Finally, the carrier parties invariably argue that they relied on the Board’s adherence to be standard United-Capital provisions in their merger negotiations and suggest that they would have to reconsider their agreement if any significant additional labor protective burdens were placed on the merged or surviving carrier.2 Since in most cases one of the carriers is in perilous financial condition, the Board has to take into account the possibility, whose gravity is difficult to assess, that any substantive change in a labor provisions might lead to cancellation of the merger and thence to one carrier’s bankruptcy and cessation of service. All these factors, we believe, combine to raise a serious obstacle to consideration of the objective merits and demerits of proposed changes in the standard United-Capital provisions.
The best solution in our view would be for the Board to initiate a new proceeding, in the nature of rulemaking (although an evidentiary hearing before an examiner would probably be essential), to consider for the future what labor protective provisions should be applied in merger and route transfer cases subsequently coming before the Board, subject, of course, to whatever special provisions might be shown to the required by the individual circumstances of a particular case. In such a proceeding the Board and parties would not be subjected to the time pressures are the typical merger case; the issues involved in a dating and changing the standard United-Capital provisions would take center stage; and the argument of carrier reliance on the existing standard provisions would not impose such a barrier to reasonable changes given agreement to hold such a rulemaking proceeding, we could concur or more readily in the Board's refusal to make additional changes in the United-Capital labor protective provisions applicable to be case at
The best solution in our view would be for the Board to initiate a new proceeding, in the nature of rulemaking (although an evidentiary hearing before an examiner would probably be essential), to consider for the future what labor protective provisions should be applied in merger and route transfer cases subsequently coming before the Board, subject, of course, to whatever special provisions might be shown to the required by the individual circumstances of a particular case. In such a proceeding the Board and parties would not be subjected to the time pressures are the typical merger case; the issues involved in a dating and changing the standard United-Capital provisions would take center stage; and the argument of carrier reliance on the existing standard provisions would not impose such a barrier to reasonable changes given agreement to hold such a rulemaking proceeding, we could concur or more readily in the Board's refusal to make additional changes in the United-Capital labor protective provisions applicable to be case at
