AWARDS AND DECISIONS

Amalgamated Clothing Workers-Baltimore

THE impartial chairman of the clothing industry trade board at Baltimore rendered a decision May 26, 1924 (case No. 188) on a complaint by the union that a shop chairman had been wrongly discharged and should be reinstated, with pay for time lost, and a reply by the firm that the discharge was because the shop chairman had used disrespectful language to the superintendent of the cutting and trimming floor and had interfered with the superintendent's management of the trimming department.

The facts in the case seemed to be as follows: The management considered the attitude and the action of the shop chairman as arbitrary and unfair and retaliated by restricting his freedom of action and charging him with bad faith. This led the shop chairman to think that the management was unfair to him and he retaliated by hampering the management where he could.

The chairman expressed his view in regard to the matter in the following words:

It should be clearly understood by both parties that the agreement provides ample remedies for the actions about which both parties have complained in this case. It is not necessary for the representative of either. party to take the law into his own hands. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in this regard in the future the trade board will reiterate the rule for handling such grievances under the agreement, and this rule is the same in all the markets where the. Amalgamated has agreements with employers. If the firm feels that a shop chairman is hampering the management contrary to the agreement, it must not take retaliatory action not authorized by the agreement but must file complaint with the trade board asking that the shop chairman be disciplined. And if it is proved, as was done in the present case, that the shop chairman did interfere with the management, then the trade board will decide the proper disciplinary measures that need to be taken, such as requesting the union to change its shop chairman, ordering his suspension, etc. Similarly, if the management acts improperly toward a representative of the union and hampers him in the work that the agreement contemplates he shall do, then the trade board will discipline the management representatives, provided that the union files complaint and does not take retaliatory action contrary to the agreement.

For an offense like using improper language or for violence, a shop chairman may be suspended like any other worker, and the trade board will uphold the suspension and will approve discharge if request is properly made to the board without the firm having taken any improper action not authorized by the agreement. And similar disciplinary measures for such improper acts will be imposed on the management representatives if the union files complaint in a proper manner and its representatives do not attempt to take the law into their own hands.

Because both the management and the shop chairman in the present case tried to take the law into their own hands and retaliate against each other for what each considered to be the unauthorized acts of the other, the trade board can not uphold the action of either party in the present case. Therefore it decides that the suspension of one week without pay for the shop chairman shall be his punishment for the offenses of which he was guilty, and the reinstatement of the shop chairman shall be the punishment for the management for its offenses.

THE

Butcher Workmen-Multnomah County, Oreg.

E State Board of Conciliation of Oregon rendered findings January 21, 1924, in the case of the wholesale butchers of Multnomah County and Butcher Workmen's Local Union 656, covering five sections in a proposed agreement between the parties. After holding hearings, examining testimony, and visiting several competitive points, the board rendered its decision. It said:

The board has given due consideration to the fact that much of the work involved may be properly classified as skilled or semiskilled; that there is much of hazard attached to the calling, the State Industrial Accident Commission indicating that it ranks second to the highest in this respect, and while State compensation is accorded the employees, ordinary forms of accident and life insurance take a higher rate by virtue of the calling itself. Much of the work requires a maximum of physical strength, health, and efficiency.

The board finds there is much diversity in the wage scale and working conditions. Plants involved in this hearing doing practically an intrastate business are not subject to regulations of Federal laws. They are, however, obliged to meet competition of plants outside the State.

The following table shows the former scale, the rate asked for, and the scale granted per week in the various occupations:

Helpers on the floor, hide droppers, leg breakers, headers

Helpers on the floor.

Casing men..

Casing-room helpers..

Pork cutters--

Time and a half was granted for all work done after noon on Saturday. In regard to the amount which should constitute a day's work the board said:

Careful consideration of testimony offered indicates clearly variations in the daily run of stock, also in the conditions under which the work is carried on, which would make any definite maximum or minimum unfair alike to the employer, the employee, and the public.

The board recommends the formation of a house committee in each plant which will prepare for consideration of the owners a schedule in harmony with existing conditions, just to all concerned.

In regard to union membership the board said: "This board at all times has declined to arbitrate matters involving the open or closed shop."

As to seniority, the board stated its position, as follows:

Section 10 declares [that] in case of reduction of working force, seniority shall in all cases rule. It is obvious that mandatory application of such a rule might work positive injustice upon employer and employee alike, making for inefficiency or preventing the retention of those with skill and natural aptitude. Dependency may also enter into the equation. A house committee may properly adjust this.

