How Unions Were Helped Through the Railway Labor Act of 1926

1926 Railway Act & Aviation Legislation

The reasons that Congress passed the 1926 Railway Act go well beyond just labor disputes in the railway industry. This paper covers those issues and also delves into how the airline industry became part of the Act.

The 1926 Railway Act -- Background

The Act became law in 1926 because there was a need to keep "…the American economy flowing without the disruption of railway labor disputes" (Bank, 2006). But the Act also related to protecting the rights of railway employees to join a union if they wish to. In fact the Act has proven to be "…one of the most crucial laws passed" in America's economic history, Bank writes on page 1. At the crux of the matter was the unionization of railway workers, but the Act became a model for other industries where union activities were taking place.

In the book Airline Labor Law: The Railway Labor Act and Aviation After Deregulation, author William E. Thoms, law professor at the University of North Dakota, writes that the Act was passed ten years before the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Railway Labor Act reflected a "pioneer federal attempt to secure the peaceful settlement…" of disputes between employers and employees (Thoms, 1990). In the recent past (before 1926) there had been strikes and lockouts, and other "disruptive forms of self-help," Thoms writes, and because the railways were "far and away the primary carriers of goods and passengers," it was vital to deal with those workers' issues. Interstate commerce would be (and was) impacted negatively where there were work stoppages, or violence in connection with workers' attempts to join unions (Thoms, 4).

As background into the labor issues Thoms explains that Congress believed the main reason for disruptive strikes was the "failure" of workers and management to agree on contracts that were "fair to labor and management alike" (4). And the courts, according to Thoms, were not prepared in the sense of expert knowledge of these labor dynamics to help parties come to reasonable settlements. Hence, the Railway Act establishes what rights the workers had (in terms of being able to organize and join unions), and what rights of management. Also, Thoms continues, the Act provided details on precisely what "administrative machinery" was to be put in place to help with the selection of representatives that will be part of the bargaining procedures.

The basic bottom line of the Act can be broken down into four components: a) to try and avoid "interruption to commerce"; b) to make it legal for employees to be free if they wish to join a labor union; c) to provide "complete independence of organizations by both parties to carry out the purposes of the RLA; and d) to provide a way for the settlement of disputes whether they be minor or major disputes (Thoms, 5).

The operative word in the Act is "collective bargaining"; and for minor disputes within the context of collective bargaining the Act strikes were illegal; for minor disputes the Act calls for mediation under the National Railroad Adjustment Board. For major disputes, the Act created the National Mediation Board (NMB), an independent agency appointed by the President of the United States.

Airlines and the Railway Labor Act

There were of course trains well before there were airline companies, but after Charles Lindbergh flew his transatlantic trek to Europe a great deal more interest was focused on the potential for commercial airline transportation. In fact the very first scheduled airline service was launched in 1919 (Tampa-St. Petersburg Airline), and it was clear that air travel would become a big part of transportation in America, and that it needed to be regulated by the federal government (Thoms, 7).

In terms of regulating the airlines, first there was the Air Mail Act of 1925, which allowed the U.S. Postmaster General to give contracts to airlines that were delivering mail in the United States. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 "vested jurisdiction over safety and maintenance of airways and navigation facilities" to the Department of Commerce (Thoms, 7). In 1938 the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created and given regulation authority over the airlines. But two years before the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created, Congress (in 1936) extended the exact "provisions of the Railway Labor Act" to also provide coverage for workers involved in the airline business (Thoms, 9).

And so after ten years of success with the Railway Labor Act (vis-a-vis railroad companies, unions and workers), Congress figured out that workers in the airline industry also needed federal protection through statutes that allowed collective bargaining for those situations when union organizing was taking place. In fact, Thoms notes that "…many of the same unions active in the railroad industry…" got involved organizing airline employees (10). The great need for legislative and executive authority to keep commerce moving throughout the United States was even more pronounced during the Great Depression. Among the many industries that were vital to the economic dynamics in the U.S. was of course transportation, Thoms continues on page 8.

In 1934 the Black-McKellar Act established what needed to be set up in order to regulate airlines (not to just allow fairness during labor disputes) -- The Federal Aviation Commission. There were two "fundamental ingredients" in that legislation, Thoms writes. One, there were "certain minimum standards of "equipment, operating methods, and personal qualifications" that had to be met. And two, when any "irresponsible, unfair, or excessive competition" emerged in the airline industry, the Black-McKellar Act would come into play.

Congressman Randolph had no problem with open and fair competition, but he asserted that "unbridled and unregulated competition is a public menace"; he was alluding to "rate wars and cutthroat devices" as detrimental to the public, hence, the need for regulation (Thoms, 8-9).

How was a "carrier" defined by the courts? In the litigation BULLOCK V. CAPITAL AIRWAYS (1959) a district judge (Zavatt) ruled that the following should be considered "carriers":

"…every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service…" (Thoms, 10).