Every four years or so, much is heard about "national negotiations" and members begin to ask questions like these:

This article will deal with some of the basic facts about the procedures for changing contracts in the railroad industry. Subsequent articles in coming weeks will outline where we now stand in this process, some of the issues involved, and what we might expect to happen as negotiations proceed.

The process of changing rates of pay and working conditions applicable to railroad workers is governed by the Railway Labor Act. The Act was adopted by the U. S. Congress in 1926, and has been modified by legislative amendment and case law in the courts over the years since that time. A copy of "The Act" is available on the UTU International Web Page. (Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to view the document, and is available for free downloading right on the site.)

Contracts made under The Act are perpetual in nature. Thus, railroad contracts do not "expire" in the normal sense of the word. If left unchanged, they remain in effect indefinitely. However, either party (the union or the railroad) may serve a formal notice under Section 6 of The Act (hence the term "Section 6 Notice") to begin negotiations for changes at any time. Both the Carriers' and the UTU's national Section 6 Notices for the current round of negotiations are available on the UTU International Web Page.

In order to provide some structure and stability in the industry, when the parties reach a new national agreement they usually include a moratorium period, during which both sides agree that they will not serve such a Notice on subjects covered by that Agreement. While the moratorium is in effect, the parties may mutually agree to discuss changes, but it literally takes an act of Congress to force negotiations if either side declines voluntary talks. This is exactly what happened in 1991, when the Carriers broke the "lifetime" moratorium in some Crew Consist Agreements through Congressional mandate. Traditionally, moratorium periods for national agreements are three or four years, but some have been shorter and some longer.

Another very important part of The Act is the provision that each railroad and each group of employees may designate its representatives without interference by the other party. A railroad may not forbid its employees to join a union or dictate to its employees what union they will join or how their union will be structured or who will serve as officers of the union. Likewise, unions must negotiate with whomever the Carrier designates as its representative(s). In the handling of national contracts the Carriers have developed a practice of voluntarily joining together to create a negotiating body behind a single spokesman. That negotiating body is known as the National Carriers' Conference Committee, and their spokesman at present is Mr. Robert Allen. (I've always found it quite interesting that even the most anti-union employers quickly form their own "unions" when they want a strong voice.) On our union's side, the General Chairman is the designated representative to handle all such matters. General Committees have also formed voluntary alliances and designated negotiating teams to handle national contracts in the past, and in some cases different unions have elected to negotiate jointly. Under the Act, this is a choice that each union and each General Committee must make based on what best serves their respective membership. In recent years the railroads have launched vicious legal attacks on this part of The Act, attempting to force international officers to speak for all General Committees, with or without the General Committees' consent. BNSF is currently waging such a battle in the courts against both UTU and BLE. More information on that battle will be posted as it becomes available.

If a proposed Agreement is reached through negotiations pursuant to a Section 6 Notice, the ratification process begins. This process is not governed by The Act, but is instead a function of the UTU Constitution. Under the Constitution, before signing any Agreement having system-wide application to any craft, the General Chairman or designated representative must vote all members affected and working in that craft. Each craft is voted separately, and each craft must ratify the Agreement independently. This guarantee of self-determination is called craft autonomy, and has been a pillar of the UTU constitution since its inception.

If the parties cannot reach agreement on a subject through negotiations under The Act, either may notify the National Mediation Board of an impasse, or the NMB may proffer its services to assist the parties in moving forward. The Act also includes an option of binding arbitration, in which the parties agree to bring in a neutral party to review the dispute and make a final ruling on the matter. If these options are unacceptable, it is possible for the matter to reach a point where the parties are free to exercise "self-help" (the union may call a strike or the Carrier may "lock out" employees or simply impose or "promulgate" new rules). When the situation becomes that critical, the NMB usually notifies the President of the United States, who may establish a Presidential Emergency Board to investigate the dispute and make recommendations for a settlement. If none of these procedures outlined in The Act result in a settlement, the U. S. Congress may take independent action to impose a settlement by legislation. There is only the remotest possibility that the parties will be left to fight it out between themselves, because each step in this lengthy process is designed to avoid a service interruption in the industry. History shows that the farther down this road the parties proceed, the less control they have over the outcome. The dispute progresses farther and farther away from the realm of industrial relations and more and more toward the arena of public policy.

This is just an overview that I hope will help answer some of the questions about the process in which we are now involved. Check for future articles that will contain a more detailed explanation of our current status.