then, on the employers side there were 126 separate railway companies without a central organization authorized to negotiate labor standards. Union organization was not extensive until about 1907. In 1910 one of the large companies recognized the unions and with them set up conciliation machinery covering certain grades of workers. The other companies did not follow suit, and were opposed to recognition, though they were not actively hostile to the unions and did not discriminate against union men.

In 1911 an extensive strike took place, and a Royal Commission was appointed which recommended, among other things, the general extension of the conciliation machinery referred to above. By 1913 nearly all the roads had recognized the unions; but the outbreak of the war and the assumption of railway control by the Government postponed the making of agreements and the setting up of a nationwide conciliation procedure.

Immediately following the war, and before Government control was relinquished, national agreements covering wages, hours, and working conditions of all the principal grades of workers (including shopmen) were entered into; these agreements, wit! later modifications and additions, are still in force.

The Act of 1921 created elaborate machinery for conciliation (relating to the clerical, traffic, and road staffs but not the shopmen). It had beer, worked out in agreement with the three main unions and the companies and was enacted in the form agreed upon. It did not prove completely satisfactory, and in 1935 it was largely superceded by an agreement of the two parties. However, since many of its features were retained it must here be briefly sketched. Its main provisions reflected the philosophy of the Whitley Committee, which, as we have noted in the report, stressed the need of a wide collaboration between labor and management in improving industrial efficiency and the conditions of work, and recommended the creation of shop committees and joint regional councils as well as joint national bodies, in order to enlist as many groups as possible in that work.

The Act of 1921 accordingly provided for the establishment, on each of the four roads, of joint local departmental committees, joint sectional councils and a joint railway council. In addition, wage and other questions affecting all the roads, and disputes which could not be settled by these councils were to be dealt with by a Central Wages Board composed in equal numbers of union and carrier representatives; and, failing agreement there, by a National Wages Board composed of not only union and carrier representatives, but also four representatives of the users of the roads (one each to be designated by the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Cooperative Union, and the Trades Union Congress), and a neutral chairman to be appointed by the Minister of Labor.

Two circumstances contributed to the break-down of this machinery.

In the first place, the act permitted an ultimate appeal to the National Wages Board of every dispute, however trivial. Because the industry is geographically so diffuse and operations are so different, differences were numerous. In practice the calendar of the Board became clogged with a multitude of small matters which could

not be promptly disposed of, and this caused dissatisfaction both among the workers and on the part of the companies. One of the striking features of the new machinery put into effect in 1935 is its careful differentiation in the treatment of grievances, disputes and general questions according to the nature and importance of each.

Secondly, the National Wages Board as the ultimate tribunal of appeal was not successful, in matters of major conflict, in obtaining compliance by the unions with its awards. Its composition was unwieldy (17 members), and neither the unions nor the carriers had any official part in the selection of its 5 neutrals including the neutral chairman. Dissatisfaction with the functioning of the Board was apparent in 1924, when the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen declined to accept a wage award by the Board, and its members struck. The National Union of Railwaymen, which included in its membership some of the engineers and firemen, accepted the award, but a considerable portion of its members nevertheless also joined the strike. The strike lasted for 10 days, and was almost wholly effective; it ended when the Government procured a compromise settlement more favorable to the men than the award of the Board.

In 1934 also the machinery failed to work satisfactorily. In that year the companies sought wage reductions; the membership of the Board divided evenly, and the neutral chairman announced an award providing for certain reductions, but much less than that for which the companies had asked. The companies were dissatisfied with the award, though ready to accept it; the three unions rejected it in toto. The companies then, by notice, terminated the whole conciliation procedure (the Act of 1921 permitting either side so to do), and entered into negotiations with the unions for a new set-up, which was established by agreement, and without statutory sanction, in 1935. Since that time Government spokesmen as well as representatives of the workers and employers, have indicated their satisfaction at the functioning of this voluntary machinery.

