Grievance Procedures under the Railway Labor Act

Abstract

Collective bargaining has two aspects: it is a method by which wages are set and it is a method by which certain rules and practices are established in order to prevent management from acting arbitrarily and to insure the security of union organizations.' In the railroad industry, as in other industries, there has developed a comprehensive system of what has been called industrial jurisprudence.2 The working rules on the railroads are concerned not only with such questions as hirings and layoffs but also with certain constructive allowances and arbitraries-the carriers refer to them as make-work rules''of a type which will be described below. An elaborate system of working rules naturally requires a procedure for the settlement of grievances arising out of the interpretation and application of the rules. Over the years there has evolved a system of adjustment boards designed for this purpose, and the Railway Labor Act, as amended, has specifically provided for the establishment of such boards.' It is generally agreed that the procedure for the settlement of grievances differs from the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement primarily in its approach.4 The grievance procedure is intended to solve problems within the framework of principles set forth within the collective bargaining agreement and on an equitable basis and not on the basis of the economic strength of either of the parties to the dispute.' An examination of grievance procedures in various industries has revealed that certain principles have generally been followed in the settlement of disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the terms of collective bargaining agreements.6 First, it is essential that all of the participants involved accept and have a complete understanding of the procedures. Second, both parties to the dispute should agree not to resort to unilateral coercion in order to obtain their ends. Third, the successful performance of any grievance procedure requires that grievances be handled promptly. Fourth, it is desirable that the number of grievances be limited so as not to overload the system. Finally, there should be fair consideration of the issues so that decisions are acceptable to both sides. These principles represent an ideal with which one might compare the performance of the adjustment * Professor Paul F. Brissenden, of Columbia University, has given me the benefit of his