Floyd Mason

International Vice President

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

2511 Smith Harbour

Denver, NC 28037
704-483-1655
Fmason486@aol.com

Coalition Bargaining:
A Successful Bargaining Strategy for Rail Labor

LERA 2010 Proceedings

Appendices 0 - 12
The Bargaining Issues

The NCCC, under cover dated November 1, 2004, from Robert F. Allen

Chairman, served Section 6 Notices upon all RLBC members including BRS. The

NCCC indicated that its bargaining authority included a list of carriers listed in

Attachment A, attached to the letter. The Attachment A interestingly expressed that its

authority to represent the EJ&Ei was limited to certain issues. This Appendix A is typical

of the NCCC’s expression of bargaining authority over its members that choose to

participate. This document and others like it acknowledge that each railroad carrier may

elect or not to participate in national handling and may choose which issues will be

addressed in that forum (Appendix 1 p. 4).

The substance of the Notice proposed elimination of any restriction to contract out

work, to establish a process to “enable a railroad to exit specified types of work . . .

within the scope of the parties agreement, eliminate provisions related to seniority, and

eliminate restriction on work schedules or rest days. The Notice further asked that the

parties develop a joint legislative proposal to replace existing federal law governing

liability for injured or killed employeesii and further proposed absent a successful

legislative effort, the cost of any liability for at fault accidents would be transferred to the

bargaining unit employees. The Carriers sought an amendment to the RLA that would

create a requirement that no strike may take place without a ten day notice, and it also

proposed that the parties agree to a suspension of all CBA rules in the event of a strike.

The carriers’ proposal was for BRS and other rail union members to pay 1/3 of the cost of

benefits including Health and Welfare, and called for a joint effort to decrease all benefits
to reduce costs further. Finally, they proposed to substitute Martin Luther King’s

Birthday for President’s Day (Appendix 1 p. 9).

The BRS after having concluded its agreement to join the RLBC worked with

RLBC members and our hired spokesman, Roland Wilder, to amend existing Section 6

notices into a coordinated RLBC Section 6. The RLBC proposals sought positive

increase in wages, skill/equity/shift differentials, COLA,iii matching contributions to

401(k)s, long term disability, holiday and vacation improvements, changes to leave and

to the off-track vehicle agreements and provisions to protect workers in sales, leases and

abandonment. The proposal contained an extensive list of H&W changes, many intended

to reduce costs.

The RLBC met on 2 occasions with the NCCC on January 24 and March 10 to 12,

2005. On March 16, 2005, the NCCC took the unprecedented step to apply for

Mediation before even hearing the proposal advanced by RLBC member unions

including BRS. The January meeting consisted of questions about the RLBC and its

member unions’ decision to form a coalition. Faced with the NCCC setting the agenda,

dates and location for bargaining the RLBC on March 10, 2008, insisted that “ground

rules” be established to “defuse process issues that had proven troublesome during the

past bargaining round” (RLBC Response to NMB). These issues included the handling

of local issues locally, at a local table of involved parties, concurrent with handling of

national issues at the national table. The NCCC response was that it had no interest in

any proposal advanced by RLBC and within days of the shortened meeting filed for

mediation.
 The parties met again on May 19, 2005, after the NCCC withdrew its request for

mediation. Craft specific issues were discussed with the BLE on May 18, 2005 and craft

specific issues were discussed with the BMWE May 20, 2005. On June 9, 2005, the

NCCC again filed for Mediation, again, an unprecedented move by Carriers. Meetings

were held under the direction of the NMB in June, July, September and November 2005.

Craft specific issues were addressed with BRS on November 15, 2005. The parties met

one more time in December 2005, before establishing a meeting February 7 an 8 in

Miami, Florida. Through this December 2005 meeting, there was no progress on any

issue. On February 8, 2007, the NCCC advanced a 4-page proposal outlining design

changes to reduce the benefits and cost of the Health and Welfare Plan. On February 7,

2006, President Pickett introduced BRS local issues, and the author coordinated and

assisted with the presentation by seven General Chairmeniv, representing their respective

General Committees. There were hours of testimony and 41 pages of specific local

bargaining proposalsv were presented the first day. On February 8, 2008, the

presentations continued, later turning presentation over to George Jones, BRS

International Vice President, who coordinated presentations by the Union Pacific General

Committee and the Burlington Northern General Committeevi.

