INSIGHTi

Rail Labor Dispute May Involve President
and Congress
July 11, 2022
President Biden has until July 18 to create an Emergency Board to resolve a labor dispute affecting six
major railroads and many smaller ones. Depending on what actions the President or Congress take, and
the bargaining between railroads and 12 unions, the dispute could lead to a work stoppage later this
summer.
Negotiations have occurred against a backdrop of declining railroad employment, a trend that began well
in advance of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Since November 2018, railroad
employment has shrunk by some 40,000 jobs, or by over 20%, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Some of these job losses can be attributed to the decline in the transportation of coal, while
others may have been due to new approaches to staffing and asset use within the rail industry.
After more than two years of bargaining, the unions requested the assistance of the National Mediation
Board (NMB)—a federal agency responsible for facilitating labor negotiations in the railroad and airline
industries—in January 2022. On June 17, the NMB announced that both sides would exit mediation
without a new contract in place. Since then, the parties have been in a federally mandated “cooling-off”
period during which no action may be taken that would result in a work stoppage. This cooling-off period
expires after 30 days, after which the railroad companies could begin a lockout or unions could go on
strike if no other action is taken.
Overview of Rail Labor Law
Labor disputes in the railway and airline industries are governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). If a
dispute is not settled through RLA-prescribed negotiation, mediation, or arbitration, and if the NMB
determines that the dispute “threatens substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to
deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service,” the law authorizes the President to
establish an Emergency Board to investigate and issue a report. The Presidential Emergency Board’s
recommendations are not binding on the parties, and either party may reject them.
The RLA is silent as to how the NMB determines what constitutes a substantial threat to interstate
commerce, though in the past the NMB has considered the effect of a strike or shutdown on the state of
the economy as a whole and the immediate economic impact on carriers, shippers, and travelers.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11966
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
Negotiation Issues
Workplace Rules and Precision Scheduled Railroading
Several of the largest railroads in North America employ a loosely defined set of industry practices
designed to maximize efficient use of railroad assets, collectively known as “precision scheduled
railroading” (PSR). Rather than adhere to regular schedules as the name suggests, these practices often
involve planning train movements so as to reduce the amount of physical assets needed (such as yards and
locomotives) to generate revenue, thereby improving an indicator of railroad performance called the
operating ratio. PSR can sometimes be accompanied by a reduction in labor demand (e.g., fewer
locomotives require fewer engineers and mechanics), but labor unions have contended that it has also
placed unrealistic workloads and duty schedules on remaining employees. Federal law limits how many
hours railroad employees can work in a shift and how closely shifts can be spaced apart, but unions are
demanding the retraction of specific workplace operating and attendance rules, in addition to wage
increases and changes to vacation and medical benefits.
The surge of freight volume and other supply chain disruptions experienced since the start of the COVID-
19 pandemic may already be prompting a retrenchment from some of the more aggressive
implementations of PSR among large railroads.
Train Crew Size
Railroads have explored the use of one-person train crews to further maximize asset utilization, while
unions and some lawmakers have sought to establish a two-person crew minimum on safety grounds. The
Federal Railroad Administration proposed a crew size rule in 2016 after several crashes but withdrew it in
2019, stating that available data “does not establish that one-person operations are less safe than multi-
person train crews.”
In the run-up to the current bargaining session, some rail unions asserted that preexisting moratorium
provisions prevented negotiations over train crew sizes. However, in response to a lawsuit filed by the rail
carriers, a federal judge ordered that the unions must engage in good-faith negotiations over train crew
size proposals put forth by rail carriers as part of a new labor agreement.
Options for Executive and Legislative Action
If the President forms an Emergency Board, it will have 30 days to investigate the facts and report to the
President with nonbinding recommendations for settlement of the dispute. During this initial 30-day
period and for 30 days after the report has been issued, the NMB continues to mediate the dispute. If no
agreement is reached by the end of this final 30-day period, whether on a contract or on an extension of
the cooling-off period, the parties may engage in work stoppages. Assuming a Presidential Emergency
Board is created at the end of the cooling-off period that began June 18, the parties could not generally
engage in strikes or lockouts until the conclusion of the investigation and cooling-off periods on
September 16. The last time a Presidential Emergency Board was created to resolve a freight railroad
labor dispute was in 2011, and while the final cooling-off period was extended several times, a new
agreement was reached in April 2012 without a strike or lockout.
On several occasions, Congress has intervened in labor disputes by enacting legislation to delay or
prohibit railway and airline strikes. For example, in 1986, Congress passed P.L. 99-385, which extended
the final cooling-off period by an additional 60 days to allow the parties to the Maine Central Railroad
dispute to continue negotiations. In 1992, Congress approved P.L. 102-306, which required Amtrak and

---

Congressional Research Service
3
Conrail to enter into arbitration with their employees in an effort to resolve various labor disputes.
Additionally, Congress has from time to time enacted legislation requiring the parties to a railroad labor
dispute to submit to another emergency board or to accept a board’s recommendations.

Author Information

Ben Goldman

Analyst in Transportation Policy




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11966 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---