« ПретходнаНастави »
Typographical Union, was present and explained the situation in Orange, N. J., and as to how the Orange Union came to have the Allied Trades Council label. Secretary Hays moved that the Orange-Newark matter be referred to Presidents Glockling, Berry and Lynch, with instructions to endeavor to adjust the matter. The motion was carried.
The committee appointed to draft a letter for the Allied Printing Trades Council of New York reported recommending the following communication:
"In connection with the relations existing between the New York Allied Printing Trades Council and the Printers' League, the Joint Conference Board has given careful consideration to all of the statements, both written and verbal, presented to the Joint Conference Board on the ad inst.
"The Joint Conference Board desires to go on record in the expression of appreciation of the policy underlying the Printers' League and the New York Allied Printing Trades Council; that is, the establishment of amicable relations between employer and employe in the commercial branch of the industry. The Joint Conference Board realizes that in the working out of this problem many difficulties are bound to arise, and that perhaps both the members of the league and the unions interested may become impatient at what may appear to them to be slow progress or no progress at all, but which appeals to the Joint Conference Board as representing a great stride toward the goal of amicable and mutually profitable relations. The Joint Conference Board therefore recommends to both the New York Allied Print. ing Trades Council and the Printers' League the exercise of the greatest patience in the working out of the problems that confront both organizations. The Joint Conference Board is also of the opinion that in view of the laudable intentions of the Printers' League, which the board does not presume to question, the greatest consideration should be shown the Printers' League by the New York Allied Trades Council, and that if a differ. ent form of label agreement can be worked out that will be acceptable to the Printers' League, and, at the same time, safeguard the interests of all of the unions represented in the New York Allied Trades Council, that course should be pursued. We believe that in the working out of the suggested agreement covering the issuance and use of the label by members of the Printers' League the New York Allied Council should not be too insistent on immediate results, but that a reasonable length of time should be granted to the members of the Printers' League to bring these offices to the required standard. It is also the opinion of the board that there is an obligation on the unions making up the New York Allied Council to put forth every possible effort to bring the mechanical departments of the New York printing trade offices that are members of the Printers' League to the same standard of organization as will be ultimately required from the offices making up the Printers' League, so that the rules and
conditions governing competition may be as nearly as possible equalized.
"The Joint Conference Board realizes the importance to the printing industry of an organiza. tion like the Printers' League and sincerely trusts that its principles may flourish and its organization may grow prosperous, not only in New York city, but throughout the North American continent, in order that there may spring up an or. ganization of employers that will recognize the right of the workmen to a voice in determining the conditions under which he will sell his labor, and through this method prevent useless and costly strikes and afford an opportunity to employer and employe to co-operate in raising the standing of the commercial end of the industry, so that capital and labor may be adequately compensated for the product of the press.
"All of which is respectfully submitted." The report of the committee was adopted.
It was then decided to defer action on the communications received from the New York Allied Printing Trades Council until the next meeting of the Joint Conference Board, and the secretary. treasurer was instructed to send copies of these communications to the presidents of the various international unions.
Mr. Lynch, of the International Typographical Union, moved that the motion of Mr. Freel, referring to Job Pressfeeders' Union No. 1, and which had been previously laid over, be adopted. The motion was carried.
The following resolution was offered by Presi. dent Woll, of the International Photo-Engravers' Union:
“Resolved, In order to encourage the International Photo-Engravers' Union in their efforts to thoroughly organize any locality at present unorganized and where local allied printing trades councils are in existence, that the officers of such local councils assist the International Photo-Engravers' Union in this work, giving information relative to unorganized photo-engravers in their jurisdiction."
The resolution was adopted.
President Berry, of the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, stated that he had received a telegram informing him that the United States Court of Appeals had rendered a decision in favor of the pressmen in their trouble with the United Typothetæ of America, and he was requested to prepare a statement to be printed in the minutes of the board covering this decision. The statement of Mr. Berry follows: THE TYPOTHETAE LITIGATION AGAINST
THE I. P. P. AND A. U.