The initiative thus taken by the carriers was significant, for whereas the Act of 1921 made any strike illegal until all the procedural steps for conciliation had been taken, the 1935 agreement rested entirely on mutual good faith. It contained the customary clause that no stoppages should occur till the procedural steps had been taken, but, as we have already noted, such clauses, like the other clauses of collective agreements, are not legally binding under English law, and there is no legal redress for their breach. The new machinery has worked successfully, and one of the railway representatives observed to us that the workers feel more bound to carry out their own agreements than to abide by an act of Parliament.

The new machinery carried over, with minor modifications, the previous set-up of local departmental committees, and of joint sectional councils (not more than five councils for each road). The national agencies, however, were completely revamped, and, as has been mentioned, the procedure for handling different types of matters was very carefully classified according to their nature and importance, originating and terminating at different stages. In fact, nine differ

ent categories of questions, and the steps to be taken with respect to each, have been defined; no two begin and end at precisely the same rungs of the procedural ladder.

The procedures and principles of the new machinery can be understood if the handling of three types of disputes is traced below: (1) "minor issues" concerning local issues and disputes, (2) general interpretations of national agreements, and (3) the negotiation of changes in the national agreements.

"Minor issues" (questions purely local or exceptional in character, or concerning the application of a national agreement to one employee, or to a small number, and not involving any issue of principle) are (1) taken up by the individual or individuals concerned with the management. (2) Failing settlement there, they are referred to the appropriate joint sectional council. (3) If still unsettled they are taken up directly by the national union officials with the company executives. The agreement provides that they "should not ordinarily be carried" beyond this stage. If sufficiently serious, however, they may be taken up (4) at a joint meeting of officials of the three national unions and the Railway Staff Conference (a body consisting of the chief staff officers of the four roads). In this final stage, if it is invoked, outside viewpoint coming from officials of those unions and railways not themselves directly concerned with the controversy, are brought to bear upon the questions at issue—a characteristic of all the conciliation arrangements which we examined into in Great Britain. The agreement provides that the dispute "shall not in any event be carried" beyond this final and exceptional stage.

Questions of "interpretation of a national agreement as to standard salaries, wages, hours of duty, and other standard conditions of service" begin at stage (3), discussion between the national union officials and the executives of the company. They may go on to (4) joint meeting of officials of the three unions and the four roads. Failing settlement there, two further steps are provided as follows: (5) The question may be referred to the Railway Staff National Council, a standing body of 16, composed of 8 railway officials (two appointed by each of the companies) and 8 union representatives (four appointed by the National Union of Railwaymen, and two by each of the other unions). The final stage brings in, for the first time, a person not directly concerned in the issue, for the question may be referred, by consent of the unions and the companies concerned, to the chairman of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, a body which will presently be described. If such a reference is made, the Railway Staff National Council prepares the terms of reference with a precise description of the issue, and arranges for written statements by both sides (which are exchanged before the reference) containing all the material facts of the case and all documents relied on. On issues of the interpretation of existing agreements by the chairman, it is customary for both sides to agree in advance to be bound by the award.

The Railway Staff National Tribunal is unique in character. It is composed of three members, one selected by the companies from a panel previously nominated by them, who serves until the particular issues referred have been decided, and who is not officially connected with any of the railway companies; one similarly selected by the

unions and similarly serving, who is not a member or official of any of the unions; and a chairman to be appointed for a specified period, or for the hearing of particular issues, by agreement between the railway companies and the unions, or failing agreement by the Minister of Labor after consultation with the parties. The chairman, from the beginning, has been Sir Arthur Salter.

"Proposals to vary a national agreement," like questions of interpretation, begin at stage (3), and follow the same procedure thereafter, with one exception. They may not only be referred by consent to the chairman of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, but, if the Railway Staff National Council (in the preceding stage) agrees that the proposals are of "major importance," they go as of right, failing settlement by the council, to the full Railway Staff National Tribunal. In hearings before the three-man tribunal, or its chairman alone, each side may appoint an "assessor" to assist the tribunal or its chairman on technical questions. The assessors have no vote but their expert and representative character frequently is used by the members of the tribunal in appraising the effect of any award they may be considering. The decisions state the nature of the case, the substance of the opposing arguments, the award and the reasons for the award. The decisions are not binding, but in all cases have been complied with; and thus far all the decisions by the full tribunal have been

unanimous.