Clothing Industry-Chicago

THE board of arbitration in the men's clothing industry, Chicago, rendered a decision (case No. 13, new series) March 8, 1924, relative to correcting work improperly done. This case was referred to the board of arbitration by the clothing trade board decisions 536

and 559 (new series), February 11, 1924. In each of the cases before the trade board a worker was suspended for refusing to fix work that had been passed by the examiner of the section and returned for correction after succeeding sections of the shop had worked on the garment.

The trade board asked the board of arbitration for a ruling on the question whether a worker's responsibility ceases when the work has been examined by the section examiner or whether any work not properly done may be returned to the worker who did it no matter where in the shop the defective work was discovered.

The company argued that the question at issue was whether a worker was responsible for doing his work properly. If responsible, he continued so as long as the work remained in the shop and must fix bad work regardless of the number of examiners who had passed it and of what section in the shop the bad work was discovered.

The union contended that after an examiner had decided the work to be acceptable the question was not to be reopened simply because another examiner disagreed with the first regarding the acceptability of the work.

In his decision the impartial chairman stated in part:

To this last contention of the union there can be no reasonable objection. Once an examiner who is employed to pass on work has looked over an operation and has passed judgment on it, saying "This work is all right," then the worker who made it can not later be expected to change or do it over again because another examiner happens to think the work is not all right.

But the question of fixing work seldom arises in the shop in this clear form. Sometimes the examiner merely examines sample garments, a few from each lot. In such cases, obviously, it would be absurd to say that he accepted the garments that he did not see. Then again an examiner may overlook a place where the worker had forgotten to sew a seam, for example, Obviously in such cases also it would be absurd to say that the examiner had accepted a seam that had not been sewed.

For these reasons the board of arbitration is of the opinion that questions of fixing work can not be handled on the basis of any general principles of worker's and management's responsibility. The general principles will be easily agreed to by both parties, no doubt. Those are that all workers, including examiners, must get their work done right. If an examiner has clearly said the work is all right, then from that point on he assumes the responsibility. But such general principles can not be held to decide cases where both the worker and the examiner admit they did their work improperly or where both failed entirely to do part of the operation.

Therefore all these cases of fixing work must be handled as individual cases and adjusted between the management and the union on the basis of what the facts in each particular case show to be fair and just; and when they can not agree, then the trade board should decide each case on the same basis.

Applying this method to the two workers involved in the present case, the trade board should decide it as follows: If there is any reason to believe that the work they were asked to fix was properly done when they had finished it, but might have been spoiled by other work done on the garment in succeeding sections, then the workers must not be required to fix it on their own time. If, even, the work was only barely passable, so that the first examiner might have knowingly passed it, then the worker can not be required to fix it on his own time. If, however, both the worker and the examiner admit that the work as originally made was wrong, and the garment was either not examined at all, or the examiner clearly overlooked an open seam, or some other bad mistake which he obviously would not pass if he saw it, then the workers should be required to fix such work on their own time.

Light and Power Employees-Portland, Oreg.

APRIL 4, 1924, the board of arbitration in the matter of the adjustment of wages of the electrical workers, Local No. 125, in the employ of the light and power department of the Portland (Oreg.) Railway Light & Power Co. submitted a schedule of wages varying from $4.60 a day for flume maintenance men, helpers in the construction department, incandescent boulevard and sign cleaners and lamp replacers, and watchmen, to $8.56 a day for journeyman cable splicers and from $138 a month for mail and money auto truck drivers to $215 for certain foremen.

The minority member of the board filed a lengthy dissenting opinion, from which it appears that the property of the company is segregated into three parts, the street-car system, the light and power system, and the interurban system. The dissenting member based his opinion upon the two following quotations:

Wage determination upon a basis of pure economics-ruthless competition and relentless application of the law of supply and demand-ceased when organized society accepted the principle that labor is not a commodity. There are yet to be found advocates of the old theory that an employer has a right to bargain for his labor as he bargains for his raw materials, and conversely, that a worker has a right to sell his labor at the highest obtainable price but must expect to accept the lowest price established competitively, when labor is plentiful and employment is scarce. but they do not reflect either the spirit or the practice of the times. Enlightened world opinion of to-day rejects this theory no less emphatically than it rejects the idea of human slavery. The conception of industry as a social service, subordinated to democratic ideals and aspirations and to the general welfare of the people, marked the passing of the old theory and gave to this biblical assertion that the laborer is worthy of his hire an interpretation other than that the worker is entitled to exactly what he can get and nothing more.