BY GEORGE L. BERRY, The decision rendered March 2 by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Barnes et al. v. Berry and McMullen, ends the long fight made by the United Typothetæ to force upon the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union the so-called contract of January 8, 1907, between the two organizations. This con
test, so far as fought out in the United States courts, was begun in October, 1907, when the United Typothetæ, acting through Barnes & Co., and others of its members, began an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, against all the officers of the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, and
local and subordinate branches, seeking to enjoin the officers and the locals from violating the alleged contract of Janu. ary 8, 1907, by demanding the eight-hour day and the closed shop, and from calling strikes, or advising the calling of strikes, and from encouraging strikes or paying strike benefits, or arranging for the referendum vote with reference to strikes. Upon a preliminary hearing, held shortly after the petition was filed, and before any answer had been filed by the defendants, the court granted a temporary restraining order along the lines asked for in the bill of complaint. Subsequently, on the suggestion of counsel for the International Print. ing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, that the court did not have jurisdiction over all the defendants, and that the action was not properly brought against them, the complainants were compelled to amend their bill of complaint, and Berry and McMullen only were made defendants. To this amended bill of complaint Berry and McMullen, through their counsel, filed an answer, and the case was then at issue for hearing on the merits.
The theory upon which the suit for injunction was brought by the typothetæ was that a valid contract had been made between the typothetæ and the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, providing for arbitration and against strikes, and that the defendants, Berry and Mc Mullen, were violating and inciting others to vio. late this contract; and that while a court of equity could not actually compel the contract to be observed, it could enjoin the parties to it from violating the agreement not to strike and from inducing others to violate such agreement.
The position of the defendants was, first, that the so-called contract of January 8, 1907, was not binding upon the Pressmen's International Union, for the reason that the committee appointed to negotiate such contract had no authority to make a binding contract, but only to secure a renewal of the pre-existing contract and report back their action to the next convention; and second, that even if the contract was binding on the union a court of equity would not enjoin the officers of a labor union from advising the locals, or members of the union, as to what action they should take. The questions involved were not only of interest to union men throughout the United States, but of the greatest importance to the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, as it had staked its reputation upon its position as to this so-called contract, and had resented most strenuously the insinuation that it was breaking a contract, and insisted that no contract had been made. The case was most bitterly fought. Shortly after the petition was filed, and before any testimony was taken, several attempts were made to hold the
officers of the union for contempt of court for alleged violation of the temporary restraining order that had been issued; but the attempts failed. In preparation for the contest on the merits of the case depositions were taken in St. Louis, Boston, New York, Newark, N. J., Chicago, Milwaukee, and other places throughout the United States, both by the complainants and the defendants. The purpose of these depositions on the part of the complainants seemed to be to get the statements of the members of the previous board of the union who had acted as the committee to negotiate the renewal contract and to show the damage done to typothetæ members by the strikes, to show that strikes had been called in various cities, and to further sustain the allegation that the temporary restraining order had been violated. The depositions of the defendants were for the purpose of showing th exact nature of the typothetæ, its loose organization, the small number of union men that it actually employed, and the small proportion that it constituted of the entire number of employ. ing printers in the country. After the taking of the depositions the hearing took place in Cincin. nati before Judge Thompson acting as the judge of the circuit court. In December, 1907, the complainants introduced the testimony of George H. Ellis, William Green, R. R. Donnelley, A. R. Barnes, E. Lawrence Fell, and John Macintyre, as well as the depositions that had already been taken. The defendants introduced the testimony of William F. Moran and William L. Murphy, as well as the depositions taken on behalf of the de. fendants. The hearing lasted five or six days. The argument on behalf of the complainants was made by Messrs. Charles B. Wilby, Henry Spalding and Dudley Taylor, while the defendants were represented by Messrs. Kinkead, Rogers & Ellis and Messrs. Cogan and Williams were also of counsel. On February 1, 1908, Judge Thompson rendered his decision. He reviewed at length the history leading up to the attempt to make the so-called contract of January 8, 1907, and came to the conclusion that the committee which negotiated the contract had no final authority, and that the contract was not binding on the union; and he fur. ther held that even if the contract had been binding he would not have enjoined the officers of the union from advising their members as to what action they should take.
Shortly after the decision was rendered the typothetæ gave bond and took the case up to the circuit court of appeals. They filed a printed record of some seven hundred pages, and each side filed two briefs. The oral argument took place December 9, 1908. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Spalding speaking for the appellants, the typothetæ, and Mr. Ellis G. Kinkead, of Kinkead, Rogers & Ellis, speaking for the appellees, Berry and McMullen.
The opinion of the circuit court of appeals was rendered by Judge Cochran, representing the court, consisting of Judges Lurton, Severens and Coch.
In his opinion, Judge Cochran reviews the long efforts made by the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union toward securing
an eight-hour day. In considering the question of the authority of the committee appointed to secure a renewal of the pre-existing contract, Judge Cochran says that that authority was to be determined by the expression used in the resolution of the convention of the union of 1906: "A transaction or expression of a thought,” he said, “whose true nature or meaning is in question and sought to be determined, is, like a jewel, seen at its best in its setting. And a part of a transaction or expression of a thought is the history that lies behind it and out of which it has come.” It is therefore im. portant, he concludes, in interpreting the resolu. tions of the convention of 1906, to see what the action of the union had been at previous conven. tions, and what it really had in view when it ap. pointed a committee "to meet with a like committee on the part of the United Typothetæ of America, with instructions to secure a renewal of the agree. ment with a declaration as to whether the eighthour day will be agreed to."