A Local BMWE Issue

It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the myriad of local and craft

specific issues that were involved with the 2004 bargaining round for all seven rail unions

that were members of the RLBC, but there is one issue that is touched upon as an

example of a non-BRS local issue. The issue has to do with the BMWE proposal to

abolish camp carsvii. The senior negotiator for BMWE was Steve Powers, who handles
arbitration and his work was coordinated with IBT Communication Director, David

Cameron. The BMWE presented the document titled “Abolish Norfolk Southern Camp

Cars Now.” The flyer and a video presentation made the graphic case that a “typical

cell” at a high security prison contained 84 square feet per person, while a typical Norfolk

Southern Camp Car contained 50 square feet per person. The flyer and the video

documented in graphic detail conditions that required 8 men to live in a single railroad

car with an outdoor toilet. The video displayed the waste and sludge that surrounded the

cars and made a point that not only supported the BMWE case, but also embarrassed the

representatives of all participating carriers, with the possible exception of Norfolk

Southern. The Author heard a railroad official say that he did not want to see that

material presented at a Presidential Emergency Board Hearing.

The professional presentation of the material by Steve Powers and Dave Cameron

made the case vividly. The structure of the coalition ensured that the Carriers viewed the

presentation. The 2004 round brought camp cars for BMWE members on Norfolk

Southern into focus. Both parties acknowledged this issue as a Local Issue for BMWE

and NSR to resolve.

i
Elgin Joliet and Eastern Railway Company contained the following footnote: “Wages & Rules and Health
& Welfare Only. NCCC member railroad carriers had expressed the right to withhold certain bargaining
authority.
ii
The Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) is the federal law that covers on-the job injuries for rail
employees.
iii
Cost of Living Adjustments
iv
Presenting for Eastern Railroads with F. Mason were: Eldon Luttrell, Gus DeMott, Bill Wilson, Bill
Duncan, Mike Baldwin, Charley Green
v
The 7 General Chairmen were Gus DeMott, Southeast General Committee, Eldon Luttrell, United General
Committee, Bill Duncan, Northeast General Committee, Bill Wilson, L&N General Committee and
presenting for Monon General Committee, Mike Baldwin, RF&P General Committee, Chuck Cleghorn,
B&OCT General Committee, Charley Green, B&O General Committee.
vi
Presenting for Eastern Railroads with G. Jones were Grover Pankey UP GC and Mike Dake BNSF GC.
vii
Camp cars are railroad cars that are parked in a siding and used for temporary lodging for Maintenance
of Way Employees. The use of camp cars were discontinued for many crafts in the 1970’s and at the
beginning of the 2004 round only BMWE represented employees on Norfolk Southern were subject to
away from home lodging in camp cars.
 East Report
FEBRUARY 2006 FLOYD MASON, BRS VICE PRESIDENT

Rail analysts are

viewing 2005’s record

breaking financial

results as a

“beginning of a new

renaissance ”

NCCC must now bargain

with RLBC

• BRS Presentations

featured in
- Photos by David White IBT Communications RLBC Spokesman Roland Wilder, front row 3rd
from left, BRS President Dan Pickett, back row 2nd from right, BRS Vice President Floyd Mason back row 5th from
mediation right, BRS IST Walt Barrows back row 5th from left, RLBC Chairman, George Francisco, back row 1st on left -- in
NCCC Caucus room 1-31-06.
• BRS hammers

NCCC with BRS and RLBC Turn National Bargaining Around

At the end of 2005 the NCCC that bargains for all US railroads in “national handling,” had planned
proposals to that bargaining would end in February 2006. The rail carriers had asked the NMB for a release
from mediation December 14, 2005. Speculation was that the NCCC had hoped to bring
benefit employees
bargaining to an end in time for a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) to make recommendations
• NCCC withdrew its before the mid-term elections this coming November. Any plans to end bargaining on such short
notice, in manner so favorable to the railroads, ended February 13, 2006, when NCCC withdrew
request for its request for mediation.