The real substance of the demands of most employees is that they be paid a wage that will enable them to live with a reasonable degree of comfort and pleasure, to educate and provide for their children, and by practicing thrift and economy to lay aside or invest enough to provide for sickness and old age. They also ask to be permitted to participate in the management of such matters as affects them, such as working conditions, etc. Such demands are reasonable and just, and the wise employer will meet his employees more than half way in providing for them on the above basis to the limit of his ability or the ability of the institution he represents.

The opinion of the minority member then went on to state:

The above statements are fundamental. They express the enlightened thought of to-day in matters of wage determination. In the testimony presented to this board it was conclusively shown that the Portland Railway, Light & Power Co. has the present ability to pay the requested wage. These men involved in this dispute are employees and working primarily in the light and power department. The earnings of this branch of the utility was shown to be 8.43 per cent. Seven per cent has been fixed by the public service commission as a reasonable return.

The majority opinion is particularly subject to criticism for the reason that it broadens the gap between the lower and the higher paid workers. This very often appears in awards of arbitration boards, "once down, always down." I heartily concur in and commend the efforts of Local 125 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in its attempt to bring the lower-paid workers to a health and decency wage. Conclusive evidence was produced to show that a health and decency budget in Portland at the present time, all based upon Government figures as furnished by the Department of Labor, after three years of investigation and study, was approximately $1,824. This budget was tentatively accepted, yet by a majority opinion a basic wage of $4.60 for a group of skilled workmen is adopted. Upon a basis of 300 working-days this gives an annual wage of $1,380. A man, his wife, and three children may exist

upon that wage. They can not live in health and decency. Such a wage does not and can not make for stability of citizenship. It was strenuously contended by the company that families do live upon less than the minimum health and decency budget, but this argument is wholly fallacious. It is true that families do live upon less, just as it is true that for years men were compelled to work for 12 hours per day in the steel industry and just as it is true that children are employed in factories, but "two wrongs do not make a right." Out of such reasonings applied to wage disputes grows the necessity for our poor farms, our relief bureaus, our soup kitchens, our tag days, and our delinquencies in children.

The basic wage of $5 per day should have been adopted by this board. With the adoption of this basic wage and with the proper consideration of differentials throughout the classification for skill, long-time service, experience, loyalty, stability, responsibility, and hazards, the employees of the Portland Railway, Light & Power Co., in the light and power department, would have received just and reasonable increases.

Collective Agreements Reported to French Ministry of Labor, in 1923

THE

HE number of collective labor agreements reported to the French Labor Bureau in 1923 is given in the Bulletin du Ministère du Travail, January-March, 1924 (pp. 59, 60). The agreements, of which there were 144, were divided among the different industries as follows: Agriculture, 3; food, 7; furniture, 6; building, 15; hides and skins, 4; woodworking, 4; polygraphic industries, 9; metal works, 27; stone and earth, 2; stone and clay, 4; chemical products, 3; domestic service, 1; transport and warehousing, 5; textiles and clothing, 54.

There was no very definite information as to the conditions under which the agreements were signed, but 16 appear to have been concluded following a strike. The majority of the agreements were reached without the intervention of a third party, only 18 having been the result of mediation. In 14 instances the mediators were labor inspectors, and in the remainder either mayors or prefects.

Thirty-seven of the agreements were between employers' associations and labor unions, and 40 between individual employers or unorganized groups of employers and trade-unions. In 11 cases the agreements were reached following the establishment of a permanent joint commission or one established to deal with the particular dispute. In only a few instances was the duration of the agreement stated. Five were to last 6 months, 14 for one year, and one each were to last 2, 3, and 5 years.

In 64 cases the agreements specified the method of application of the 8-hour day; 17 established a minimum wage; 13 fixed traveling expenses; 5 piecework rates or a production bonus; 5 the method of paying wages; 4 rules governing dismissals and vacations; 4 closing workshops on Sunday; 4 special conditions of hiring workers; 4 the length of notice of dismissals; 3 night work; 3 apprenticeship; 2 appointment of workers' representatives; and 1 each the establishment of a shift system, the limitation of unemployment, and the suppression of gratuities. In 12 of the agreements, bonuses varying according to the official cost-of-living figures were established. Machinery was established for arbitration to deal with any disputes arising as a result of the application of the agreement in 3 cases and in 3 other cases such differences were to be regulated by mixed commissions on which both sides were equally represented.