With this end in view, the court in its opinion proceeded to review the history of the union with reference to its contract with the typothetæ and its efforts for an eight-hour day. The court called attention to the fact that the contract sought to be enforced was not the first contract that had been entered into with the typothetæ. The previ. ous contract, made on March 25, 1903, had been executed on behalf of both the associations by its board of directors, but it had not become binding until ratified by both associations.
So, if in the case of the renewal contract, the union had given the board authority to make a final contract, not subject to ratification, it had done more than it did in the case of the previous contract. The court further calls attention to the fact that long before the expiration of the first contract, agitation began within the union for an eight-hour day, and reviews the action taken at the San Francisco convention in June, 1905. This action, the court says, had no relation to the execution of the new contract with the typothetæ, but related to the eight-hour day. The court then reviews the correspondence between the president of the union and the secretary of the typothetæ relating to the efforts that were being made to reach some agreement about the eight-hour day between the two organizations. The court continues:
This is all that transpired between the two as. sociations in relation to the matter in hand prior to the June convention, 1906, of the union at Pittsburg, at which the action was taken which it is claimed by appellants amounted to conferring on its board power to make a binding agreement with the typothetæ in renewal of the then existing contract.
That contract had been first negotiated and then ratified before finally executed. The union had taken up the matter of arranging for an eighthour day without reference to a renewal of that contract and the resolution adopted in relation thereto provided that whatever arrangement was made should be reported to the succeeding convention. The typothetæ had refused to consider the eight-hour day. Nothing had been said or done in its behalf indicating that at any time it would agree thereto.
The matter of renewal of the con. tract was brought up by the typothetæ and not by the union, and its only suggestion in regard thereto was that a committee be appointed on both sides
"to consider the renewal." It was not contemplated by it that the committee appointed in relation thereto on either side should have authority to execute a binding agreement in renewal of the existing contract. So far as it was concerned, it was not contemplated that any course should be pursued different from what had been followed in connection with that contract.
The court then reviews the proceedings of the convention of the union held in Pittsburg in June, 1906, quoting parts of the president's report to that convention. Of the action taken upon this report the court says:
This report, along with the reports of each of the other officers of the union, was referred to a committee styled Committee on Officers' Reports. That committee afterward reported back to the convention. In relation to the president's report it made three recommendations, one general and two specific. One of the specific recommenda. tions related to the matter of renewing the con. tract with the typothetæ; the other related to the matter of an eight-hour day. The eneral recommendation was in these words: "The committee has carefully gone
over the many sections comprising the president's very voluminous and comprehensive report, and we find them very ably edited and throughout a very instructive instrument in the hands of every person interested in the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union movement, and a thoroughly concise statement of the condition at pres. ent obtaining in the pressmen's craft.
Your committee recommends the acceptance of the report as a whole, and desires this convention to therein.
The specific recommendation as to the renewal of the contract with the typothetæ was in these words:
“We, the committee, recommend that the board of directors be instructed to meet with like committee on the part of the United Typothetæ of America, with instructions to secure a renewal of the agreement with a declaration as to whether the eight-hour day will be agreed to."
The specific recommendation as to the eighthour day was in these words:
“The committee is pleased to coincide with the recommendations of the board of directors, inasmuch as they are of such a nature that the committee has seen fit to endorse the plan of assessment as formulated by the board to-wit:
"2. That an assessment of 50 cents per month be levied upon all pressmen members monthly from July 1, 1906, until July 1, 1907.
"3. That an assessment of 25 cents per month be levied upon all feeder or assistant members monthly during the same period.
"4. That this fund be sent to the international secretary-treasurer monthly by the secretary of each local union, the same to be deposited in a dif. ferent bank from that in which we deposit our regular fund, and the same to be known as the Shorter Workday Fund.
“And that we recommend that this convention declare in favor of the eight-hour day immediately after the expiration of the agreement now existing between the United Typothetæ of America and the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, provided it is not within the scope of the possibilities of having same arranged amicably and equitably between the United Typothetæ of America and the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union within a reasonable time after the expiration of the agreement now existing between these two respective organizations."
