This thesis has examined the genesis and implementation of the selective strike technique as used by the United Transportation Union against railroad managements, and compared the effectiveness of this technique with coalition bargaining as has been used in other industries for the purpose of gaining greater equality with management at the bargaining table.

The purpose of the study was, first, to determine if the selective strike is legal and does not represent an attempt to subvert the dispute resolution procedures of the Railway Labor Act; and, second, to determine if the selective strike is a workable substitute for coalition bargaining whereby a union (and the employer) can avoid intervention by the government under the Railway Labor Act national emergency dispute provisions.

To accomplish the study, a thorough review was made of the Railway Labor Act, problems which have been encountered under the Act and some of the solutions which have been proposed to solve these problems, including the selective strike technique. The genesis, use and results of coalition bargaining were also examined. It was also necessary to make a thorough review of the court actions and decisions relating to the use of the selective strike.

To place in proper perspective the importance of the selective strike to rail labor unions, extensive interviews were conducted with the former president of the United Transportation Union, Charles Luna, and the union's general counsel, Robert Hart. It was Mr. Luna who perfected the use of the selective strike technique and Mr. Hart who directed the legal battle on behalf of the union, when rail management's questioned the legality of the technique.

It was concluded that the selective strike is a legal technique and does not subvert the dispute resolution procedures of the Railway Labor Act; and that the selective strike is a workable substitute for coalition bargaining in allowing rail labor greater equality at the bargaining table with railroad managements.