mediation 2-13-06

Left - Bob Allen NCCC

Chairman, center of photo; Mark MacMahon to his left; Carlton Everett in back; NCCC meeting
Room 1-31-06 -- Right - Allen and MacMahon during BRS presentation, Lisa Mancini in
background
 The NCCC had acknowledged before National Mediation Board (NMB) mediator Terry Brown, on
February 8, 2006. that it would withdraw its request. The acknowledgement came after two
sessions of BRS and other Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) members hammering the NCCC
with proposals that would benefit rail employees. Through December 2005 NCCC proposed
Subscribe by sending an e- settlement only on terms that would require employees to pay 1/3 of the cost of health care
insurance and ½ of all future increases, lump sum payments in lieu of wage increases that were
mail message to
tied to internal railroad performance figures, and work rule changes that would erase much of the
Fmason486@aol.com gain made by rail labor in the last fifty years.

with the word The two sessions were held in Washington, DC beginning on January 31, and in Miami, FL
subscribe in the beginning February 7, 2006. BRS presentations about local work rules were featured in both
sessions. Other topics discussed in the sessions included BMWET proposals/responses related to
subject line work rules; RLBC engaged NCCC on issues related to H&W.

Left - BRS Vice President Floyd

Mason during presentation of NSR Local Issues in mediation 1-31-06; General Chairman Carlton
Everett to right. Right, NMB Mediator Terry Brown

Following comments by RLBC spokesman Roland Wilder Jr. and BRS President W. Dan Pickett,
BRS Vice President Floyd Mason led discussion of Norfolk Southern work rules on January 31,
2006. The panel representing Norfolk Southern members included Floyd Mason, Eldon Luttrell,
General Chairman ERN, Kurt Mullins, General Chairman N&W, Carlton Everett, General Chairman
SJGC.

Left - BRS General Chairman Eldon Luttrell presenting the ERN Proposal Right - NSGC General
Mason noted that Chairman Kurt Mullins preparing to address N&W issues.
record profits
The BRS presentation proposed that subcontracting not be a consideration when an adequate
enjoyed by the workforce to perform reserved work is not available. BRS responses included a requirement to fill
vacant positions, to have vacation relief personnel and to fill positions vacated by sickness and
national rail carriers discipline.

were the result of The NSR proposals were prefaced by a requirement to remove the subcontracting rule from the
Southern Agreement. Disagreement over this rule and the November 1, 2003 Agreement led to a
the professionalism
system wide strike on NSR June 16, 2005. The point was made that there are more than 18
and expertise of the collective bargaining agreements in national handling and not one other than the Southern has a
subcontracting clause, and nowhere else was there a BRS strike.
rail employees.
CSX and UP present Local Issues in Miami
Following the mediation session in Washington the BRS with the RLBC met again with the NCCC in
mediation in Miami, FL. This session again featured BRS presentations, the first of which was by
the CSX General Committees. Presenting for BRS members on CSX with Vice President Floyd
Mason were: Charlie Green, B&O General Chairman, Gus DeMott, SE General Committee
Chairman, Mike Baldwin, RF&P Committee Chairman, Bill Duncan NE General Committee
Chairman, Bill Wilson L&N General Committee Chairman and Eldon Luttrell United General
Committee Chairman.

2
 BRS Vice President Floyd Mason, who led the BRS response for CSX, made the point that issues
that involved subcontracting on CSX before this round of bargaining, were resolved locally by the
general committees. He also noted that the record profits enjoyed by the national rail carriers
were the result of the professionalism and expertise of the rail employees.

Presentations on behalf of the general committees began with Charlie Green from the B&O. He
reviewed a proposal that reduced the work day at the current daily rate of pay and a series of
proposals to enhance the financial and quality of work life for Signalmen covered by the B&O
Agreement.

DeMott presented

evidence to show

that the number of

maintenance

positions left vacant

Chairman Gus DeMott at mediation session February 7, 2006, in Miami,
was increasing at
FL. BRS Vice President Joe Mattingly in background – Photo by F Mason
an alarming rate
Gus DeMott presented a 22 page proposal that responded to each proposal made by NCCC and
proposed a series of improvements for the lives of signalmen including expense reimbursement
for maintenance employees that are required to relocate to perform railroad service. DeMott
noted that effort continued locally to merge two CBAs, the SCL and the A&WP, but expressed
concern that NCCC proposals threatened to undermine the work that BRS and CSXT had
accomplished locally. DeMott presented evidence to show that the number of maintenance
positions left vacant was increasing at an alarming rate.