The court continues:
Counsel for appellants seem to think that, at this convention, in addition to there being a Committee on Officers' Reports, to whom the presi. dent's and other officers' reports were referred, there another committee styled Committee on United Typothetze of America Agreement, to whom the matter of renewing that contract was
referred, and still another one styled Committee on Eight-Hour Day, to whom this subject was referred, and that the first specific recommendation above quoted came from the first of these two additional committees, and the second recommendation above quoted came from the second one. But such was not the case. There were no such two additional committees. Both of these two specific recommendations, as well as the general recommendation, came from one and the same committee, to wit, the Committee on Officers' Reports. This being so, these two specific recommendations qualify the general recommendation. In so far as they depart from the recommendations in the pres. ident's report, the committee did not intend, by recommending generally that that report be accepted and concurred in, to recommend that that portion of the president's report should be ac. cepted and concurred in. In recommending spe: cifically something different therefrom they showed that it could have had no such intent. And it is to be noted that the general recommendation is that the president's report be accepted and concurred in "as a whole.
From this review of the action of the conven. tion the court comes to the conclusion that the authority of the directors of the union to enter into a contract depended upon the two specific recommendations. Of this the court says:
The authority of the board of directors of the union in relation to the contract of January 8, 1907, depends entirely, then, on the two specific recommendations of the Committee on Officers' Re. 'ports, which were adopted by the convention. If such authority is not to be found there it did not exist. According to appellant's counsel, the first one is "not altogether clear," the meaning of the other is "somewhat ambiguous and doubtful," and both are "awkwardly expressed.” It is from resolutions which they so characterize that the author. ity in question has to be deduced.
Clearly no such authority is to be found in the adoption of the second specific recommendation in relation to the eight-hour day. The fact that the board of directors has recommended that it be given power to sign up an agreement in relation to the eight-hour day, if it could be brought within a reasonable time, and to this end to determine what was a reasonable time, and that this recommendation was not concurred in by the committee on officers' reports, but another recommendation was made in regard thereto in substitution therefor, and that this recommendation and not the board's recommendation was adopted, has a tendency to show that no such authority was within the meaning of the substituted recommendation so made and adopted. It was
to the first specific recommendation, therefore, that the court says it must look in determining the authority of the committee. As stated in this resolution, the authority was, as the court says: obtain or get something, from a like committee
eo the typothetæ and, of course, something which it was within the power to give. The only thing which it was within its power to give was an expression of willingness to renew so much of the existing contract, tentative agreement on the part of the typothetæ to renew that portion there. of. The second thing which the board was direct. ed to secure was a declaration and the first was to be of like character. At any rate, if it were at all possible to hold that the first part of the instructions which it was recommended should be given to the board was to execute a binding con. tract on behalf of the union, it is not possible to hold that it was intended that such contract should cover the matter of the length of the workday. This is negatived by the second part of the instruction, which was simply that a declaration on the part of the typothetze as to whether the eighthour day would be agreed to should be secured.
The action of the Pittsburg convention of June, 1906, of the union amounted, therefore, to this and nothing more. It thereby declared itself in relation to the eight-hour day and made provision for a fund to pay strike benefits in case it should thereafter determine to strike to secure such a day. And it instructed its board of directors to secure from a like committee of the typothetæ a declaration of its position as to the eight-hour day in connection with an agreement to renew the existing contract between the two associations in so far as it did not cover the length of the workday. If such is the extent of its action, it follows that the union's board had no authority to execute the contract in question on behalf of the union. Of course, the board was to report back to the next convention what it so obtained for its considera. tion. This followed, as a matter of course, with. out anything being said expressly on the subject.
Though the members of the former board of di. rectors who negotiated the renewal of the contract with the typothetæ, therefore, may have thought they had authority to make a binding contract, "in this,” the United States Court of Appeals says, "we believe they were mistaken, and it is for this reason tha! the lower court, and we likewise, hold that there was no such contract entered into between the two associations. Their authority, like that of the board of directors of the typothetæ, was simply to negotiate a contract on behalf of the union with the typothetæ, and such contract had to be ratified by the union association before it was binding upon it."
In the concluding part of its opinion the court notes that its conclusion with reference to the action of the convention is in accord with the understanding of the delegates, as shown by the testi. mony introduced in the case, as well as with the understanding of the various unions that protested against the contract immediately after it was an. nounced that it had been made.
The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has therefore fully sustained Judge Thompson, and the bill of complaint against the officers of the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union is now to be dismissed at the costs of the complainant.
