On the part of the Union it was represented that the eight-hour day had been adopted in most other places, and that its adoption in Danbury had been deferred from time to time until in the opinion of the men, the time had now arrived when it should be deferred no longer. Stress was laid upon this point rather than upon the regulation in regard to apprentices. On behalf of the employers Mr. Jones admitted that the workmen had reason to expect that the eight-hour day would be conceded whenever conditions were such that it could be done without undue hardship to employers who had undertaken contracts based upon the nine-hour day, and also with due consideration for those upon whom the increased cost of the work would ultimately fall. The employers had offered to adopt the eight-hour day on the 1st of January, 1906, as by that time existing contracts would be mainly completed, and opportunity would thus be given to adjust business to the new conditions. The men had made a counter offer to defer the eight-hour day until October 1st, 1905, and further conferences were to be held with the view of bridging the gap between them. Later information from Mr. Jones was to the effect that an agreement had been reached by which the eight-hour schedule was to go into effect November 15th, 1905, until which time the nine-hour day was to continue. The matter of apprentices was left to be settled by agreement between the master plumber and foreman of each shop. It was a gratifying feature of this case that the friendly feeling between the parties was not interrupted by their contention over business relations. There has been trouble and contention in the bakers' trade at Bridgeport, New Haven, and Meriden. The journeymen bakers are quite generally organized, and disposed to insist strongly upon the closed shop. Other demands relate to rate of wages, hours and conditions of labor, and number of apprentices to be allowed. These contentions have all been settled by agreements reached at conferences between the parties directly interested, which agreements generally recognize the closed shop with the qualifying condition that if the Union fails to supply satisfactory help within a reasonable time, the employer is at liberty to hire outside. Other details are arranged as the parties can agree. These agreements are made to run for a definite period, usually one year, and in some instances penalties are provided for violation of the terms of agreement, and forfeits put up to insure payment of the penalties. The conditions in the building trades at Bridgeport at the close of last season's operations were unsettled, and trouble seemed likely to break out at any time. An agreement governing the relations between employers and employees in the carpenters' trade which had been in force for a considerable period had been abrogated by the workmen, and the feeling on both sides seemed to be distrustful and apprehensive. Under such conditions the following correspondence passed between the Frank Miller Company, a large employer of labor, and the president of the Carpenters' Union: BRIDGEPORT, CONN., December 17th, 1904. Jno. Griffen, President, City. DEAR SIR:-We are now figuring on several large contracts, to be built in 1905, and would like to know the attitude of the Union Carpenters for 1905, so that we may figure intelligently. An early response will oblige Yours respectfully, THE FRANK MILLER LUMBER CO. (Signed) FRANK MILLER. BRIDGEPORT, CONN., December 19, 1905. The Frank Miller Lumber Co. GENTLEMEN:-In reply to your letter of inquiry, and to set aside unfounded rumors of an advance in wages of carpenters, I desire to inform your company, that all conditions relative to hours and wages now in vogue, will remain unaltered during the year 1905. Yours respectfully, (Signed) J. M. GRIFFIN, President L. U. No. 115. It is given here as a model of brevity and effectiveness. Under the conditions existing it was a wise proceeding for an employer to approach the Union in this manner, and the response of President Griffin is worthy of high commendation for frankness and reasonableness. It seems quite possible that serious trouble was averted by this action. On the 28th of July, 1905, a strike was declared by Local Union No. 15, of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers at New Haven against the American Bridge Company, to enforce a demand that the said Bridge Company should cease the practice of subletting contracts to parties who refused to conform to Union regulations as to men employed and wages paid. The case of the workmen was presented at a meeting of the Board held in New Haven on the 29th of July, by Mr. E. I. Warden, Business Agent of Local No. 15, and Mr. Thos. McGovern, member of the executive board of the International Association. It appeared from the statements of these gentlemen that while the American Bridge Co. had no contract with the Union, it did, in fact, conform to Union regulations in all of its own work. But in one or more instances it had sublet contracts to the Boston Bridge Co., which latter company disregarded Union rules both in regard to the men whom it employed and to the rate of wages paid. This was considered by Messrs. Warden and McGovern to be an indirect and dangerous assault upon Union principles, and a practice which the Union could not tolerate. Their attempts to induce the company to recognize this grievance and to obligate itself to cease the practice objected to had been met with evasion, and they had been unable to obtain any satisfaction. They believed that the superintendent of construction of the American Bridge Co. was