INSIGHTi
Rail Labor Dispute Could Result in Work
Stoppages
Updated November 3, 2022
On August 16, 2022, a three-person Emergency Board appointed in July by President Biden issued its
recommendations to resolve a labor dispute affecting over 100,000 employees of six major railroads and
many smal er ones. The two sides reached a tentative agreement on September 15, averting a strike that
could have begun the following day, but the agreement must stil be ratified by union members.
Depending on what actions the railroads, unions, and Congress take, the dispute could lead to work
stoppages as early as November 19.
Negotiations have occurred against a backdrop of declining railroad employment, a trend that began wel
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.
Overview of Rail Labor Law
Labor disputes in the railway and airline industries are governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which
created the National Mediation Board (NMB) to facilitate negotiations. If a dispute is not settled through
RLA-prescribed negotiation, mediation, or arbitration, and if the NMB determines that the dispute
“threatens substantial y 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 current negotiations began in November 2019 between a coalition of labor unions and several
railroads. After more than two years of bargaining, the unions requested the assistance of the NMB in
January 2022. On June 17, the NMB announced that both sides would exit mediation without a new
contract in place. Since then, a Presidential Emergency Board was appointed and the parties have been in
a series of federal y mandated “cooling-off” periods during which no action may be taken that would
result in a work stoppage. The current cooling-off period wil expire if union members vote to reject a
new agreement, though it may be voluntarily extended.
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 adhering to regular schedules as the name suggests, these practices often
involve planning train movements so as to reduce the amount of physical assets (such as yards and
locomotives) needed to generate revenue, thereby improving an indicator of railroad performance cal ed
the operating ratio. PSR sometimes can be accompanied by workforce reductions, but labor unions have
contended that it also has placed unrealistic workloads and duty schedules on remaining employees.
Federal law limits how many hours railroad employees can work during 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 new crew size rule in in July 2022 after the withdrawal of an
earlier proposal was vacated by a federal court.
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. Train crew size rules are being
negotiated local y on a railroad-by-railroad basis and wil not be affected by the current labor dispute.
Positions of the Parties
Six unions (out of 12) have ratified new agreements with rail carriers. This does not include the two
largest unions, representing over 60,000 conductors and engineers, who wil hold votes in November.
Two unions have already voted to reject the tentative agreement, triggering new cooling-off periods, one
of which—affecting track maintenance workers—is set to expire on November 19. One area of contention
appears to be sick and personal leave policies, which some workers contend are not adequate to
maintaining a desired quality of life.
Options for Legislative Action
If the track maintenance union does not agree on new contract terms or an extension of the cooling-off
period by November 19, either side may engage in work stoppages. If this occurs, workers in other unions
might refuse to cross the picket line, expanding the stoppage. In the last freight railroad dispute that
involved a Presidential Emergency Board, the final cooling-off period was extended several times without
congressional involvement before a new agreement was reached in April 2012 without a strike or lockout.
Congressional Research Service
3
On several past 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 al ow the unions and the Maine Central Railroad
to continue negotiations. In 1992, P.L. 102-306 required Amtrak and Conrail to enter into arbitration with
unions representing their employees in an effort to resolve various labor disputes. Additional y, 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 6 · UPDATED