The two opinions, one of Judge Thompson and one of the Circuit Court of Appeals, have sustained in their entirety the contentions that have been made by the union in opposing this so-called contract with the typothetæ. They are a vindication of the position of the officers and members who, since the very beginning of this struggle, have pro. tested against this contract which the typothete has been seeking to force upon the union; and it is a vindication of the officers of the union against any .charge of being contract breakers. On the other hand, it serves notice on those with whom the union deals that it will fight for its rights, and neither the typothetæ nor any one else can, to use the language of the street, "put one over on it.”
As to the importance of these opinions to the cause of labor in general, it can hardly be overestimated. The International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union was on trial when it took the po. sition in opposition to the so-called contract with the typothetæ, and it was its duty to establish finally the invalidity of that contract so as to jus.
tify the position taken. Further than this, there was involved the question, of the greatest import. ance to labor, whether a court of equity will interfere with the internal administration of a labor union, simply because it has a contract with an employers' association, and control the action of the union officers with reference to such contract. Both matters have now been decided in favor of the International Printing Pressmen and Assist. ants' Union in their contest with the typothetæ.
For all practical purposes the decision of the circuit court of appeals is final. No appeal lies to the supreme
court of the United States. Though there is such a thing as writ of certiorari, it is so rarely allowed by the supreme court of the United States that it is practically of no avail in a cause of this kind.
So the questions raised have been effectually answered and the contention set at rest.
Mr. Freel, of the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union, offered the following resolution, which was adopted on motion of Mr. Berry:
"Resolved, The Joint Conference Board deeply appreciates the good work in the interests of proper organization of the printing trades, issuance of label and performance of its legitimate functions now being put forth by the New York Allied Printing Trades Council, believing that a continuation of this work as at present outlined will be beneficial to the interests of the international printing trades unions and will eventually tend to bring about the amicable and ideal relations that should exist between employer and employe, there. fore, gives the New York Allied Printing Trades Council a message of endorsement and encouragement."
The auditing committee made the following report, which was adopted:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT JOINT CONFERENCE BOARD FROM NOVEMBER 4,
1908, TO FEBRUARY 27, 1909. 1908. Nov. 4. Balance as per report...
.$183 75 1909. Feb. 27. Receipts to date.. Total
$183 75 1908. Nov. 28. J. W. Bramwood-Salary. . $50 oo Dec. 15. Hollenbeck Press--1,000
Joint Board Proceedings. 19 00 Dec. 15. 1. T. U. postage and typewriting
67 15 Total
$136 15 1908.
RECAPITULATION. Nov. 5. Balance as per report..
$183 75 1909. Feb. 27. Receipts to date... Total
.$183 75 Feb. 27. Expenditures
136 15 * Balance in bank....
$47 60 *Check for this amount sent President Glockling with Mr. Bramwood's resignation.
CORRESPONDENCE. The Joint Conference Board is indebted to the International Union for postage, typewriting, ex pressage and telegrams, as follows: Postage and typewriting—77 letters at 10c
each Postage and expressage on proceedings and joint agreement..
2 04 Telegrams Total
.$11 74 The Joint Board should reimburse the Interna. tional Union in this sum.
On motion the sum of $10 was appropriated for the purpose of securing a floral tribute for the funeral of George W. Jackson.
Mr. Lynch, of the International Typographical Union, moved that the thanks of the Joint Conference Board be extended to Herman Rider, presi. dent of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association, to the New York Allied Printing Trades Council, to Mailers' Union No. 6 and to New York Typographical Union No. 6 for courtesies extend. ed. The motion was adopted.
Mr. Woll, of the International Photo-Engravers' Union, moved that the usual number of copies of the proceedings be ordered printed and distributed. The motion was adopted.
President Carey, of the International Papermakers' Union, extended thanks to the Joint Confer. ence Board for courtesies extended to himself and his organization and commended the work of the board during this session.
Mr. Lynch, of the International Typographical Union, moved that we adjourn to meet in Indian. apolis at the headquarters of the International Typographical Union. The motion was adopted and the Joint Conference Board adjourned.
J. W. HAYS, Secretary-Treasurer.
REPORT OF AUDITING COMMITTEE.
New YORK, March 3, 1909. Joint Conference Board:
GENTLEMEN-We have examined the financial re. port of former Secretary-Treasurer John W. Bramwood, submitted to us (from November 4, 1908, to February 27, 1909) and find same correct.
We recommend that the amount mentioned therein as owing, by this board, to the International Typographical Union ($11.74) for postage, typewriting, etc., be paid that union from the funds of the Joint Conference Board.
We also recommend that the funds of this Joint Conference Board be increased by the additional sum of $200, such amount to be raised in the usual manner.
JAMES J. FREEL,