United States. National Mediation Board. Transcript of Hearings,
1957

Docket 25. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship, et al.

Employees of the two railroads were dismissed when a jointly owned station burned down. When the companies set up separate facilities the employees sued for allowances under a provision in the "Washington Agreement" providing for allowances for employees "affected by coordination."

Docket 26. Brotherhood of Carmen.

Dispute involves same conditions as covered by Docket 25.

Docket 27. Kansas city Southern Railway and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RR.

Companies refused employee demands for coordination allowances after they had coordinated Kansas City terminal facilities on grounds that the Washington Agreement was superseded and nullified by Section 5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Docket 41. Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

The Denver Railroad had, by order of the Public Commission of Colorado, discontinued passenger train service over part of its former territory. The Brotherhood claimed that the discontinuance was a result of the coordination of the Denver and Rio Grande Railway with the former Denver and Salt Lake Railroad and employees affected by discontinuance were thus covered by the Washington Agreement.

Docket 51. Atlanta Joint Terminals

An agreement by three railroads providing for the joint use of all terminal facilities owned or leased by them resulted in the later dismissal of employees at these terminals, When the Louisville and Nashville Railway made other terminal arrangements. The employees sued for allowances under the Washington Agreement claiming The previous arrangement was a "coordination". Issues to be decided: Whether there was joint action by two or more carriers and 2. If there was, did it result in either a unification of facilities or a unification of operations or services that were previously performed through separate facilities.

Docket 47. Chicago and North Western Railway: Chicago Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad: Union Pacific RR Chicago Union Station Co.

The Union Pacific discontinued an arrangement with the North Western covering the inter change of certain passenger car equipment and inaugurated an inter change agreement with the Milwaukee. Employees affected charged "the companies had taken an existing consolidated, merged, or pooled services and created a new pool of services", and claimed they were thus entitled to compensation under the Washington Agreement. The main issue is whether there was "joint action" between the Union Station Company and the Milwaukee Railroad whereby two unified, consolidated merged or pooled their separate railroad facilities.

Docket 44. St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad and the Telegraphers Organization.

An employee had to switch jobs after a consolidation of facilities of two railroads. The new job was a relief a assignment and necessitated her using her car. The employee filed for reimbursement under the Washington Job Protection Agreement. The applicability of this agreement is questioned on the grounds that it is a collective bargaining issue.

Docket 48. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, Norfolk and Western Railway and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers.

The two companies built an interlocking tower joining their separate towers, the "new" tower taking approximately 50 per cent of the old employees. Although the company found employment for all those remaining, the union claimed that the merging of the towers was not a consolidation under the Washington Agreement and that it thus properly belongs to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division.

Dockets 52 and 53. Illinois Central RR. New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal and the Railway Employees Department.

Two workers (each pleading separately) were transferred to a new terminal and were subsequently furloughed by the Illinois Central. The company maintained that this was due to a "decrease in business and thus not subject to the Washington Agreement."

Docket 38. Union Pacific Railroad, Railway Express Agency and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

The Union Pacific switched operations previously performed by the Railway Express Agency to a different location, took charge of the operation themselves, all resulting in the laying off of Brotherhood employees. The Brotherhood charged there was a coordination of operations or services previously performed try the Railway Express Agency and the affected employees were entitled to compensation under the Washington agreement

Docket 39. St. Louis - San Francisco RR, Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

The St. Louis Railway transferred its freight operations from one terminal of the jointly owned Rock- Island - Frisco Terminal Railway to another. The Brotherhood later charged that this was a joint action constituting "coordination" within the meaning of the Washington Agreement and therefore the adversely affected employees of the affected terminal were entitled to compensation.

Docket 40. Houston Belt and Terminal Railroad and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

As a result of a coordination an employee was moved to the Houston Belt and Terminal Railway. Neither side disputes the applicability of the Washington Agreement. The sole question is the proper method of computing the the displacement allowance due under Section 6 of that agreement.

Docket 46. Railway Express Agency and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

Under authorization from the Interstate Commerce Commission five railroad companies jointly constructed a central terminal and discontinued five outlying passenger stations. The Railway Express Agency claimed there was no "coordination," involved but simply an "intra-company consolidation of operations." Main issue centers on whether a "joint action" or "coordination" occurred.

Docket 54. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RR; St. Louis - San Francisco Railway; Rock Island - Frisco Railway and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

Both co-owners of the terminal company removed operations and services performed for them by the terminal company and consolidated them into their own operations services. Adversely affected employees of the terminal company charged this was a coordination under the Washington Agreement and they were thus entitled to compensation.