a determined foe to organized labor, and that the action of the company was deliberately taken with a view to weaken its power, and they felt compelled to resort to the strike as a measure of selfpreservation. At that time the strike was limited to the membership of Local No. 15, most of whom were at work upon contracts for the N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. in Connecticut, but it was declared that unless the Bridge Co. conceded the demand of the Union the strike would be extended throughout the jurisdiction of the International Association with which Local No. 15 is affiliated. Under the direction of the Board a letter was written by the Secretary to Mr. President Hatfield of the American Bridge Co. which, with the reply thereto, is given below. There is also given correspondence relative to this strike with President Mellen of the N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. NEW HAVEN, CONN., July 29th, 1905. Mr. President Hatfield, American Bridge Co.: DEAR SIR:-The Connecticut Board of Mediation and Arbitration has just had a conference with Mr. E. I. Warden, Business Agent of the Local Union of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, and Mr. Thomas McGovern, member of the Executive Board of the International Association, with reference to a strike recently ordered on work of the American Bridge Company. Their representation is that the American Bridge Company, while employing Union labor and complying with Union regulations in its own work, sublets contracts to the Boston Bridge Company which does not employ Union labor or pay the Union rate of wages. They claim that this is highly injurious to their interests and have struck to enforce a cessation of the practice and an agreement preventing it in the future. To a question whether they would submit the contention to arbitration, Mr. Warden replied that he was not at present authorized so to do. I am directed by the Board to communicate with you asking for a statement of the case from your point of view, with any suggestions you may care to make looking toward a settlement of the contention, especially whether your company would submit the matter to arbitration in any form. I enclose circular giving laws under which this Board acts. Please direct reply to the undersigned at Box 785, Middletown, Conn. JOSIAH M. HUBBARD, Secretary. PITTSBURG, PA., August 1st, 1905. DEAR SIR: Your letter of July 29th, addressed to Mr. Hatfield, has been referred to me and is just received. I am as yet not fully informed as to the strike that has been called by the New Haven Local of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers against this Company in the New England States, and therefore cannot intelligently reply to your letter at this time. Thanking you, however, for the offer of your good offices in the matter, I am, Very truly yours, S. P. MITCHELL, Chief Engineer. TO JOSIAH M. HUBBARD, ESQ., Secretary, Box 785. Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, MIDDLETOWN, CONN., August 9th, 1905. Mr. Chas. S. Mellen, President N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co.: DEAR SIR:-The Connecticut Board of Mediation and Arbitration have had a conference with representatives of the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers now on strike against the American Bridge Company, and have received from them a statement, from their point of view, of the causes and objects of the strike. An attempt through correspondence to obtain from the officials of the American Bridge Company a statement of the contention, from their point of view, has failed to elicit any information, and an accompanying request for suggestions looking towards a settlement has also failed of any response. As the company which you represent is directly affected by the strike and consequent stoppage of work, the Board would very much appreciate such information as you may be disposed to give, especially in regard to the matter of the subletting of contracts awarded by your Company to the American Bridge Company. And if you are able to make any suggestions towards bringing about a settlement of the difficulty, such suggestions will be gratefully received. Very truly yours, J. M. HUBBARD, Secretary, Conn. Board of Mediation and Arbitration. Mr. J. M. Hubbard, Secretary, NEW HAVEN, CONN., August 10th, 1905. Connecticut Board of Mediation and Arbitration, Middletown, Conn.: DEAR SIR:-Your favor of the 9th is at hand. This Company has no interest in the strike between the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers and the American Bridge Company other than it is suffering severely through the relationship existing between the two parties. It has no knowledge of what constitutes those difficulties other than that general knowledge which comes to us through the medium of the public press. The contracts between our Company and the American Bridge Company are of a character that will permit the' subletting of any of the work contracted, and no warrant exists for interference on the part of this Company in the matter in controversy. Yours truly, C. S. MELLEN, President. As the American Bridge Company remained firm in its attitude of resistance to the demand of the Union, the strike was made general, and at the time of printing this report was unsettled and without any definite prospect of settlement. The Hartford Typographical Union presented the agreement, a copy of which is given below, to the job printers of Hartford for their acceptance, and upon the refusal of the employers to accept the same, a strike was declared and the Union men quit work. |