5. Under the Award of Arbitration Board 282 CNW had obtained
authority to employ a conductor and less than two trainmen in
72 out of a total of 113 branch line or way freight and local
service which were employed outside the State of Wisconsin and
to reduce to a foreman and less than two helpers 143 out of a
total of 296 yard crews employed outside the State of
Wisconsin, or a total of 215 crews and yard crews which were
employed outside the State of Wisconsin. Tr. 220-224, 258,
289, 326-327, 353, 368, S.Tr. 226-233.
6. In July 1965 in pursuance of Section 6 of the Railway
Labor Act the Union served on the CNW notice of its desire for
an agreement to become effective on January 25, 1966, the day
following the expiration of the Award of Arbitration Board
282, to provide for a minimum crew consist of not less than a
conductor and two or in some instances three trainmen in all
road service and of not less than a foreman and two helpers in
yard service. Px 9, 10, Tr. 89, 226-227.
7. CNW refused to meet, confer, discuss or negotiate with
the Union with respect to the Union's notices, on the ground
they were legally ineffective, (J.R. Wolfe Aff. p. 11, Tr.
230,) after which, on October 4, 1965 the National Mediation
Board, hereinafter "NMB", assumed jurisdiction of the dispute
arising from the Union's notices, J.R. Wolfe Aff. p. 12.
8. On December 24, 1965 in pursuance of Section 6 of the
Railway Labor Act, CNW served notice on the union of its
desire for an agreement for CNW to have the unrestricted right
to determine when and if trainmen should be used in each crew
in road and yard service and if used, the number and
classification of employees to be used and for the elimination
of all contrary agreements, rules, regulations and practices.
9. CNW also proposed that if no agreement should be reached
that the dispute arising from the union's July 1965 and CNW's
December 1965 notices be referred by the unions'
representatives on the CNW to a committee to be established by
the union to handle those notices concurrently with other
notices served by the union and by other railroads on the
union for further handling on a national basis with a
committee representing the railroads. Px 12.
10. The unions' representatives on the CNW met with
representatives on CNW on January 18, 1966, discussed CNW's
notice but declined to discuss the union's notice concurrently
with and declined to agree to refer the dispute to a national
committee to be handled on a national basis concurrently with
committees representing the CNW and other railroads which had
served the same notice on the union in December 1965.
11. Thereafter, at the request of CNW, the NMB assumed
jurisdiction of the dispute arising from CNW's December 1965
notice as it did of disputes arising from notices served by
other railroads on the union in December 1965.
12. The positions of the parties became the subject of
litigation in Akron & Barberton Belt R. Co., et al v.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 250 F. Supp. 691 (D.C., Mar.
3, 1966); 252 F. Supp. 207 (D.C., Mar. 28, 1966); 254 F. Supp. 306
(D.C., May 19, 1966) and Akron & Barberton Belt R. Co. v.
Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen, 253 F. Supp. 538 (D.C.,
April 19, 1966) in which CNW was a party plaintiff, for a
declaratory judgment that the union's July 1965 notices were
legally ineffective because they were served during the period
the Award of Arbitration Board 282 was in effect and for an
injunction against a strike by the union over the dispute
arising from its notices.
13. On October 4, 1966 while the Akron & Barberton Belt case,
was pending on appeal, the NMB terminated its jurisdiction of
disputes between Atlantic Coast Line, Boston & Maine and Des
Moines Union R. Co., (now a part of CNW) and the union which
arose from notices served by and upon the union and those
railroads in 1965 which were the same as those served by and
upon CNW and the union (Dx 1, p. 13). The