr. FLETCHER. That obligation was contained in the agreement. Mr. WOLVERTON. It seems, therefore, from the statement which you have made and that which has been made by Judge Fletcher supplementing what you have said, that there is a clear intention that there should be no difference arising under this act as to those who are already on the pension status. Mr. HARRISON. Yes. In other words, we take every pensioner that the carriers have pensioned, or everyone who is on the gratuity rolls, on the 1st day of March 1937, and take them over, if they are still alive, and pay them a pension for the balance of their life, not only what they are getting today, but we restore the normal rate and pay them the normal rate not exceeding, however, $120 in any month. That is covered by section 6. Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cole. Mr. COLE. Along the line of Mr. Wolverton's question: I understand that all employees now on the pension list, receiving gratuities, as of March 1, 1937, mandatorily come into this system. Mr. HARRISON. That is right. Mr. COLE. And that they cannot under any conditions receive more than $120? Mr. HARRISON. That is under the law, but the railroads are to pay the excess over $120 per month. Mr. COLE. Well, what is the provision as to those who are now receiving more than $120 a month? Mr. HARRISON. We have an agreement with the railroads to pay it. Mr. COLE. Is that entirely in the discretion of the railroads? Mr. HARRISON. No; that is not just it. Perhaps you did not understand my explanation. We have an agreement underlying this bill which obligates the railroad companies to pay their existing pensioners such amounts as they are being paid, plus the normal rate. Mr. COLE. I assume Mr. HARRISON. Above $120? Mr. COLE. I assume section 7 where it says: Nothing in this act shall be taken as restricting or discouraging payment by employers to retired employees of pensions or gratuities in addition to the annuities or pensions paid to such employees under this act refers indirectly to the agreement to which you have referred. Mr. HARRISON. Well, that was not exactly why it was put in there. The reason it was put in there was that in the event the railroads did continue to make pension payments to the employees they would not be subjected to criticism by the Interstate Commerce Commission and other public regulatory bodies for expending their funds for those purposes. We think they have a moral obligation and that we have at least converted a moral obligation into a legal obligation in the agreement we negotiated with the railroads. Mr. COLE. Is there any reason which you have to suggest to the committee as to why something definite should not be put in this bill along the lines you have stated, which as now provided, is left to the private agreement? Mr. HARRISON. Well, other than this: This bill represents the product of the agreement. We are pledged as representatives of the workers to support it as is. Now, if the committee has any change they wish to suggest and the railroads wish to accept the change, we see no harm in it. I do not see any reason why we could not mutually agree, but as representatives of the employees we of course cannot go beyond the agreement. It is a matter of good faith. I have got to present the case as is. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman- FURTHER AS TO STATUS OF EMPLOYEES IN CANADA Mr. BOREN. I do not want to prolong the argument, but I do not see how we can get away from the question I have brought up, and I would like to have a little more enlightenment on it, and that is as to the citizen of another country coming under the provisions of this act and receiving benefits as described therein. I am simply asking the question for information as to the relation of citizens of another country. I think it might need some clarification. If the citizen of another country under the existing railway labor laws, if some disagreement should arise under the existing labor laws, would that be arbitrated as provided therein, and then what complications might arise? Mr. HARRISON. Well, in answer to that situation in a practical way, first, I should say this, perhaps, in answer to your question direct: The Railroad Labor Act does not go beyond the boundaries of the United States; but the practical application is that if we had a dispute on the Wabash Railway it would include all of the workers on that road represented by the particular union having the dispute even though they may be in Canada, and from a practical standpoint it applies, but legally my understanding is that it stops at the boundary. Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman▬▬ The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mapes. Mr. MAPES. I have not had a chance to study this bill since it was introduced, and perhaps some of the questions that I ask may be explained in the bill. It is not quite clear to me what you mean by the phrase restoring the reductions that were made when taking over the employees who are receiving voluntary annuities now. REFERENCE TO REDUCTIONS EXPLAINED Mr. HARRISON. Well, in 1931 there were a few railroads that made a reduction in the pension payments that they were then making to the pensioners; but I think universally in 1932-there may have been some few exceptions-the railroads put into effect a 10-percent reduction in the amount that they were paying their pensioners. In some instances the reduction was as much as 40 percent. The C. & N. W. Railroad cut their pensions 40 percent. The Boston & Maine Railroad made a very drastic reduction. We can furnish the details of that to the committee. The retirement board, I think, has the information as to the various changes that have been made. What we mean by that is all reductions that have been made in the amount of pensions paid to pensioners since the last day of December 1930 will be restored. That is, if the reduction was generally applicable to the pensioners of the carriers. But it will not be restored above $120, according to section 6 of the bill. But underlying that is an agreement between the unions and the railroads that does obligate the railroads to restore such reductions as have been made in pensions that exceed $120 a month. Mr. MAPES. So that this bill will be retroactive back to the 1st of January 1931? |