Following the presentations made by each Committee Chairman, Bill Duncan presented proposals
that affected the Belt, the IHB and the EJ&E.

The following day, February 8, 2006, the UP General Committee and BRS Vice President George
Jones responded on behalf of the UP General Committee.

My office will continue to work with the Committees, the BRS and the RLBC to find new ways to
advocate for Signalmen. All of us have one thing in common, even if we tire from time to time --
we love to wage the fight because we know the interest of our craft and of our movement is right.
Together, Signalmen will continue to make a difference for the benefit of all rail employees.

Fraternally,

Floyd Mason, BRS Vice President East

A message from the IBT to the rail labor leaders in national

handling
Rail Leaders;

Attached is a Class I US Railroads: Financial and Operating Update for 2005, which was prepared this
week by Michael Conyngham, Assoc. Director of the IBT Economics and Contracts Department.

This was used today to good effect in RLBC contact negotiations.

When Bob Allen, lead negotiator for the NCCC, told the RLBC that the carriers were looking for relief
from "onerous" union work rules, Roland listed the spectacular profits of each of the carriers this past
year and George Francisco followed with the observation that apparently those work rules didn't interfere
with rail carriers ability to achieve record profits. As Dan Pickett's BRS negotiating team pointed out,
management didn't do it; it was achieved through the professionalism and expertise of the union
workforce.

David Cameron
Senior Strategic Campaign Specialist
Analysis will be sent by separate message or by request to Fmason486@aol.com

3
 Note: The RLBC is a coalition of the Engineers {(BLET), the Maintenance of Way (BMWED)
both affiliated with the Teamsters} the Signalmen {(BRS), Sheet Metel Workers (SMWIA),
Boilermakers and Balcksmiths (IBB) Train Dispatchers (ATDA) all affiliated with the AFL-
CIO} and the Firemen and Oilers (NCFO) affiliated with the SEIU. The RLBC is the largest
group of members in national handling making up more than 50% of rail labor. Other
groups in national handling include the Trainmen (UTU), the Clerks and Carmen (TCU) and
the Electricians (IBEW).

Congress, Cooperation and other Issues affecting National Bargaining

The desire of Bob Allen

and the NCCC to say The spokesman for the RLBC, R.P. Wilder wrote to the NMB December 28, 2005, taking
exception to the national carriers request to be released from bargaining obligations
one thing to UTU and (presumably clearing the way for a PEB appointed by George Bush during the term of this
current Congress). Wilder noted that there had been no real discussion of the RLBC’s wage
another to BLE about Notice, and that the carriers through, its coalition the NCCC, had refused to discuss any
alternative to the NCCC H&W proposals. The NCCC H&W Welfare proposals shift a large
the same issue, while portion (initially 1/3) of the cost of health care from the railroads to the employees.

expecting UTU and

The letter went on to note that NCCC had objected to ground rules that established things
BLE not to talk to such as participation by both sides in meeting location and further noted that the NCCC had
requested to be released from its obligation to bargain even before meeting ground rules
each other is just were established.

plain wrong. The RLBC noted that the BRS was in the process of developing comprehensive proposals
and responses on work rules. Those proposals are the subject of the previous article.

Wilder argued the NCCC was attempting to avoid its obligation to bargain favoring instead
to seek the help of a friendly administration and Congress to intervene in
Labor/Management bargaining. And, this at a time when railroads are making more money
than at any time in recent history.

Wilder wrote to NMB with The letter closed with the subtle warning that the TWU MTA strike in New York illustrates
that transportation disruptions are not necessarily avoided by prohibitions of the right to
a subtle warning that the strike.

TWU MTA strike in New

York illustrates that
transportation
disruptions are not
necessarily avoided by
prohibitions of the right
Included in the letter was correspondence dated December 16, 2005, from House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Democratic
Member Jim Oberstar raising serious concerns about the nation’s carriers motives in this
round of bargaining, particularly with respect to reducing employees that are needed for
safe operation of railroads. Oberstar made it clear that neither party should expect the
Congress to involve itself in the bargaining process or to takes steps that would adversely
affect the safety of the nation’s railroads. The campaign by rail labor also influenced two
key Republican leaders in Congress, who issued stern warnings to the carriers not to seek
the assistance of Congress in imposing a forced contract on Rail Labor through a
Presidential Emergency Board.

to strike.