The decisions are printed, together with a verbatim transcript of the proceedings and all exhibits; minutes of the meetings of sectional councils, of Railway Staff Conference meetings with the unions, and of the Railway Staff National Council, are similarly printed; and even in the case of local departmental committee meetings (whose functions will be described) at a single station or depot, typewritten minutes are kept and are available for the unions and railways concerned. Moreover, printed pamphlets describing in detail the various conciliation arrangements are distributed to all the employees of the roads, so that they may know exactly what their rights and obligations are. The expense of maintaining all this machinery is divided equally between the companies and the unions.

Thus far we have described the procedure followed in the case of three different categories of questions. We have seen that consideration of the first of these (minor issues) ordinarily terminates with the national union and the railway concerned, but in exceptional cases may be taken up at a joint meeting of the officials of the national unions and the Railway Staff Conference; it can go no further. Consideration of the second (interpretations) terminates with the joint Railway Staff National Council, unless by consent it is referred by the council to the chairman of the national tribunal. Consideration of the third (proposals to vary an agreement) likewise terminates with the council unless it involves "major issues" (or unless by agreement it is referred to the chairman of the national tribunal). The full tribunal deals only with "major issues"; and the chairman acting alone deals only with "major issues" if referred to him, with questions of interpretation if referred to him, and, in exceptional cases with two other categories of questions not heretofore mentioned, namely "issues of principle arising out of minor issues," and so-called "medium issues."

These arrangements are not easy to describe, or to follow; and three other categories of questions, with their separate procedures, have not even been mentioned; but the general principles underlying the whole scheme are simple and clear. The dominating principle is that, whenever possible, issues should be settled directly by negotiation, and at the earliest practical stage in the procedure; as one of the railway representatives put it, the carriers and the unions alike very greatly prefer to adjust their own matters themselves than to refer them to an outside agency, even to an agency created and shaped by their own agreement. Hence the restrictions, in some instances absolute, in others qualified, which the agreement places upon carrying certain matters beyond a fixed stage in the procedure. The unions and the carriers have thus deliberately put limits on their own right of appeal from particular impasses in order to underline the importance of arriving at settlements without outside aid or advice. At the same time they have sought to guard against the emergence of strike situations, which neither side desires, by recognizing that certain impasses are inherently more likely to result in trouble than others, and by providing in substance that the more potentially serious the nature of an impasse the more should objective judgment be brought to bear on it even, in those few matters which vitally concern all the roads, the judgment of outsiders. In creating an outside agency to deal, if necessity dictates, with these few vital matters, the unions and the carriers aimed at setting up a tribunal the authority of whose nonbinding decisions would be as great as possible; and with this objective in mind they provided, as pointed out above, that two of the three members should be directly selected by each side and the third by agreement, or by the Minister of Labor after consulting both sides, and that all three should be unconnected with the roads or the unions and therefore more likely to reach unanimous decisions. Finally, they concluded that it was better to embody all these objectives in a collective agreement, capable of ready change in the light of experience, and resting on good faith, than in an act of Parliament less flexible in form and resting on legal prescriptions.

The local departmental committees, which have been mentioned, play no part in the handling of grievances, disputes, or negotiations. But they are not unimportant. At each station or depot where the number of regular employees is 75 or more (there are special provisions for smaller stations which need not be considered) a local departmental committee may be established, consisting of not more than four employees and not more than four railway representatives. The employees are elected by ballot and serve for a year; we were told that in practice the nominees of the unions are invariably elected. The objective of these committees, in the language of the agreement, is "to provide a recognized means of communication between the employees and the local officials of the railway company, and to give the employees a wider interest in their work and the conditions under which it is performed, with a view to the maintenance, development, and economical working of the railway company's business." The function of each committee is to consider suggestions regarding such matters as arrangement of working hours, holiday arrangements, safety appliances, first aid, staff accommodations, labor-saving