Bob Allen and the NCCC

have done more to

unite rail labor in this

round of bargaining

than has been

accomplished in

years of meetings

involving rail labor

4
 Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), Chairman of the House Transportation &
Infrastructure Committee, issued his warning on January 23. Representative Steven
LaTourette (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, issued his warning
on February 6.

"Congressional intervention in any transportation labor dispute should always be a very last
resort," Rep. Young wrote. "My additional concern is that we may be headed for conflict
among the branches of government. I therefore recommend that the Board carefully
consider whether it would be prudent to release the parties from mediation before the
The strength gained from
courts have resolved the pending litigation."
the cooperation of rail
Rep. LaTourette echoed Rep. Young's warning: "Congressional intervention is neither
labor has forced the assured nor guaranteed for either party if resolution is left to the Congress," Rep.
LaTourette wrote. "Again, I encourage both parties to redouble their efforts to reach an
carriers back to the agreement."
bargaining table
In another development the NCCC chastised BLET President Don Haus for “violating
confidentiality.” Apparently The BLE President Haus and UTU President Paul Thompson
have started working together in this round of bargaining. It seems that communication
that was previously between Allen and Haus or Allen and Thompson are now known to Haus
and Thompson, because the union leaders are talking. “The desire of Bob Allen and the
NCCC to say one thing to the UTU and another to BLE about the same issue, while
expecting UTU and BLE not to talk to each other, is just plain wrong”, said BRS Vice
President Floyd Mason. “That BLE and UTU are working together is the best news I’ve
This combination of
heard for a while. I’m just surprised that we heard it from the Chairman of the NCCC.”
factors in this
This development bringing past rival unions together, working toward the same goals, is an
most profitable important change in the dynamics that affect the bargaining between rail labor and
management. As members of the BRS negotiating team have said to each other, “Bob
time for railroads, Allen and the NCCC have done more to unite rail labor in this round of bargaining than has
been accomplished in years of meetings involving rail labor.
has effectively
As a show of good faith during the current campaign, the UTU has withdrawn its request for
halted the railroad a single-craft representation election at the Union Pacific Railroad while the BLET has
pledged to refrain from conducting organizing drives at UTU-represented properties.
industry grab for

employees’ The strength gained from the cooperation of rail labor has forced the carriers back to the
bargaining table. For now Congress has warned the carriers not to bring its problems to
money, at least for them, as they have enough of their own. And BRS has responded to each of the
concessionary demands made by the railroads with proposals that would strengthen the
now. position of labor before addressing the desires of the railroads. This combination of factors
in this most profitable time for railroads has effectively halted the railroad industry grab for
employees’ money, at least for now.###

Tell Congress what you think. You can contact your representative through the following link: http://www.house.gov or contact
those cited in the articles:

Congressman Oberstar: http://www.oberstar.house.gov//

Congressman Young: http://donyoung.house.gov/ Congressman LaTourette: http://www.house.gov/latourette

5
Resolution of the Bargaining Issues

The principles of the resolution were documented in a summary dated February

28, 2007. A formal tentative agreement was reached February 28, 2007, following two

meetings, one in September 2006, and one in October 2006. The Agreement was taken

by each of the 7 RLBC unions back to its respective membership following RLBC

approval. The BRS tentative agreement went out on May 16, 2007, following several

some weeks of discussions and technical amendments (Appendix 9).

The terms reached were favorable to BRS and other RLBC unions. This is

especially so when it is considered that it was accomplished during what was considered

an unfavorable environment for rail labor with President George W. Bush in the White

House and a majority of the three member National Mediation Board Bush appointed.

The process started with the NCCC filing Section 6 Notices, arguing about the unions’

choice to join a coalition, an abrupt end to discussions, two filings for mediation, one

withdrawal from mediation, one lawsuit against just the BRS, and an answer to our

counterclaim. The lawsuits appear in hindsight to have been frivolous, or at least without

merit; no declaration or injunction was forthcoming from the Court for BRS or RLBC

effort to bargain local issues on a less than cross-craft or single craft basis. Mediation

conducted by Mediator Terry Brown, despite a hostile NMB, pushed the parties to meet,

and the structure of the unions in coalition contributed to the avoidance of the usual

railroad dominated bargaining process.

The BRS terms contained general wage increases totaling 16.5% over the five

year term, with retroactive pay increases to July 1, 2005. The Health and Welfare -

Managed Care Program - considered superior to the Comprehensive Health Care Plan,
was expanded to any area where a current vendor has a network; co-payments for office

visits and prescription drugs were increased, as were terms related to health care cost

sharing. Importantly, health care cost sharing was renegotiated to equal 15% of the

Carriers monthly payment rate, as opposed to a previously used calculation that resulted

in a growing percentage when compared with the monthly payment rates. The prior

process established cost sharing through offsets from post-moratorium cost-of –living

adjustments called the Harris COLAi. The straight 15% of the monthly payment rate

agreed to the 2004 round, and the ability to bargain for full retroactive pay increases for

periods between the expiration of the moratorium and the reaching of a new agreement

going forward provided an incentive for RLBC members to eliminate the Harris COLA

provision. Future wage increases both during the future term and over any retroactive

period that bargaining commenced will now be subject to the bargaining of the parties as

opposed to a cumbersome and less beneficial fixed COLA between Agreements.

Needed improvements were reached to improve the Off-Track Vehicle

Agreements that provides compensation for employees injured in a vehicle accident that

are otherwise not covered under railroad injury compensation law. Most importantly, the

concessionary work rule changes to subcontract work, change starting times, rest days,

and to undermine legislative benefits provided rail employees injured or killed on the job,

were avoided. Side Letter Number 9 agreed that the parties shall jointly move to dismiss

all claims and counterclaims pending before the Court with respect to the local verses

national handling lawsuit. The BRS did not gain on local work rules, but neither did it

lose, as was clearly intended by NCCC proposals to outsource and eliminate work. The

Agreement was signed July 1, 2007.

i
The Harris COLA was named for PEB 219 Chairman Robert Harris who established a COLA that was in
concept ½ of the cost of living with a cap. The Harris COLA would go into effect at the expiration of the
moratorium and was intended as an incentive to get rail carriers to the bargaining table, but not to
encourage labor unions to delay bargaining, and to avoid the long carrier initiated delays that had occurred
in past bargaining rounds. The Harris COLA was later offset by H&W contributions by up to ½ of the
COLA amount. The BRS and a majority of RLBC member unions agreed to discontinue this Harris COLA
on the basis that H&W cost sharing was rising as a percentage of the carrier monthly payment rate. Under
the previous plan Harris COLA was typically used to offset or serve in lieu of wage increases in the
protracted delays typical in the bargaining process.
Methodology

The base for the information gathering for this paper is the records of the

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) and the seven-member coalition of which

BRS was a part. The Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) is a formal bargaining

coalition that was made up of seven of the twelve rail labor organizations that make up

what is termed collectively as Rail Labor. This paper focuses on the RLBC and the

challenges faced in the bargaining round that concluded in 2007 for RLBC member

unions. The author is a BRS member and served as a senior negotiator for the BRS

national negotiation committee and as a member and strategist in the RLBC. The author

has worked beginning in the round that ended in 1991, in research, support, document

development, witness preparation, a senior bargaining representative, presenter and

coordinator in the various rounds and in the variety of processes used to reach agreement

in what is termed in the rail industry as national handling, . As such, access was

available to the bargaining representatives of the RLBC through collaborative experience.

Factual bargaining records, for example Section 6 Noticesi and Collective Bargaining

Agreements, were drawn from the records of the BRS or the RLBC. Additional support

was obtained from legal counsel for the various organizations and for the RLBC.

The period under study was researched at the George Meany Memorial Archives

(GMMA) paying attention to the records associated with the collective bargaining

environment, and economic changes in collective bargaining contracts. Some context for

this work was obtained through research of records contained within the federal

government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and within the public records contained at the

federal agency that oversees national rail bargaining, the National Mediation Board. The
over seventeen years of national bargaining experience in the rail industry of the author

further contributed to the development of the material utilized in the analysis section of

this paper.

i
A Section 6 Notice is the instrument that formally starts the bargaining process in the railroad industry
under the terms of the Railway Labor Act.